Why did Hillary Clinton spend $30 million on an election she won by more than 30 percentage points?

Front-page analysis by the NYT. Having spent so much money on extras -- $13,000 for flowers, $27,000 for valet parking, $930,000 on a campaign strategist -- she no longer has a financial advantage over the other presidential hopefuls.

Why did she do it? According to the article, it's not clear whether it was a lack of discipline or whether it has cleverly laid the groundwork for future fundraising.

But it 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?

Let me remind you of an old Wisconsin Senator: William Proxmire:

His aversion to spending money extended to himself. Throughout his career, he wore inexpensive suits, paid for his own plane trips and spent less than $200 on his campaigns, with some of the money used to buy stamps to return donations sent by constituents.

"I think fully two-thirds of the senators could get re-elected without spending a penny," he once said.