Ann Althouse flags this report from the New York Times on the contents of Hillary Clinton’s expenditure report for her shoo-in re-election campaign (a margin of victory for more than 30 points) for N.Y senator:

“She had only token opposition, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton still spent more on her re-election — upward of $30 million — than any other candidate for Senate this year. So where did all the money go?

“Mrs. Clinton…bought more than $13,000 worth of flowers, mostly for fund-raising events and as thank-yous for donors. She laid out $27,000 for valet parking, paid as much as $800 in a single month in credit card interest and — above all — paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to an assortment of consultants and aides.

“Throw in $17 million in advertising and fund-raising mailings, and what had been one of the most formidable war chests in politics was depleted to a level that leaves Mrs. Clinton with little financial advantage over her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — and perhaps even trailing some of them.

“The campaign’s financial record has fueled some criticism among Democratic activists and prompted concern among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, including complaints from some of her fund-raisers that her top aides exercised a lack of discipline.”

Ann comments:

“[I]t doesn’t make a pretty picture. And why would an ordinary person part with $100 or so if this is the way they think the money will be spent? And doesn’t reckless spending say something about how the candidate will govern?”

Uh, yes — it does.