Interesting that you mention it. The only time that it matters to me how a candidate made their personal money is if they are either a trial lawyer, spent their entire career working for the government, inherited it (or otherwise didn't work for it), or obtained it through fraud or questionable quid-pro-quo business or government dealings.

I may be leaving one out, but I'll be danged if the four skull and boners don't have all of those things wrapped up between 'em. It makes me wonder why everyone isn't fixated on this aspect of the race.

Unless I'm missing something, fixation on a candidate's wealth is a pretty rare occasion, especially for Libertarians. About as rare as the opportunity to have the first Billionaire for President.

Personally, I have a great deal of tolerance for the rich. If either of these cats had worked their butts off in an honest and free market and earned what they have their obscene wealth wouldn't bother me a bit. Who was it that said that an honest politician is one who stays bought? I'm not sure if you can even buy a billionaire.

The choice for our Presidnet is between a multi-millionaire and a billion-heir, neither of whom really worked for their money. One got his money by who he knew in the business sense, the other by who he knows in the Biblical sense.

Neither understand the concept of a constitutionally limited republic.

Ah! Now I remember why this is touted by the media as the "most important election of our lifetime." Because, if it is only just as important as the last one, the apathetic and uninvolved voters (who usually can be counted on to vote Democratic even when they can't be counted on to vote) won't show up and Bush will win.