Actually, the primary technology used to get their message out is still TV, which costs an arm, leg and testicle…
PatrickS on August 30, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Crap! Hillary has twice as many testicles (her’s, Bill’s) to spend than any male candidate. Except Edwards, of course. Zero x any number = zero.

What I want to know is, which charity is going to receive these campaign contributions from Senator Clinton? They aren’t by chance going to end up in the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative?

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Excellent question gabriel!
I saw the b**ch on TV saying that she had returned the money and I also heard that she was going to donate the money to charity. Which is it?

I would hope that the heat will be kept on to determine exactly where the money goes, if anywhere. If the money goes to that phony charity thing that Billy Boy set up then it somehow is distributed back out to his library or any other place that they (the Clinton Mafia) want it to go. The same thing happened before with all the Chinese money that they said they had returned. Nobody asked (or demanded) that they prove they had returned the money. These two don’t make a move or take a breath unless it is to their advantage, either financially or politcally.

Come on Hot Air and other bloggers – keep the pressure on and demand proof of where the money goes. We the people have a right to know!!

The American people will never elect Hillary Clinton president.

Labamigo on August 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Somehow, when it comes down to it, I don’t think that will stop the dems from pulling it off. See elections circa 2006. For example, every single race went to the dems in the 2006 Dallas elections. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. If you’re from the area you realize just how unlikely that should actually have been.

Like malcom x preached, “…by ANY means neccessary”.

Would that they were that committed to victory against, you know, our real and declared enemies and not just those evil rethuglicans.

Yeah, I’d be shocked if anyone fully vetted their campaign donations, at least the majority of them. I think that’s a loaded question.

SouthernDem on August 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM

It turns the issue on its head. Focusing the discussion on vetting deflects inquiry away from looking for the actual CONNECTIONS between Hillary and the money-launderers.

All she has to do is say is: “I have the exact same procedures in place as every other candidate!” Case closed.

Imagine that. It’s all the fault of the evil system yet again. And the only possible solution? Pass another whole new set of campaign finance laws.

2004 South Dakota Senate race was pretty good case for limiting contributions from inside the state. However, it would also help bolster incumbents.

This business of out of State donations is tricky, and deserves a lot of debate and discussion. I don’t think I have a problem with donating to candidates for primary runs in States where you can’t just cross over and vote for any Party in the Primary, but I could be convinced otherwise.

For instance, if a viable conservative candidate wanted to run against Collins or Snowe in Maine, I would want to support that candidate’s run. How a Senator in Maine votes effects the rest of the Country, and at least as a Republican, I am having a say in who is in the pool of candidates. If I gave money to the RNC, they would probably just support the incumbents, so that would not help in a situation like this.

Where I have a problem is where huge donations from groups like Emilys List or The Sierra Club are used to support (or defeat) candidates in “local” elections. In a small State like Maine their contributions could very well exceed what individual local donors contribute, and State elections can be determined nearly as much by outsiders who have nothing to do with that State than with the actual voters themselves.

It also goes to the problem of where so-called “reform” limited the amount of hard money donations, which only encourages more soft money, which is harder to police and far less transparent.

I don’t know what the answer is, but it also does us no good to let the other side go on a mad contribution spree while we stand on principle.

I keep having this day dream that Vince Foster’s ghost scares Hillary so much that she forgets she’s running for the leader of the free world. I can dream.

Christine on August 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Oh come on, Vince wasnt murdered, he just fell on his own sword to protect the anti-christ Clintons.

I believe Kerry had a number of Iranian supporting his campaign. At least one was a rabid supporter of the status quo in Iran.

Just like yersterday’s revelation of $150 million wrongly spent, will we find out after the fact about further problems.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Hillary needs a wedge candidate just like Bill.

With all the talk about the most recent fugitive donor to the Clinton campaign, I had completely forgotten about another dubious donor who was on the lam earlier this year….

You are absolutely right that donations (especially multiple donations) from out of state are red flags. That’s the main reason that I won’t support a congressional or senatorial candidate outside of my home state.

And your observation about the 527 groups getting fined well after the candidates they have supported are in office and the “damage” is done, does not go without notice. In fact, I’m certain that in today’s political climate these groups along with the national committees of both parties will weigh the cost of fines 2 or 3 years down the road against the opportunity to get their candidate in office as a risk worth taking.

In this case, delayed justice is no justice at all.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/

When a Republican does something wrong the Republicans demand that that person resign, when a Democrat does something wrong the Democrats close ranks and defend even the indefensible. Hell the Democrats gave a standing ovation to one of their own when he was caught having a illegal homosexual affair with a underage congressional page.

The Democrats will close ranks around Hillary and protect her because they believe she can and will win and for Democrats that is the only thing that is important.

The Peter Paul case is done. The DoJ has completely botched the case. In prosecuting David Rosen, Hillary’s former finance chair, the DoJ tried to flip FOB(Friend of Bill) Jim Levin, Chicago strip club owner and former executive for Tru-Link Fence, to testify against Rosen. Levin contributed one million dollars to the Clinton Presidential Library. If you’re keeping score, Friend of Hillary, David Rosen, is on trial with witness testimony from Aaron Tonkin and Friend of Bill, Jim Levin. Did anyone think David Rosen was going to be convicted?

The Clintons are damn good at this game. They know how to roll out the red carpet and when to pull it out from under their guests.

What I want to know is, which charity is going to receive these campaign contributions from Senator Clinton? They aren’t by chance going to end up in the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative?

Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Since when does legality enter the equation in the “it wasn’t me” world of the Clintonistas? Power and influence drive there every move, and twisting the law into a pretzel while laughing at their adversaries is their aphrodisiac.

Damn those legalities, full speed ahead.

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine?

Better question for you: Who hasn’t?

For all their collective whining, today’s hard political Left seem to have forgotten that Vietnam was a Democrat war, escalated on their watch (anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, based on an event that was designed from the outset to be a political tripwire?), and mangled with so-called “rules of engagement” that bordered on lunacy.

Then in 1968, the spiritual ancestors of today’s hard Left came to power and threw the Democratic National Convention into chaos. Their chosen candidate for President had sworn not too many years before that he would uphold segregation “forever”. Yet in their loss, the hard Left, in league with the slightly less Left MSM, swung public support against Vietnam.

Their next President, in 1977, completely forgot that his first, highest duty to the Office was to act in the interests of the American people – which gave us detente with the Soviets (on the basis that we just had to live with it) and destabilized friendly governments because their emerging alternatives “felt” better.

But far and away their worst President took office in 1992.

Not because of his sexual peccadilloes, either (I recall once that LBJ bragged that he had more women than JFK ever did). Rather, because he wantonly disregarded the Office to which he was elected, solely to keep himself in power through a second term, and then to ensure that his wife would have a shot at a high political office once his term ended.

Hillary!care was a distraction, by comparison.

While WJC was apologising for every sin that previous generations could possibly be blamed for, he sold out the security of the US and its citizens to run an office that he didn’t give a damn about, except for the trappings of power that came with it. Among his achievements were:

* Vince Foster’s suicide investigation;
* Travelgate;
* Whitewater;
* Somalia disaster;
* Twin Towers bombing investigation;
* Selling out to China (fundraising and Hughes-Loral);
* TWA 800 investigation;
* Khobar Towers bombing investigation;
* Downsizing the Army from 18 divisions to 10;
* Bosnia debacle;
* Stonewalling on ballistic missile defense;
* Allowing the nation’s nuclear arsenal infrastructure to wither;
* Airport security commission findings implementation;
* Lax security at the highest levels of government; and
* Treating Islamofascism generally as a “law enforcement problem”.

The sad part is, I’m pretty certain I missed things in that list.

Meanwhile Hillary! won’t open up her archives as First Lady until after the 2008 election. Perhaps those archives have gone missing, like the FBI files on top Republican officials that mysteriously ended up in the White House during Bill’s presidency?

But, hey, it’s all “old news”, right?