The WSJ’s investigative reporters have been going after Hillary Clinton’s campaign sources in a fairly perspicacious manner. The latest revelations are about the Paw family in Daly City, CA and a guy/boy named Hsu. If you haven’t seen, the links are here and here.
What jumps out at me in all this - besides the covert country music connections in the “Boy Named Hsu” (Hey, it’s Johnny CASH) - is why would Hillary want all this possibly tainted money. It’s not as if her campaign is running behind. She’s leaving Obama in the dust at this moment. Of course, these connections were set up earlier… but still… why? The numbers are not that great - and considering the risk of being eventually connected to the Chinese government - you would think the campaign would just say no.
Perhaps it’s arrogance, perhaps stupidity… or maybe something else. We shall see.
PJM Home
18 Comments
1. ricpic:The lady can’t help herself. She’s naturally crooked.
Aug 29, 2007 - 7:58 am 2. Lem:I like Rove’s ‘fatally flawed’ myself.
Is there anything coming in from China not tainted, shoddy or right down poisonous?
Hillary can keep her campaign cookies
Aug 29, 2007 - 9:12 am 3. No More Status Quo:As a former Howard Dean supporter, I can’t forget where he was in late August, 2003! Let’s not get hung up on Hillary’s lead in the polls. It’s a long time to the Iowa caucus or at least it was until everybody and their uncle started playing “my primary first”.
Fact is that Hillary has the clout, backing plus the party activists and money, at this point, to stay the course. Ditto for Obama and Edwards. The rest are going to have to be Iowa “boy wonders” or out of the race.
This incident involving a postman living in Northern California is curious to say the least especially since he earns about $50,000 per year. It should be investigated, but who knows what the media will do as they’ve annointed HRC as the nominee even before the first vote is cast.
I am a nominal Republican albeit a Vermont one. I tend to vote for the GOP in local elections, but voted for John Kerry in 2004. The second Bush term is even worse than I imagined it would be. This is not the place to comment on that as many others have, but that’s where I’m coming from!
My purpose in commenting today is to ask for a large reality check. Hillary might get the nomination, but would she be “winning the battle and losing the war”? Make no mistake. She is an effective Senator for New York and has the support and admiration of millions. However, the flip side of the coin may be stronger.
Obama, Biden, Edwards and Dodd would have my full support and volunteer efforts as nominee. I was Mc Cain’s County Co-Chair in 2000, so I guess you could call me a bit of an activist. I must state in no uncertain terms that I am unable to support Hillary Clinton nor would I vote for her. Why? Read on.
This country can’t stand another President who brings along such past baggage as Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster et al. Add a possible Northern California postman as a possible (not confirmed) conduit for contributions from other sources and we have a receipe for Clinton I all over again. We can’t stand that kind of distraction as we need to get this nation back on course.
Honesty compells me to state that I support Barack Obama and very strongly at that. He’s not going to pull a “Dean Scream” in Iowa, has a history of working with some Republicans such as Dick Lugar, John Warner and others. It’s going to take that kind of maturity and judgement to get us moving again. Hillary’s constant right wing conspiracy theories and venom towards the GOP will ill serve us. Please ask yourself this question? Do we really want or need a devisive candidate like Hillary Clinton that will put Mitt Romney or another Republican in the White House? Think about it!
Aug 29, 2007 - 10:09 am 4. jedrury:Status makes some good points and probably confesses the true worries of so many Dem voters.
I have has this gut feeling for a long time
that Hillary can not win a general election [her negatives are too high, she is highly divisive] and she should not be the Dem nominee because the scandals of the 90s will only be replayed. The nation deserves an election devoid of Clinton agonistes.
Here, it is only pre-primaries and the money stench is seeping out.
The leopardess does not change her stripes.
Aug 29, 2007 - 10:39 am 5. Lola:Unfortunately, I think, status, you’re way off the mark about Obama. I mean, someone who makes stupid statements that cause riot in a country that may or may not be harboring OBL is clearly not ready for prime-time. And i think he’s very naive . . . just what we do NOT need as President.
Right now I’m looking at Giuliani. Fred Thompson is a big question mark. He needs to get his campaigning act together real soon now.
Aug 29, 2007 - 11:22 am 6. Lem:‘A nominal republican’ who supported Dean but voted for Kerry and now backs Obama?
Moonbat alert!
Aug 29, 2007 - 11:23 am 7. Esbiem:There is money in the madness and the madness is the raison-d’etre why Hillary cannot stop taking Hsu’s monies; she is like a heroin addict, she knows that she has a problem but cannot admit it to herself until she hits rock bottom. But this addiction is so much more dangerous to the public writ large than Linsey Lohan’s or Britney Spear’s, unfortunately for us she probably won’t hit the proverbial floor until after she were to be elected and we all know the imperial Clintons’ first reaction to being in a critical spotlight, “let’s start a war”. Let us hope that it’s either the right war come 2009 or a smoking gun prior the election.
Aug 29, 2007 - 11:43 am 8. Lem:In the immortal words of Henry Lee “there is something wrong”.
How did parcel postman Paws (living near the path of airplanes) manage to pony up 213,000 petunias?
Aug 29, 2007 - 12:22 pm 9. Captain Hate:“Is there anything coming in from China not tainted, shoddy or right down poisonous?”
Including next year’s Olympics *spit*, no.
Aug 29, 2007 - 5:23 pm 10. Scott:As to those wondering about why Hillary would take Hsu’s money (i.e. she is way ahead already, etc.) think of her as quite similar to Richard Nixon. He knew he was going to win in 1972, but he had to pad the margin anyway…
Aug 29, 2007 - 6:44 pm 11. Pierre Legrand:Not taking the money might be construed as an insult that might lead Hsu to back Obama.
Having any Democrat, except Joe Lieberman within a mile of the whitehouse will insure the destruction of this country.
Speaking of tainted donors no one remembers Dominic Montemarano but I do. I also remember that Billary has been in bed with the ChiComs for a long time. Yes they are still Communists.
The Article that ABC News doesn
Aug 29, 2007 - 10:23 pm 12. Lem:Why would you “give away” possible tainted money?
Shouldn’t it be held as evidence for a possible investigation looking into where it might have come from?
Why would you force a charity to have to lawyer up?
Typical Clintonian move. Let’s infect as many as possible.
Anybody within sneezing distance from them eventually gets a flue of subpoenas.
Aug 30, 2007 - 9:28 am 13. Carl Spackler:A Clinton could steal the cream out of the Devils coffee, and convince the Devil that he drinks it black.
They make Richard Nixon look like a Model-T at Talladega on race day.
Aug 30, 2007 - 10:09 am 14. George Atkisson:I think Hillary is keeping connections open and testing to see how much trouble she encounters at this level of donation. If it blows over, much larger future donation from Chinese sources will be dismissed as “old news”.
The Chinese are desperate to avoid any U.S. sanctions on their imports due to all of the quality control failures we’ve seen from pet food to medicine to kid’s clothing. They are buying protection from the person they see as likely to be the next President.
As for why Hillary would accept it, no politician ever, ever had too much money in their campaign warchests.
Aug 30, 2007 - 10:59 am 15. dclydew:The Chinese are desperate to avoid any U.S. sanctions on their imports due to all of the quality control failures we’ve seen from pet food to medicine to kid’s clothing. They are buying protection from the person they see as likely to be the next President.
Heh, apparently they must have already bought off this administration, makes sense they’d plan to buy off the next one.
Aug 30, 2007 - 2:30 pm 16. Lem:So if all you have to do to is “give it to charity”, why turn down anybody or anything?
Is that a recipe for money laundering, or are you just happy to see me?
Aug 31, 2007 - 5:09 am 17. Barrett:Hillary and the Clintonistas are slime.
Norman Hsu turns himself in for fraud.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT.TvbnH_2S8&refer=home
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118858052960914805.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Aug 31, 2007 - 12:46 pm 18. Barrett:It just keeps getting worse. It turns out that another longtime Clinton aide (for both Bill and Hillary), Harold Ickes, was at the center of the America Coming Together scandal that led to a record $755,000 fine from the Federal Election Commission.
ACT raised $137 million and was funded in part by George Soros. ACT improperly classified $70 million in receipts as “administrative costs”. The problem was these funds were attributable to clearly identified federal candidates. Ooops!
Harold Ickes is now an advisor to Hillary for President in 2008.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/29/ap4066645.html
Why would anybody want to be around someone as dirty as Hillary? Much less give her presidential power?
Aug 31, 2007 - 3:28 pm