Hillary campaign refunded $7,000 in donations from Chinatown fundraiser; Update: Cook tells NY Post she was reimbursed for $1,000 donation

posted at 1:33 pm on October 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

This would be the same single fundraiser at which she raked in more than 15 times John Kerry’s total take from the entire neighborhood during 2004. The New York Times reports today that the campaign was so curious about how dishwashers could afford to drop thousand-dollar wads in the collection plate, they decided to do a little spontaneous investigating of their own. And by “investigating” I mean that they sent out form letters asking the donors to give them comfort by stating for the record that the money was theirs.

And even that didn’t work in every case.

The Clinton campaign said that after the Chinatown fund-raiser in April, which raised about $380,000, aides conducted a standard review of the donor list: If donors’ stated professions seemed out of line with their donations — for instance, if a dishwasher gave $1,000 — the campaign sent letters asking them to affirm in writing that the money was their own.

In seven cases, with donations totaling $7,000, questions were raised, and those donors did not respond to requests to confirm their contributions. That money was then returned.

What a champ. Kindly revisit the LA Times’s blockbuster at this point and note that among a random sample of Chinese donors, they couldn’t find any kind of ID paper trail for fully one-third of them. There’s no reason to believe the campaign’s investigating that, of course; all they want to know is whether some of the more facially implausible donors are willing to claim that the money came from their own pockets, whether it actually did or not. Sample quote from yesterday’s piece: “Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.” Another quote, more to the point:

Many of Clinton’s Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

You can’t pressure a guy — like, say, a dishwasher — who literally doesn’t have the money, though. What do you do in that case, I wonder? Maybe Howard Wolfson should ask some of those “neighborhood associations” if they have any ideas.

The saddest thing about all this is that no one has a very strong incentive to do the legwork on researching it. The campaigns don’t want to know if their donors are shady, as we saw in the willful blindness towards Norman Hsu. Hillary’s rivals have an incentive, of course, but there must be fundraising skeletons in Obama’s and Edwards’s closets too, just as there must be plenty on the GOP side. That makes it a game of mutually assured destruction among the oppo research teams and no one wants to play that game. The media doesn’t have a grand incentive either, the LA Times’s laudable example notwithstanding, because investigations like these are resource-intensive while basically amounting to fishing expeditions, with little guarantee of finding any wrongdoing. Plus, once you investigate one campaign, you open yourself up to charges of bias by not investigating them all. The best hope is the FEC, but does the FEC have the time and personnel — and political will, given the inevitable feeble claims of anti-Asian racism that are bubbling up here — to do spot checks like this? I’m asking honestly; I don’t know the answer. And if the answer is yes, why aren’t they doing it?

Update: Exactly but exactly what I was talking about up top:

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.

But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

I’ll bet Hsiao got a letter from the campaign asking her to confirm that she donated $1,000 and I’ll bet she answered that letter, completely honestly, by saying that she had. Which, per the campaign’s very scrupulous “investigation,” makes it a perfectly legitimate donation. When is the Wall Street Journal going to take the baton here and descend on this pool of donors in earnest? They can start by telling us a little more about the Fujian American Cuisine Council. Is that one of those nice “neighborhood associations” that’s been so helpful in drumming up cash for Hillary?

Follow the link and see what else the Post found. Hint: a lot of the same things the LA Times found.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I guess about the only way to clean up this mess is a sort of nuclear option…any and all donations from any source is strictly prohibited.

Then, the gov’t takes the couple of bucks from every taxpayer who checks the box for the presidential campaign fund and divvies it up equally among all candidates one year before the election.

That’s all the money they get to spend on campaigning.

flipflop on October 20, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Nuke her now.

Buzzy on October 20, 2007 at 1:44 PM

I don’t really care how much money she raises….you can put earrings on a hog, but you just can’t hide ugly.

PatrickS on October 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Plus, once you investigate one campaign, you open yourself up to charges of bias by not investigating them all.

To an extent that’s true, and that’s already getting flung around, but really the LAT could nuke that by simply saying “Look, we just don’t have the resources to research everyone, its not an easy or cheap thing to investigate, but its a serious public issue and we think every candidate oughta be looked into, and we encourage others to investigate shady contributions.” It would put pressure on the media to do the research.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Did you see Kirsten Powers on Hannity&Comes last night? She seriouslys said the dishwashers scraped together the thousands and gave it to Hillary out of appreciation for all her effort on their behalf. And that frankly all this looking askance at the amount of money these dishwashers have to give is a bit condescending.

Alex K on October 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM

“Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American,” said Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman.

Wow, that’s quite a strawman. Almost makes me tear up.

Anyway, AP, I doubt it’s the fraud is limited to Asians. That was just the first to be spotted and brings back special memories of incidents with other family members. I’ve seen comments talking about finding lots of students donating lots of $$, etc.

MamaAJ on October 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM

heck even if they investigated do you have any faith they could get it right after all ABC in their post yesterday couldn’t even get the purpose of the charity for the Limbaugh Smear Letter correct.

They characterized it as cops donating to the marines.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM

I watched Kirsten on H&C too. I thought she looked like she wanted to puke while she was saying that crap too.

This is the issue that could take the Pants Suit Ponzi Queen down for good. There’s too much money flowing through too many people so there’s got to be a lot of exposure for those who are buying her Presidency. Now, exactly how do we get the Bush Justice Dept to grow some huevos?

Buzzy on October 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Alex K on October 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Yeah, cuz some poor dishwashers got thousands laying around to give to Hillary, KP…they’re probably getting shaken down for it, having illegals donating under one person, or having a rich person give them the cash to donate.

KP really, really disappoints me when she mindlessly shills for the Clintons.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Due to the time it takes for any sort of official investigation, even in a case of gross outright violation of the law it would not hit the courts until at least 1 year after the elections are already over.

My issue is that with the computer power available today the FEC is turning up more issues than they do.

It took them two months to generate an exception letter to Hillary back after the first quarterly report on donations limit violations.

That is something that should be bounced back to the campaign in less than five minutes after receiving the filing.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Hmmmm. Seems to be a trend here.

oakpack on October 20, 2007 at 2:16 PM

The key thing here is simply to think about the process and forget the emotional context.

All campaigns a experienced fundraiser staff, after all it’s a year round occupation at fed and local levels.

Every one of them have the models built up over the years and they know where the low hanging fruit is for funds and they have software that optimizes there bang for the fundraising buck and sweat equity.

It’s boils down to maneuvering to get the good ones before your opponent does.

Also these models project how much each event will raise. I am sure the chinatown take had to be generating exception reports all over the place.

Part of the reason they sent out the reality check letters to the donors.

But face it , if Hsu had not happened this latest would have been a non story to ever be looked at.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Hillary is an equal opportunity confiscator… whether taking fat cat profits, or minimum wage “donations” solicited from bus boys by the local muscle, she wants it, she needs, and by Soros she’s gonna get it.

T J Green on October 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I Cankles had to give back all the money she got from crooks and commies she’d be broke.

TheSitRep on October 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM

As far as the FEC goes they have always been slow on enforcement and then with only token fines and they have been subject to a number of lawsuits to get them to enforce the laws even years after they were passed. They could use with hiring some good it people and auditors from the IRS to get it right.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Historically the best check and balance has always been the competing candidates.

Each campaign runs the data for everybodys quarterly reports through the mill for dust up and would “leak” suspicious patterns to their press insider. That could be what happened here also.

But really the FEC database is available for download and it doesn’t take rocket science to run all sorts of analysis on the data and compare it to historic trends and even such simple things as bounds checking the amounts.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Also third party groups with a mission used to pick a lot of this stuff up. Ralph Nader was a spoiler for a lot of sneaky funding stuff years ago.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:29 PM

I think I just saw a story where Obama raise 1 million in a one day affair. He also has had some skeleteons

Add to it this other scandel from the liberal “Nation”

Hillary’s Mystery Money Men

William Amos on October 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Forgot to say in the Nation article of course its all Bush’s fault that Hillary is tainted

William Amos on October 20, 2007 at 2:40 PM

They will be seeking some Hsush money, no doubt.

shaken on October 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM

I see a string of attack ads next fall revolving around numerous illegal and shady donations to a particular campaign….

Clark1 on October 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Not that Hillary or one of her press agents, the NYT’s in this case, would spring this story at this time for spinning in any way, shape, or form, but just a couple of questions on aspects the NYT conveniently left out of the story:

– September 2007 is after the April fundraiser, so when, exactly, did they do this “standard review”,

– when did the campaign send out the requests for verification,

– when did the campaign return the money,

– was the contribution deposited and then returned via a campaign check?

– have the checks been cashed, and

– in which filed FEC report can we find these actions recorded?

Oh, I forgot one: Did the address the campaign put on the return envelope have an address and a zip code that were within a 100 miles of each other?

Dusty on October 20, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Dusty

The returns are all reported in Schedule B line 28A reports as part of the quarterly submission packets.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Here is the list of all Clinton returned donations for the October quarterly report.

 

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM

The number of donations is probably lost on many people who don’t do financial analysis.

For example the total number of donations to the Clinton campaign as of the end of this quarter is only a little over 52,000 line items and some of these are separate entries for primary and general campaign usage.

So compare that small number to the voting age population and you will see why it doesn’t take long to look at the data base if you download the whole thing and do all your own independent looks at the data from all sorts of angles like by zipcode, city, state and compare it to historical data.

I have my own issues with some of the trends I am seeing and I know many others must be also.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 3:14 PM

[CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM]

Thanks, CG. I thought they’d be in the receipts section as negatives (where I only found one in the 2nd quarter filing), in the fashion that they are shown name-search engines.

Dusty on October 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM

If Hillary has an Achilles heel, this is it. She’s undoubtedly the most formidable of machine candidates — but the grease that machine uses is kind of alarming.

Eventually, one of the other Democratic candidates will get desperate enough to use this on her. My money is on Edwards.

Well-Armed Lamb on October 20, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Crooked, crooked, crooked.

They shouldn’t be able to talk their way out of this, and we should not let them.

madmonkphotog on October 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Chi-Crimes and Misdemeanors.

RushBaby on October 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Klinton acting like, well, Klinton.

If there’s dirty money to be had, ole Hillary can sniff it out like a you know what can sniff out truffles.

Zorro on October 20, 2007 at 3:31 PM

This is the refunds for July quarterly report of 240 refunds

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Here is the April report which only had 9 refunds.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 3:45 PM

[CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 3:14 PM]

I spend a considerable amount of time accessing the filings but my database/spreadsheet skills and their manipulation is not a forte of mine and I have to slog my way through them.

As it is, I finally got the FEC-295327 Form F3PN to open in my old 123; it was kind of butchered, without headers and dozens of empty columns separating relevant fields. I see know that the I can find them using “refund” in ‘find and replace’, creat a new spreadsheet and see what I can find.

Dusty on October 20, 2007 at 3:53 PM

This is all part of the Incumbancy Protection Act that (spit) McCain (spit) and Fred! pushed through.

pedestrian on October 20, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Here is the slow manual way to convert the report

Highlight just the refund data (don’t use select all)
Then once all is highlighted copy and paste into a word document.

Then cut and paste into a wordpad text format document

Once in text form place the cursor at the beginning of the first name

Follow this key sequence

end delete comma end delete comma end delete comma downarrow delete

That should end up with having each entry on one line.

Then go back and put a comma after each state name.

save it out where you now have it in comma delimited format

Import it into excell or whatever and then clean up from the damage of say blank fields or extra commas that were in the data.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 4:09 PM

As far as the FEC goes they have always been slow on enforcement and then with only token fines…

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM

They can’t afford to be anymore. The blogosphere is onto most of it. If they don’t get a handle on it, heads are going to start rolling.

Connie on October 20, 2007 at 4:17 PM

If you are computer savvy and are running MS Office with Access data base or any other db program like even the free open office suite with mysql here is the page to down load the raw data from.

First download the .txt files that describe the structure of the database files and then download the zip files extract them and import into your database program.

 

After that you can generate reports in whatever methods your db program supports. 

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Make sure you read this pdf file to get a general idea of the conversion process.

 There are gotchas like having to rename files after extraction and such you need to be aware of.
 

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 4:28 PM

[CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 4:28 PM]

What? You want me to read the directions??? LOL

Almost had it. I changed *.FEC to *.DAT and brought it into 123 fine. Found the field I wanted using “refund” in ‘Find and Replace’, copied the field to a new workbook, and deleted the extra columns. Tried a ‘refund date’ column sort and resorted that column only!! One undo and saved. Closed and reopened and it was empty.

I’m in 123 Help now.

Dusty on October 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM

It’s becoming more clear why the Dems are out-raising Pubs this go-round.

VolMagic on October 20, 2007 at 4:46 PM

That is a little deceiving as far as it goes.

There is not a lot of incentive to raise big bucks for the primaries early and deplete all your donors out.

The dems are throwing hundreds of millions of bucks to decide when hillary will be their nominee.

We are still sorting and weeding on the right.

One the matchup is settled then the money will come in for the general election as necessary.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM

The stretched election cycle has put things into slow motion compared to prior times. May allow better looks at those involved but also each time they speak it’s just one more chance to make a boo boo.

All the date shuffle and hopscotch is turning a lot of people off and for those involved it amounts to having to redo your whole strategy every time something shifts.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Even the debates have contributed almost nothing to the process.

Too many candidates in a short debate thus only PR soundbite type answers with no depth.

To many are just softball questions that will not gain any insights and any opinions as to how your choice did is tuned more by your preference rather than hard analysis .

Not enough weeding out early in the process of the no way Jose’s just taking up space.

CommentGuy on October 20, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Follow the money back to its source and yu will find that it all comes from the Chinese communist government / PLA. They will own Hillary just like they owned Billary before.

No doubt that if (God Forfend!) Hillary gets the keys to the Whitehouse again she will give all of the new, secret technology that has been developed since they last sold us out 7 years ago…. assuming that with her powers as Senator she hasn’t been acquiring and giving them the secrets all along.

I wonder though, if George Soros is at all upset about her answering to two masters…. (Well, three masters if you count Satan.)

The two things that really gripe me about all these illegal campaign donations most is that Bush’s Justice Department (or the FEC) won’t enforce the laws against any of the Democrats. And when the criminals running for office do get caught with dirty money, they just give it back (or pretend to give it back) to the criminals that gave it to them in the first place.

When the dirty money is found it should be forfeited by both conspirators and either go into the federal treasury general fund or be divided equally among the opposition candidates running for the same office.

LegendHasIt on October 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Ha, that typo I made above just struck me as funny:
yu should be YOU…
But then there are a lot of people named Yu in in China and in Chinatown… So, if the Hsu fits, I guess it works out either way.

LegendHasIt on October 20, 2007 at 5:43 PM

This gives a whole new meaning to the expression “Chinese Laundry.”

/rolling eyes

leepro on October 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Of course, with their hands apparently caught in the cookie jar, in the midst of being “SHOCKED” (at being caught more likely than about the shady money tricks), the campaign knee jerks with an old liberal stand-by – distraction…the RACE card. From the Post article in the update…

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.
“We do not ethnically profile donors,” growled Howard Wolfson. “Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American.”

Deflect, distract, and deny….as fundamental to the big D playbook as the Wishbone once was to College Footbal.

Wind Rider on October 20, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Expecting an impartial investigation of Hillary’s illegal campaign contributions by the New York Times is about the same as expecting OJ to find the REAL killer of his ex-wife. It ain’t gonna’ happen.

Who the hell is resposible for checking these things to make sure everything is done legally? Why isn’t this being done? I already know the answer to my question and so do you. These Clintons have been and always will break the laws and never have to pay for it. There is no justice in this country when some poor slob goes to jail for smoking a joint and these two have a 20 or 30 year record of lying, cheating and stealing and have not served a day. How do they get away with it? Smething Must be done about these two, and now, to see that justice is served.

OBX Pete on October 20, 2007 at 7:34 PM

i can just see a whole bunch of guys getting large checks from hillarys’ campaign because they picked their names out of a phone book, wondering just where the hell this money came from and what’s going on.

C

pk on October 20, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Damn, $2,100 is a lot of money to throw away, considering it isn’t tax deductable anymore. No dishwasher is going to be grateful enough to send 2-3 months net pay to Shillary.

Do the Clintons own any 3Com stock, btw?

reaganaut on October 20, 2007 at 8:17 PM

There may not be a direct link to Clinton that will ever be proven, but it is abundantly clear that the Chinese connection has something to gain from a Hillary presidency. Considering “What’s a dollar?” blew the chance at unveiling that connection when he was in charge of investigating Billy Jeff, those involved certainly have been emboldened and are going to try and buy Hillary’s attention if she becomes president.

Since Fred’s focus is always on what’s best for him, as was evident when he helped terrorists avoid justice for an extra 11 years, is it likely that Fred gave advice to these Chinese campaign finance cheaters instead of investigating them? Did he help push through CFR in order to help them continue to cheat the system? What changes in McCain/Feingold were made that might be helping Hillary get away with this? Is it more likely to be the case since we already know that Fred “What’s a dollar?” Thompson funneled campaign funds to his son that were supposed to help him get elected?

Inquiring minds want to know!

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 9:34 PM

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Geez, your hatred for Fred Thompson knows no bounds. You are too transparent.

Neocon Peg on October 20, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Deflect, distract, and deny….as fundamental to the big D playbook as the Wishbone once was to College Football.

Wind Rider on October 20, 2007 at 6:37 PM

You’ve hit the nail on the head, my friend.

Neocon Peg on October 20, 2007 at 9:42 PM

I have noticed on many of her recent videos that she appears “thickened” around the middle. Do you think she is with child?

bloggless on October 20, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Cold Eyes That

Kini on October 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Probably not with child, but more likely a few extra lbs. from all of the Chinese buffets she’s apparently been visiting. How convenient that she can visit both the restaurants, and the laundry.

striper1 on October 20, 2007 at 11:59 PM

We do not ethnically profile donors,” growled Howard Wolfson. “Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American.”

Apparently Hillary is a equal opportunist.

Couple this with what Feinstein did with her husbands Chinese connections and the bids that he “won”, and you are looking at some serious money.
And I like how Wolfson suggests that the donors are “Asian-Americans” only…as if they are not what they really are…Chinese with American business interests.

right2bright on October 21, 2007 at 12:24 AM

In seven cases, with donations totaling $7,000, questions were raised, and those donors did not respond to requests to confirm their contributions. That money was then returned.

So if they didn’t respond to their thorough check of whether they were proper, who did they return them to? I mean, you send a letter out and it’s returned, where do you send the refund?

91Veteran on October 21, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Hillary’s rivals have an incentive, of course, but there must be fundraising skeletons in Obama’s and Edwards’s closets too, just as there must be plenty on the GOP side.

Yeah, remember what happened when more and more information became known about Hsu? There were quite a few others caught taking cash from him, so I bet her rivals would hesitate a bit before saying anything.

91Veteran on October 21, 2007 at 12:53 AM

This is the issue that could take the Pants Suit Ponzi Queen down for good.
Buzzy on October 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM

After so much Chinese money poured into their campaigns in the 90′s and nothing happening, providing missile guidance technology to the Chinese for donations and nothing happening, Algore turning the INS into a defeatocrat voter registration project for the 96 election and nothing happening, and the Seahag on VIDEO proving she was aware of Peter Paul and those illegal donations, there won’t be a damn thing happening to her.

Yeah the FCC might get around to levying a fine of a few thousand…after about 3 years of investigations, but some lower level flunky will take the hit. Nothing would matter by then, particularly if she manages to slither into the WH.

91Veteran on October 21, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Do you think she is with child?

bloggless on October 20, 2007 at 10:51 PM

I think she’s with Dunkin Donuts.

91Veteran on October 21, 2007 at 1:25 AM

…or is that an eggroll?

91Veteran on October 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

The Falling Hillary Screensaver

Connie on October 21, 2007 at 1:41 AM

I’ll bet Hsiao got a letter from the campaign asking her to confirm that she donated $1,000 and I’ll bet she answered that letter, completely honestly, by saying that she had. Which, per the campaign’s very scrupulous “investigation,” makes it a perfectly legitimate donation. When is the Wall Street Journal going to take the baton here and descend on this pool of donors in earnest? They can start by telling us a little more about the Fujian American Cuisine Council. Is that one of those nice “neighborhood associations” that’s been so helpful in drumming up cash for Hillary?

I can’t wait to hear KP come out in defense of the “dishwashers” again… anything to protect the queen, eh Kirsten!?

On the Big Story (guest hosted by Bill Hemmer) yesterday, she flipped out over the obvious questions, raising her voice to insist:

“Dishwashers are people too, Bill!”

Ignoring the point that minimum wage dishwashers can’t possibly afford the donations they supposedly made.

Kirsten added:

“They are allowed to give money, it doesn’t matter how much they make”.

Lol, isn’t she cute?

Then she really thought she threw a knockout punch when in response to the fact that many of these people don’t seem to exist she said:

“Go to my apartment right now and try to find me. That doesn’t mean I’m nefarious”.

Later on H&C she continued to her crusade to defend the good name of dishwashers, proclaiming them to be doing “honorable” jobs.

Now look, no one is attacking their jobs (just like we weren’t attacking that kid of SCHIP)… We’re questioning some shady activity. They can be dishwashers, no one cares. But when that’s normally not even enough to live on, it looks odd when they’re writing fat checks to Hillary’s campaign, no? Especially on the heels of Hsu! These people are all acting like the Hsu thing never happened. I also heard Roginsky debating this somewhere saying that the Clinton campaign has the best vetting process… really? Is that what the (still unfolding) Hsu scandal taught us? WTF is wrong with these people?

Anyway, KP’s comment that the dishwashers are doing “honorable” jobs was one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard! I’m not saying they’re “dishonorable”, but is “honorable” really the correct adjective to use? I worked at McDonald’s when I was 16 (as did quite a few people in town, it was one of the only options until you had your own car), but I never considered my job to be “honorable”.

Further, isn’t it funny that it’s a struggle to get a Dem to speak about the military with this type of language (unless they’re trying to defend their own patriotism after having said something questionable), but they’re trigger happy with calling dishwasher’s “honorable”? Lol, classic!

BTW, why is KP so quick to defend Hillary? I know, it’s her hero or whatever, but isn’t KP pro-life? Why is she so desperate to defend the Queen of Abortion? For the record, she’s against the Iraq war, but isn’t concerned about 1.3 million Americans killed by abortion every year, despite claiming to be pro-life?

RightWinged on October 21, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Expecting an impartial investigation of Hillary’s illegal campaign contributions by the New York Times is about the same as expecting OJ to find the REAL killer of his ex-wife. It ain’t gonna’ happen.

Brilliant and correct.

This makes me sick. Not just that it happened, but that, like Hsu, Her Highness is going to get a complete pass on this from the conventional media who will dig no deeper than what’s already out there and, if so, gloss over it in terms that deflect any wrongdoing on Her Worshipfulness’s part. We need to start showing up at her rallies like 9/11 Truthers do at, um, everybody’s with signs that say things like, “I washed dishes for a Chinese restaurant and Hillary got my pay,” or something to that effect.

This is preposterous.

Captain Scarlet on October 21, 2007 at 5:41 AM

flipflop on October 20, 2007 at 1:44 PM

I realize this is a long time after the original comment, and I haven’t taken the time to read all that followed, but this idea of federal financing of campaigns has been discredited for a looooong time. The solution is also well-known, but anathema to the Dems – full and instant disclosure of all contributions on the internet. If John Shoe wants to give $45k to Candidate Socks, fine. But the world will know all about it right away, and if Shoe is a lowlife of some sort, the word will get out.

Longhorn Six on October 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM