Millions, that is. There's lots of juicy Dem-side speculation here about where that money came from, where it didn't, and whether it was necessary at all.

I just find it so extraordinary that no one really finds it all that extraordinary that Senator Clinton has this kind of gelt lying around. Emily Yoffe comes up with the simple answer -- she got $10 million (actually, $8 million -- why does she say $10 million? that's a big difference) for her autobiography -- basically a gift / donation / bribe, because it is inconceivable that the book made or could make that advance back.

This is all the stuff that's coming out on the other side, folks, and just on the narrow question of money. Well, not so narrow -- back to Emily again! -- but you get the idea. She concludes, "If you were a Republican, wouldn't you want Hillary to be the nominee?"

I think I have to say yes to that. Senator Clinton is an unusually target-rich candidate on the credibility issue. She can hardly be believed about anything. The press enjoys reporting on her checkered background, but has never really required her to answer tough questions about these twin vulnerabilities -- her lack of credibility, and the funny way money flows her way. They haven't asked Barack Obama any hard questions, either, but his hard questions, mostly about inexperience, are really answerable with soundbites -- which is pretty much all his supporters (including the supine press corps) are asking for as answers, anyway.

Is a continued slugfest between the Democrats good for our side? Yes, there's good reason to think so. As long as we realize which side is our side, of course...

UPDATE: Finally -- I'm not the only one asking. Via Instapundit.

Ron Coleman blogs at Likelihood of Success.