This sounds familiar somehow...

Well, after all, she IS responsible for the deaths of thousand of innocent Iraqis and the evisceration of the U.S. constitution. No, wait....

. . . no smoking guns . . . .

Irony, thy name is Drum?

I hope that the NYT and LA Times and the rest are being as diligent with everyone else's fundraising. It would be interesting to see if this is a wide spread problem or simply one campaign's.

Hmmmm...maybe they could spend more time ferreting out her positions on the issues before the primaries...

Well, color me silly but, I think ALL THEIR HANDS should be clean ALL THE TIME! But then I'm a senior citizen and apparently the "right and wrong" I was brought up with has been totally polluted by the "doing what everybody does" meme...Here is my perspective as I look out at the world these days...there is NO TRUTH and little HONOR bolstered by, apparently, NO CONSCIENCE in the behaviors, policies, actions of oh so many in our world!

Oh, yes. I have always written that the mainstream press would re-discover their duty of oversight and investigation once a Clinton got back in office. So here you have it.

They wouldn't dare do this to a Bushie.

Those "journalists" need to google "Chinese" and "savings rate."
.

Having a corrupt POTUS beholden to a foreign communist country sounds like a great idea.

How can anyone actually DEFEND this kind of behavior?

This fundraising pattern doesn't surprise me at all. You will frequently find young professionals and students who live in poor neighborhoods where they are a bit better off (or will in the future be better off) than their neighbors. And they don't necessarily have close enough ties to their neighbors to have their names known, especially given the differences in age and education.

As someone who lives in precisely one of these "Chinatown" parts of New York City myself, and who would be contributing to campaigns (and not leaving the neighborhood) were I not in graduate school, I'd say this doesn't immediately strike me as suspicious.

So the press will go door to door searching out individual Hillary donors but are content repeating Mitch McConnell's talking points on Graeme Frost unverified. It's nice to be a republican.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:

Why do you assume that these people have any connection to "communist" China? Because they have Chinese names? Do you know any Asian-Americans at all? Were they all secret agents of their respective ancestors' governments? Is Rudy Giuliani a secret agent of Italy?

Keeping one's hands clean is good advice at any time, and the Clinton campaign had to expect that it would come under additional press scrutiny after the Hsu business.

A nosy white English-speaking outsider comes into a small, tight-knit ethnic Chinese community and starts asking questions about one of their neighbors, and everyone else claims not to know anything? Well, color me suprised. I'm sure some of these people thought the reporters were probably immigration or police and didn't want to rat out someone in their community. Frankly, if a stranger walked up to me and started asking me suspicious questions about my neighbor I'd clam up too.

Forget it, Kevin. It's Chinatown.

So what if she eventually gives part of this money back. By then, she'll have leveraged it and earned interest on it.

"Well, color me silly but, I think ALL THEIR HANDS should be clean ALL THE TIME!"

Um ... are you suggesting that every single campaigner for public office fully vet every single contribution they receive and every single contributor who contributes? All that can reasonably be done is keep an eye out for obvious illegality and obvious anomalies, and I'm reasonably confident that damn near all of the campaigns already do this.

"Having a corrupt POTUS beholden to a foreign communist country sounds like a great idea."

LOL.... Dear heart, you really should rejoin us in reality some day. You might even like it here.

"How can anyone actually DEFEND this kind of behavior?"

Um, maybe because there isn't anything to "DEFEND?"

It's an interesting article.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton."

"Qun Wu, a 37-year-old waiter at a Chinese restaurant in Flushing, saw a reference to a Clinton fundraiser in a Chinese-language newspaper. He took a day off from work to go. Though he only makes $500 a week, he considers his $1,000 donation to be money well-spent. He got his picture taken with Clinton, hung it prominently in his house, then had color reprints made and sent to family in China.

"Every day I go home and see it," he said. "I see my picture with Hillary, and I feel encouraged. It's a great honor."

Many, on the other hand, said they gave for reasons having more to do with the Chinese community than with Clinton. He Duan Zheng, who gave $1,000, said of the Fujianese community: "They informed us to go, so I went.

"Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," he said. "Otherwise I would lose face."

In short, the individuals interviewed donated for the same reasons that people donated to the Bush Pioneers and Rangers. To gain status, to help a superior gain status, and to maintain standing within the community. But whereas the Bush Pioneers and Rangers were portrayed in heroic terms these reporters even manage to weave in references to organized crime, gambling, and human trafficing. The references to the crimes appear in the article despite the fact the the reporters make no attempt to contend that any individual named in the article has ever participated in any of those offenses.

Its a fascinating view of how the Clinton rules and racism are applied. Some of the best oppo money the GOP could spend would be in making fraudulent "ethnic" donations to Dems and alerting the media. It is likely that they will do just that.

Having a corrupt POTUS beholden to a foreign communist country sounds like a great idea.

Yes, it is a bad thing that Bush has sold out our country for loans by Red China used to prop up his massive and ballooning deficit. We are in complete agreement.

So what the fuck, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...Did you learn a lesson about bringing your weak-assed slurs and assumptions around here?

(I also agree whole-heartedly with every word Stefan had to say about this.)

Not sure he's treating China so wonderfully.

He made a very visible point of meeting with the Dahli Lama, infuriating the Chinese (while simultaneously criticizing Congress for voting to recognize Armenian genocide - infuriating the Turks).

Campaign finance indiscretions are like pro football. There's 'holding' on every play. It just doesn't always get called.

Yes, it is a bad thing that Bush has sold out our country for loans by Red China used to prop up his massive and ballooning deficit.

I was thinkin' the same same thing!

I hear the Chinese in NY really like Ellen Degeneres.

Just sayin'.

Having a corrupt POTUS beholden to a foreign communist country sounds like a great idea.

New York's Chinatown is not, last I checked, a "foreign communist country".

It certainly looks like some of these organizations may be shaking down their members. But there is, as of yet, no evidence that Clinton herself is a knowing participant in these shakedowns.

Still, this kind of thing is distasteful, counter-productive and unnecessary. Obama, Dean and others have demonstrated that you can raise considerable campaign cash without having to rely on shady operators. I wish more politicians would figure this out. Maybe then our system wouldn't be so corrupt.

Some of the best oppo money the GOP could spend would be in making fraudulent "ethnic" donations to Dems and alerting the media.

My first thought upon reading the LAT quote.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

I wouldn't be so sure about Edward's and Obama's clean hands. So far there's been Feiger making illegal contributions to Edwards and both Hsu and Rezko giving money to Obama. That's not exactly sparking clean.

No smoking guns, but smoke, huh?

It is clear that many of these donors are strawmen for larger contributors, and it doesn't matter if the Clinton campaign were aware of it or not, at least, not according to the present state of the law; and, in any case, the campaign is certainly aware of it now, wouldn't you say?

Another reason to do away with the contribution limits altogether is that liberal writers who support such contribution limits won't have to write such silly blog entries, like the one above, in a shameless attempt to dismiss the campaign finance practices of one of their fellow liberals.

It is clear that many of these donors are strawmen for larger contributors, and it doesn't matter if the Clinton campaign were aware of it or not, at least, not according to the present state of the law; and, in any case, the campaign is certainly aware of it now, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't.

I would say they are aware of media reports that, if true, would suggest that something which may legitimately raise questions of legality occurred.

They may or not also be aware of facts which indicate (1) that the claims made in the media reports are not precisely accurate, and/or (2) that while the media reports are accurate as far as they go, the implications of illegality that might be drawn from them are inaccurate.

Another reason to do away with the contribution limits altogether

You haven't presented a first reason, so how can this be "another"?

is that liberal writers who support such contribution limits won't have to write such silly blog entries, like the one above, in a shameless attempt to dismiss the campaign finance practices of one of their fellow liberals.

Whether or not such limits are in place, writers who support such limits and who also support candidates who engage in practices contrary to the limits the writer supports would still be pressured to defend the practices of the candidates they support given their position on the issues, and would almost certainly defend them in similar manners. The only people who would be less pressured to defend the fundraising practices of candidates they support are writers who don't support contribution limits, whether liberal or conservative (and there are both liberals and conservatives on both sides of the issue.)

What Whiskey Tango Foxtrot should be worried about is a POTUS that is beholden to a corrupt Middle Eastern dictatorship that helped fund the 9-11 attacks, namely Saudi Arabia. That's what we have now.

But look, any dirt they can throw at a Clinton, they will. This "Chinese connection" thing is bogus, but so were 99% of the allegations they mde against Bill Clinton.

*

Kevin - Did you say no smoking guns? What do you call busboys who are supposedly contributing $1,000 to Hillary's campaign? How stupid do you think we are?

I've long thought that Mrs. Clinton is likely to be the next president and she damn well better be so she can make sure that she isn't indicted for campaign finance fraud. Although the Clintons are exceptionally good at making sure that they have "plausible deniability," as President Nixon once put it; the result has been that their friends and associates go to jail, not the Clintons.

Of the $380,000 or so that Mrs. Clinton collected at that one fundraiser in Chinatown, any takers on how much of that was foreign (read: Hong Kong or Shanghai) money laundered through C-town?

What do you call busboys who are supposedly contributing $1,000 to Hillary's campaign? How stupid do you think we are?

No one could have predicted a culture that saves money for anything other than big screen TVs....

Is every contribution made on the internet (which Obama brags about) verifiable? Who has the time to run down all these contributions? Surely not the mainstream news media. They're too busy trailing Brittany around.

DBL,

Well, one can always remember this blog entry when a Republican candidate gets written up because his campaign accepted $1000 donations from the office assistants of lawyers, accountants, and hedge fund managers.

cmdicely,

I have presented other reasons on this blog many times, and didn't feel it necessary to repeat them, even though it would have protected me from the pedants like yourself.

You know, if DBL hadn't spent all that money on a penis-pump and high-grade tribulus terrestris, he might be able to support the candidate of his choice with a generous contribution.
.

Yes yes it's horrible how the commies are secretly controlling the minds of our politicians. Time to stop supported those damn commies and stop buying toys and TVs and clothes and steel and food and computers and all that non essential stuff. After all, our all American cartel of big oil and the military industrial complex have done such a fantastic job of running the country. Oil at $90 a barrel, the US in a civil war while Bin Laden is still at large, plummeting home values..yes yes we must turn away that dirty commie money and tell them to dump all dollar related investments like tbills and 30yrs now before we accept their filthy lucre.
What's that? You mean the Chinese in Chinatown are here because they can't stand Red China and want to live in a free and democratic society where they can earn a living? Surely you jest! They must be working as busboys so they can spread the works of Lenin instead of saving their money to bring their families over.
After all, the GOP never takes straw men money. Bush would never let himself be influenced by funds from our enemies who also fund Muslim extremists.
What? When did that happen? Oh never mind.

It's instructive to review the history of another big money recipient .
The only solution is public financing. As long as corporations and wealth can buy their way in, there will never be real reform.

It's Chinatown:

He's a busboy. Slap!
He's my banker! Slap!
He's nonexistent. Slap!
He's my campaign manager. Slap!

When you get tired of all the crap just ignore the Clintons and move on to somebody who isn't bought and paid for.

This is going to be an Election, not an Auction." John Edwards

[Feel free to promote your candidate, but candidate trolling and trashing all candidates other than *yours* is not going to be tolerated, by you or anyone else. You are very close to branding yourself as a candidate troll. --Mod]

Behold! the Manchurian Hillary:

Clinton Bucks Trend, Rakes in Cash From Weapons Industry
[The Independent UK]

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the rocess, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama. ...

candidate trolling and trashing all candidates other than *yours* is not going to be tolerated

Hence the laudably 'even-handed' treatment consistently afforded candidate Ron Paul (and his allegedly "nutty ideas") at this oh-so-alruistic site. Uh-huh.

Considering the astoundingly subtle reproach conceivably (at best) insinuated by the 'targeted' comment above, "Methinks the Mod doth protest too much."

Whatever happerned to a healthy respect for "free speech"??

Well, color me silly but, I think ALL THEIR HANDS should be clean ALL THE TIME!

Right on, Dancer! So do I.

I'm FAR more concerned about Hillary's lucrative Military-Industrial-Financial Complex connections than any small, private contributions such as these. (Nobody BUYS a president for a mere grand!)

Your comments cut to the very heart of the issue: DECENCY has all but vanished from American politics, replaced by an amazingly dubious, amoral pragmatism that knows few, if any, ethical bounds.

Hillary's people better be keeping their hands mighty clean.

And doesn't she know it.

Exactly what I would expect from HC.

And, yes, Democrats will get more scrutiny from the press. All I can ask for is that Republicans get the same. The Democrats shouldn't get less.

And that arms trade stuff is just sick.

lrtqfz tvlp itjce jnawh ieycg kqrt xzsmdg

vozumktr eqymszn cfamkqr owfy hkrfmgl gdqcpnwbz rjcbl http://www.lomfvyudq.xhbqdml.com

pahxuvgwy hyfojqisx zngvah sriahkbly xbsyl glskfrq elsiufc bkfei vsrq