September 26, 2007

Hsu's Strings Tied To Hillary

If Hillary Clinton had hoped that the Norman Hsu story would start to fade, she will find disappointment in an unlikely place this morning. The Boston Globe reports that Hsu's seemingly odd and disjointed list of benefactors had something in common -- most of them endorsed and supported Hillary (via Instapundit):

Disgraced fund-raiser Norman Hsu did a lot more than just pump $850,000 into Hillary Clinton's campaign bank account: He also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for local, state, and federal candidates who have endorsed Clinton or whose support she courted.

A major fund-raiser for Democrats since 2003, Hsu became one of Clinton's biggest bundlers - gathering scores of individual checks and sending them to her campaign. But since revelations last month that Hsu was a fugitive in a 15-year-old California fraud case, Clinton has said she would return the $850,000 she has taken from him and his associates.

In at least some cases, Clinton or her aides directly channeled contributions from Hsu and his network to other politicians supportive of her presidential campaign, according to interviews and campaign finance records. There is nothing illegal about one politician steering wealthy contributors to another, but the New York senator's close ties to Hsu have become an embarrassment for her and her campaign.

This revelation shows that Hillary and her campaign didn't just passively receive funds from Hsu. The campaign actively worked with Hsu to distribute the funds to other campaigns, and in return, Hillary bought endorsements with the stolen money. And since the Boston Globe did the reporting, this can't be chalked up to some conservative hit piece, either.

For example, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race early, surprising some analysts who thought he might have a chance against Hillary. Vilsack had a $450,000 debt to retire, and Hillary lent her assistance -- and her chief fundraiser. In Nevada, whose primary got pushed to the front end of the schedule, Clinton arranged for Hsu to raise funds for Dana Titus' gubernatorial race. Both Titus and Vilsack endorsed Hillary.

Hsu made a lot of contributions to Hillary endorsers. He have almost $50,000 to Tom Harkin, whose wife Ruth is a major backer of Hillary. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan got over $20,000. Dianne Feinstein got $17,000. Mark Pryor took $11,000 from Hsu. All of them support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

State and local politicians didn't get ignored by Hsu, either. Some people wondered why Hsu would donate eye-popping amounts to people like New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who got over $100,000 between them. Both endorse Hillary Clinton. Hsu even managed a $3500 donation to a Chicago alderman whose sister, Patty Solis Doyle, runs one of Hillary's campaigns.

It's quite the web the Hsu spun, or perhaps Hillary spun it herself with Hsu's money. This story will cling to Hillary like a spider's web, and if reporters and the FBI dig deeply enough, she may never extricate herself from it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hsu's Strings Tied To Hillary:

» Questions for a Wednesday from Hang Right Politics
Where is Moses when you need him? Will Hillary Clinton be forgiven? (Again?) Is your Senator on the gravy train? or Will bathrooms become the new trend in political ads? Is the GQ man a wuss? If it is democrat on democrat, is it still a crime? Will N... [Read More]

» Can Hillary be stopped? from Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
A lot of pundits --Democratic or otherwise-- are wondering if Hillary Clinton already has the Democratic nomination sewn up: her lead over her nearest rivals continues to grow, she raises money like there's no tomorrow (more on that in a [Read More]

Comments (53)

Posted by Brian Pendell | September 26, 2007 8:10 AM

Sadly, I think that as far as the typical American voter is concerned, if it doesn't happen on TV it doesn't exist. Thus, it has not yet had any impact on the race.


Brian P.

Posted by Corky Boyd | September 26, 2007 8:25 AM

I don't think we can underestimate the effect of Bill Clinton's wholesale pardons on the entire Hsu mess. Hsu's only hope was for a pardon, and an indebted Clinton, this time Hillary, held the key. Worked for Marc Rich and other Clinton supporters in 2001.

Ditto for Tony Pelicano. His silence is his contribution to the political process.

Posted by MagicalPat | September 26, 2007 8:26 AM

Looks like Hillary has been working on a Hsu string budget all along.

Posted by bio mom | September 26, 2007 8:29 AM

And yet, incredibly, the American electorate seems primed to elect Hillary and bring back all that slime once again. What is wrong with us??

Posted by FedUp | September 26, 2007 8:31 AM

Well! I am SHOCKED! Just shocked, I tell you!!! I'm sure that this is just another example of a right-wing conspiracy.... NOT!!

The Clintons are a shining example of what's wrong with this country... graft, greed, power-hungry, lying, cheating, stealing, did I leave anything out?

Posted by Stanford Matthews | September 26, 2007 8:48 AM

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the teflon don of politics and we all know what happened to John Gotti.

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 26, 2007 8:51 AM

"Vilsack had a $450,000 debt to retire, and Hillary lent her assistance"

...and right away Vilsack went to bat for her...rather than his constituents. Shoulda gone with Blackwell

Posted by cpdiii | September 26, 2007 8:55 AM

The media always portrays the Clinton's as Master Politicians. They are not and are actually quite inept at the game. The only reason they survive is the media with rare exceptions do not expose their criminal acts past and present. The Clintons are a product of the media not doing its job.

The fourth estate is a FIFTH COLUMN.

Posted by John Wilson | September 26, 2007 9:01 AM

My fear is that this keeps on bubbling just under the surface, she gets elected and then she dismantles the investigations with her version of Janet Reno.

Posted by Robin | September 26, 2007 9:04 AM

I just can't understand how Democrats can look themselves in the mirror and not see the hypocrisy of a Hsu scandal and all the leading operatives involved after constantly beating the "corrupt Republicans" drum over the last couple of years.

It mystifies and disgusts. I keep waiting for them to see the light..... and waiting.....

Posted by Labamigo | September 26, 2007 9:07 AM

HRC is a royal crook, of the worst kind.

She is the slimiest politician to hit the national scene since her husband.

The American people will never elect Hillary Clinton president.

Posted by John | September 26, 2007 9:23 AM

What's really interesting is that none of the other Democratic contenders for the nomination have said boo about the Hillary-Hsu scandal, save for a brief broadside in general by John Edwards about special interest donations to the Clintons. Part of that may have been because the driving force in the story has been the Wall Street Journal -- never a favorite among liberals, even though the reporting staff is far from conservative -- but other stories in the Hsu investigation have been broken by the Los Angeles Times, and no one can say today's reports in the Boston Globe are because it or it's parent company are part of the VRWC.

With less than four months to go before the start of the primary season, and with Hillary holding a double-digit lead, you'd think at least one of her rivals would run with the charges Hsu is facing and use it to try and carve into her lead. If you didn't know better, you'd swear all the other challengers secretly acknowledge that the race for the Democratic nomination is really over in all but name, and the goal for them is either not to get on Hillary's dark side if she wins the election next November, or to position themselves as a possible VP running mate.

Posted by onlineanalyst | September 26, 2007 9:28 AM

Is it time to hear that deflecting cackle of a laugh of HRC's yet again? Or do we hear the measured tones of obfuscation? (Truly, the former should be available for Halloween consumption. It would frighten those little trickpor-treaters away from the door pronto.

Having spend too much time in the last several weeks in assorted waiting rooms, I note that daytime talk televsion directed towards women is the greatest cheerleader for Hillary Clinton and the most hostile detractor of the Bush administration. Never mind that the pap that is spewed is no more than emotional, fact-less ranting or cheap humor; the vehicle for promoting the Hillary and Dem agenda is on overdrive during most of the day.

Posted by quickjustice | September 26, 2007 9:30 AM

So the Clinton campaign was the intermediary for spreading Hsu's dirty money around the Democrat Party? What's this called? "Viral political donations"?

Why did I think that crazy Norman already called up the FBI from his jail cell, and begged to confess, without an attorney, that he was acting on his own? And his attorney now complains that the confession was "coerced"?

And where did Hsu's money come from, exactly? Any Manchurian investors? What about Lilian Vernon and the Hochbergs?

Posted by John | September 26, 2007 9:33 AM

This is my hope, that industrious bloggers and journalists will keep finding more connections between Hillary and Hsu and bring down her whole campaign. If elected, we are going to have 4/8 more years of this, and is this what the country really needs right now?

She may get spun up in her own web.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 26, 2007 9:43 AM

So, by the Property of Parallel Contributions, we have proven that Lillian Vernon is a Hillary Clinton supporter.


Posted by RD | September 26, 2007 9:48 AM

Hsu'nuff, Hillary is sweating this ishsu (despite a headline to the contrary) else why did she have one of her campaign aides call all 5 networks and offer HERSELF to every Sunday morning news show?It's now the Hill/Billy Hsu shine buoys!

Posted by mariner | September 26, 2007 10:12 AM

This story will cling to Hillary like a spider's web, and if reporters and the FBI dig deeply enough, she may never extricate herself from it.
Sure, it will.

Just like Travelgate.

Just like Filegate.

Just like the cattle futures.

You're dreaming, Ed.

Posted by Aldo | September 26, 2007 10:21 AM

Hsu was the bundler, and someone on the Clinton staff was the meta-bundler.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 26, 2007 10:21 AM

Any conservative jackass who does not support the Republican nominee by claiming that there’s no difference between that candidate and Hillary…is a traitor to his country.

George Soros is the difference. He should be the ONLY difference that matters.

Posted by SEW | September 26, 2007 10:25 AM

As long as she promises free, unlimited healthcare to all voters [what an intricate plan] and other lies and freebies and pardons all of her cronies she will perform well. After all Murtha keeps getting reelected on the same platform. Handouts are the mainstay of the Democrat platform.

Posted by Bill | September 26, 2007 10:42 AM

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell also received Hsu donations, and defended the man until he was caught fleeing.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 10:47 AM

Mr Beaumont,

I'm one of "those" conservatives who generally spits on your "republicans" (saving the loogies for the most obvious socialist-lite variety). But you make a good point.

A day or two ago, Pat Neid made the point (again) that if Hllary is elected she will NOT bring the troops home. She will instead "deal with the situation she inherited". Assuming Mr Neid is correct...and that the GWOT is the single most IMPORTANT ISSUE facing America...isn't it at least POSSSIBLE that we'd be better off in the GWOT if the Hildabeast were elected?

In many respects, I think putting that foul creature back in the White House would be a mistake of Biblical proportions...but, as I suggested before, could it be true that if a Dhimmi were in the WH, the press would almost immediate change on the effort in Iraq? Don't you think we'd all of a sudden see some positive news come out…Now that a Democrat was in charge? After all, everyone knows the Dhimmis are smarter than the Repubs...and only the Democratic presidents know how to manage a war (Lincoln doesn't count of course...for some reason).

Of course every other Commie/socialist perversion would be foisted upon Americans if the Beast were elected…starting with Health Care…but wouldn’t the GWOT be better served if more Dhimmicrats were “on board”? Don’t you think a Pres Hildabeast would be able to pull another 10-15 percent of the Dhimmis over to our side on the GWOT? If so, don’t you think we’d be more likely to succeed if that were the case?

Personally, I really don’t think I could pull the handle for the Beast…I think I’d rather chug some drain cleaner. But I’m curious to what you and any of the others think about this: If Hildabeast is elected and she KEEPS THE TROOPS in Iraq…wouldn’t we be better off in the GWOT than if Rudy were elected and the Congressional Dhimmicrats escalate their (by now standard operating procedure) filthy, treasonous behavior?

Posted by RBMN | September 26, 2007 10:51 AM

Gatewaypundit: Hsu-nami News: Norman Hsu Linked to China Missile Trader
Monday, September 03, 2007

Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. head Bernard L. Schwartz, who was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign. Last November, Schwartz and Hsu chaired a New School banquet at the Mandarin Oriental in New York which featured Sen. Clinton as keynote speaker. Clinton steered a $1 million federal grant to the college. More recently, Schwartz and Hsu (pronounced shoo) appeared together at the New York Yacht Club for Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy's 40th birthday bash...

(GP references an unlikely pair of sources here: WorldNetDaily and DailyKos)

Posted by LuckyBogey | September 26, 2007 10:53 AM

Have any of Hsu's donors actually received their returned check? How much of the $850k have been returned. Who are the 260 individuals? Why won't she release the names? Also note that Hillary had $10M left over from her 06 Senate campaign and moved this money into her Presidential campaign. How much of this $10M is Hsu's and his "New School" friends bundling?

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 26, 2007 11:14 AM

Mr Jockey:

The cretins in Congress will continue their ways; the question is will a president fight them or enable them?

Conservatives have gained ground where it matters: appeals court appointments, USSC appointments and career appointments to Federal institutions such as the CIA, State and Defense where the damage done by the career Clinton Democrats (Joe Wilson etc) has been well documented.

Finally, as I said, George Soros is the Wizard of Ox behind the Democrats resurgence. He is attempting to buy this election.

Hillary is his bitch, make no mistake.

Soros is a threat of immense proportions.

Posted by La Mano | September 26, 2007 11:18 AM

This story will cling to Hillary like a spider's web, ...

Not a problem for this black widow of politics.

Posted by billfry | September 26, 2007 11:35 AM

no one calling for hearings?

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 11:40 AM

Mr B.

Points well taken. Thanks.

But what about the GWOT under the Beast? How would Soros manipulate "his beyotch" to further his agenda in Iraq...and what is Soros' agenda irt Iraq?

...and you can call me swabbie ;>

Posted by David M | September 26, 2007 12:08 PM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

Posted by GarandFan | September 26, 2007 2:07 PM

You'll note that Hillary! was on 5 shows last Sunday. Not one asked anything about her campaign finances.

Posted by JAF | September 26, 2007 2:12 PM

The best candidate we have with the most experience arguing before the Supreme Court and convicting Mafia Dons: Rudy Giuliani

Rest assured that if he is our candidate- he will be able to describe in vivid terms what the Clintons are up to!!

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 26, 2007 2:16 PM


Soro's agenda in terms of Iraq is no different from any of his other foreign policy goals:

To neuter the US by tying it in knots and stripping it of wealth by empowering the corrupt UN and other international organizations.

His ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel via a thousand diplomatic cuts.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 2:47 PM


I agree with you in that I think Soros will have his greasy, crooked, tyrant wannabe hands on the wheel of the US Gov the moment Hildabeast "takes the oath". Yes, it would be an abomination.

Earlier Patrick Neid said: “If Hillary becomes president there will be no significant changes in troop levels in Iraq. She has Nixon written all over her in regards to the war.
She started making all the excuses on the Sunday talkies. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. "We don't know what we're going to inherit," she said on ABC News "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "None of us do. We don't know what's going to be done in the last 15 months of the Bush-Cheney administration." Going to inherit is the operative phrase. With this benchmark she can claim she was forced to maintain the troop levels etc.”

Do you agree with this prediction? If so, how will Soros’ use the continued occupation of Iraq to bring down Israel?

This is the first time in my life where I think I may be a “one issue” voter for POTUS. For somewhat selfish reasons I admit…I don’t want my arse left swinging in the Iraqi breeze. I don’t want to help the Hildabeast win the WH. I’m not certain that would NOT be a sin grave enough to condemn my eternal soul…on the other hand, while trying to shoot the closest alligator to the boat, is it not sometimes necessary to join forces with an “enemy”?

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 26, 2007 3:08 PM

Do you agree with this prediction? If so, how will Soros’ use the continued occupation of Iraq to bring down Israel?

Forget Iraq.

Iraq will simply be the pretext for new Secretary of State Albright and Co. to chastise their own country in front of a newly empowered UN. Less "unilateralism", more listening to the wisdom of third world despots in international forums.

Looking at every possible Soros angle, by funding the ACLU, MoveON, The Tides Foundation, and LaRaza like immigration groups through his Open Society Institute -Soros furthers his agenda of destroying US influence and power by moving the US closer a Europeanized, socialized, internationalized shell of it's former self. He's working every angle with frightening efficiency

Make no mistake, if Herr Soros buys this election, the Europeanization of America will have begun in earnest.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 26, 2007 3:10 PM

If so, how will Soros’ use the continued occupation of Iraq to bring down Israel?


Look at the record of the UN when it comes to Israel to find your answer.

Death by a thousand cuts.

We need a stronger UN?

Soros would love it.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 3:13 PM

Hugh, I can't "forget Iraq"...but you make some excellent points. Thanks shipmate.

Posted by John | September 26, 2007 3:25 PM

If we're counting on the Hsu story to sink Clinton she might as well start ordering the Armani now. Apart from a tiny minority no one is listening or interested in this story which is just another fund raising scandal. On the Scandalomometer it's a 2 while if Stevens was indicted it would be a 7. I never cease to be amazed at the extent to which we want to rely on this sort of stuff as a counterpoint to what's happening in the real world and that affects ordinary American voters. They are interested in a kid in their town being killed in Iraq, they are worried about loosing their health insurance assuming they have any to lose, they want the governments institutions and departments to work cleanly and effectively, they are worried about out sourcing, the list is endless. And what do we want to spend all our time talking about. Hsu and some ad in the NYT, and all it's little backwaters which are of zero interest to most Americans. It's all totally irrelevant to the main thrust of where the country is located politically and how we need to argue our case for retaining the white house and recovering control of congress. With every day that goes by I see more and more evidence the GOP has a death wish. Whether it's spitting in the eye of hispanics and blacks, proposing to spend another 200 bill. in Iraq while trying to deny health insurance for kids, we've lost it completely.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 3:32 PM


First of all, they aren't "Kids".

Does it make you feel "smart" to call yourself a "republican" on this anonymous blog?

I don't want your socialistic type anywhere near the WH or matter how many times you shrilly scream that you are a "republican". LOL.

Posted by Jan | September 26, 2007 3:37 PM

Ya know how the Republican Congress impeached President Clinton and, from the point on, his approval numbers sky-rocketed?

You will never beat the Clintons because you can't hear yourselves blather!

Here's a post:
"I just can't understand how Democrats can look themselves in the mirror and not see the hypocrisy of a Hsu scandal"

My answer:
So... Jack Abramoff donated money to George W. Bush. Is that a "scandal" for Bush?

See, it either IS or ISN'T a scandal to accept campaign contributions from someone who ends up going to jail.

Now, I can't stand George Bush. But as far as I can tell, Jack Abramoff broke the law, not George Bush.
So, again, what "scandal" is here?

If Hillary Clinton turns out to be Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney or one of their ilk, I hope she goes to jail.
But you're balleyhooing about a "scandal" and how can Democrats look themselves in the mirror...
So, again, is GWB guilty because he took money from Jack Abramoff?

Whatever way you answer THAT question, it is the exact same answer to whether Hillary Clinton is somehow guilty because she took money from Hsu.

Again, from your posters:
Just like Travelgate.
Just like Filegate.
Just like the cattle futures.

What happened in "Travelgate"?
Seriously, what happened? She fired the WH travel office. She can do that! What's the friggin' problem?!!?

Kids! Thoroughly investigated! NOTHING! Why do you keep bringing it up over and over and over and over again, as if it hasn't been thoroughly investigated, for millions and millions and millions of your tax dollars?
I'm surprised I didn't see "VinceFosterGate." Investigated THREE different times. Millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of tax payer dollars. Nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING!

"Cattle futures"?
Gosh, for Republicans you don't know jackshit about investments. I'll try to put it in simple language.
Did you go to the ponies when you were a kid and didn't know how to bet on a horse? She put a bet down and it PAID. Is that a crime in America? And cattle futures, in case you're REALLY ignorant, are RISKY. High risk = High payoff
Again, has someone actually found a crime here, or do you just like to type "cattle futures" while obviously having no idea what "cattle futures" actually are?

My point is, just like with the impeachment, you have this long list of crap that makes you all look like raving maniacs to most of the rest of us. Clinton left office and 70% of the nation felt America was going in the right direction!!

You hyper-hate a couple of people that a vast majority of people admire, both in America and all over the world.
You don't.
We get it.
But you're like a broken record, and no one but you are listening.

You've been saying "Travelgate" for what? 15 years now? And what happened in the "scandal" known as "Travelgate"? N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

Seriously, there's chance Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President. To the average American voter, you look like absolute children compared to her.

--> Is George Bush guilty of something for accepting campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff, or not?

If he's not, you make fools of yourselves, except I guess among yourselves.

Posted by John | September 26, 2007 4:00 PM

Swabjock: I was probably voting Republican before you were born. Of course you could be as old as me. Unless you'd noticed my friend the GOP is in deep deep doo doo. This latest gallup poll was an eye opener but I'm sure you think that's a media conspiracy. There's lots of reasons but one of the main ones is we've become disconnected from the real world. The real world knows we have a big mess on our hands in Iraq, the real world know that health insurance is a big expensive mess because even if they've got employer coverage they've seen a huge jump in their share over the past five years. The real world doesn't want the govt sticking its nose in our affairs on matters like right to life as in the Schiavo matter. Unfortunately as your and many postings on here demonstrate we've lost touch with all this and I don't know how long it's going to take us to get it back. Quite a long time I suspect by the tenor of much of the mindset amongst the most vocal Republican supporters at least as seems to be presented here and on right wing radio. But have it your own way. And you can check out the results 08 November when on present form I'd say Hillary is going to sweep into the white house, and the democrats are probably going to pick up 4 to 6 seats in the senate and probably another dozen in the house. Swabjock you are the product of polarization as a political strategy. A strategy that is well past its sell by date because it's doing immense long term harm to the party. It's my view, don't accept it, see the consequences.

Posted by quickjustice | September 26, 2007 4:20 PM

I actually agree, Jan, that merely hating Hillary Clinton isn't enough to defeat her. I also think that at this moment in time, she's the odds-on favorite to become the next president of the United States. If I were forced to bet today on the likely winner, ideology aside, I'd bet on her.

Gingrich is correct when he says that Republicans need to begin advocating for ideas for fundamental changes in our national, state, and local governments that will make them work for the American people. The Democrat New Deal and Great Society programs of the past have proven themselves abject failures. Yet rather than getting repealed, they just grow larger, and more wasteful and inefficient.

The GOP needs a positive vision for America's future.

I disagree with you, profoundly, about the campaign finance scandal involving Norman Hsu and Hillary Clinton, however. You must put on partisan blinders not to appreciate how serious this is.

You ask whether George Bush should be blamed for Abramoff? A better question is whether the Republicans who took money from Abramoff should have been punished for doing so? The American people answered that question by throwing the rascals out, costing the GOP its majority in Congress. I respectfully suggest that the same standards should be applied to Democrats who took money from Hsu.

As for Hillary Clinton, I would understand your reaction if this were her first exposure to these kinds of issues, and if foreign money weren't possibly involved. But the Clintons have a track record on matters of campaign finance, a track record you can read for yourself here:

Given that track record of accepting foreign money, don't you agree that our admittedly partisan suspicions, and further investigation, are warranted?

Posted by quickjustice | September 26, 2007 4:27 PM

I'd say that the American people responded to the Abramoff scandal by voting those Republicans involved in it out of office, and the Republican Party out of the majority in the Congress.

That's a fair way to go about it. I understand that you don't care about Norman Hsu, Jan. Democrats didn't care about Bill and Hillary Clinton taking large sums of money from the Chinese, either. Hillary Clinton knew all about Charlie Trie many years ago, so she, and you, can't plead ignorance.

It's precisely because of this track record that the Clinton fund-raising operation deserves extra scrutiny:

And I agree with Newt Gingrich that the GOP must begin to advocate aggressively for changes in our governments that benefit the American people. A party without a positive message at its core cannot win elections.

Posted by Gregory | September 26, 2007 4:31 PM

Jan-- I'll bet the folks who worked the White House travel office who were falsely accused of crimes they were found not guilty of would not consider what happened to them "nothing".

Posted by RD | September 26, 2007 4:34 PM

Obviously a previous poster does not think character counts and doesn't believe that past actions indicate future actions so she sees any references to such as just so much wasteful nattering (although if she thinks we are not accomplishing anything why does she bother to comment and point this out)Has she ever heard the comment that "death comes from a thousand cuts"? We'll just keep cutting away and hope that the message gets through a little at a time...some of it must be getting through because Hillary's high negative ratings show that the basic reaction to Her is distrust and disrespect.

Posted by KW64 | September 26, 2007 4:42 PM

Jan are you so young you cannot remember the 1990's? Travelgate was a scandal because people were charged with crimes at the behest of Hillary's staff (Harry Thomassen). It took a jury less than an hour to exonerate but an innocent man was dragged through the mud and the FBI and IRS were used abusively.

The MSM, which surely would give the benefit of the doubt to Hillary if there were any, went to bat for Billy Dale the falsely accused and wrongfully fired victem. They said the travel office did a fine job. Anyd why did Hillary fire them? To promote the firm of her supporters.

Why was filegate a scandal? Because they had confidential FBI security files in their possesion that they should not have had. What was their purpose in getting these files? Blackmail? Intimidation? Character assasination? Innocent explainations really do not exist.

The cattle futures issue stunk because she worked with Red Bone who was a connected with Tyson Foods that wanted to keep polluting the waters of Arkansas rather than clean up their discharge. Red Bone was convicted of fraud for switching losing and winning trades to advantage who he wanted to.

If you are going to shill for Hill, at least do some homework to research the rather recent past that you seem to have missed out on.

Posted by KW64 | September 26, 2007 4:54 PM

Also Jan, you may also have missed why letting Lorel give satellite work to China was a treasonous act and thus failed to appreciate why the Hsu connection with Lorel, via Bernard Schwartz referenced in a post above, is a red flag.

Despite loud protest by the Dept. of Defense and State which were headed by Clinton appointees, Clinton gave the decision of whether to allow satellites to be launched by China to the Commerce Dept. headed by Ron Brown, right in conjunction with a 100k donation from Lorel.

China used the same "Long March" missile that boosts its ICBMs to launch satellites. So, when Lorel related rocket scientists helped fix their satellite launching problems, they also helped fix China's ICBM launching reliability. And where are those ICBMs pointed? Why right here in the USA.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 5:15 PM

Jan parroted:

"What happened in "Travelgate"?
Seriously, what happened? She fired the WH travel office. She can do that! What's the friggin' problem?!!?"

First of all Hillary was found by the investigation to having made false statements in the Travel Office firing case. But there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute her (in other words: TEFLON).

Second, if she had the right to fire them, it's no big deal. But DID she have the right to fire them in the first place? What legal authority if any did she have in the matter?

And speaking of having the right to fire people, Bush had the right to fire those US Attorneys. You Kool-Aid drinkers didn't give him a pass on that though. What's the friggin' problem?!!?

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 5:17 PM

Jan also said:

"Clinton left office and 70% of the nation felt America was going in the right direction!! "

And the same amount of people also told the pollsters at the same time that his Presidency would only be remembered for its scandals.

Posted by patrick neid | September 26, 2007 5:56 PM


Thanks for the hat tip.

To be clear though the original statements were written to b-slap the usual suspects on that link that were spouting the daily tripe about Iraq and how we were going to leave in January 09.

Sadly, I think Hillary has a very good chance of getting elected. With upwards of 90% of the black, Hispanic and Jewish vote she needs a scant 35% of the remaining white, Asian and other votes. With 90% of all reporters and newsrooms voting democrat it is very hard to see any serious investigative journalism getting done. The Hsu story goes nowhere--even if if could it will be gutted.

At the end of 08 the dems will have had the White House for only 12 of the last 40 years. There is no way the front runner will be tarnished.

Posted by Keemo | September 26, 2007 7:57 PM

Good thread...


Remember; despite the truths that you point out regarding the potential for another Clinton Presidency, some facts still remain in tact:

1> Bush won in 04 by a large margin.
2> We will remain a county at war in 08.
3> Hillary has "so many" skeletons in the closet.
4> Bush and Clinton fatigue. (anybody but)

We have an uphill battle in front of us. CE has been on fire lately; doing the work most Americans won't do. Rock on CE, it's no wonder why we have had such heavy troll traffic lately.

Posted by patrick neid | September 26, 2007 8:21 PM


With fingers and toes crossed I hope for the same.

While I abhor her socialist nanny state politics, as others have also mentioned, I equally loathe their grifter misogynist mentalities.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 4:18 AM


I don't care how long you say you've been voting for Repubs. Most of what you spouted was more socialistic drool which couldn't have been said better by Hildabeast herself. Go ahead and vote for her then, shipmate.

Your "stand" on the Iraq war is more defensible IMO than your whining for more socialism.

Pat Neid,

Unlike the rantings of monkeys, trolls and other fur-bearing critters defacing the Capt's blog, I always read your comments. Pls keep it up.

Notice how the two trolls here "defended" the Beast by saying: "What about the kids in Iraq"...and "Bush did it too"...?

Post a comment