Posted on 09/11/2007 9:29:43 PM PDT by neverdem
Of all the possible vulnerabilities facing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton has long believed that the one of the biggest was money, friends and advisers say. Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged.
As a result, Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money, advisers said. Also to be avoided, the senator said, were fund-raising tactics that might conjure up the Clinton White House coffees and the ties to relatively unknown donors offering large sums, like the Asian businessmen who sent checks to the Democratic National Committee.
Yet nine months into her campaign, Mrs. Clinton is grappling with exactly the situation she feared — giving up nearly $900,000 that had been donated or raised by Norman Hsu, a one-time fugitive and one of her top fund-raisers, whose actions raise serious questions about how well the campaign vetted its donors. As a result, Mrs. Clinton now finds herself linked to a convicted criminal who brought in tens of thousands of dollars from potentially tainted sources.
The Hsu case has revived ugly memories for voters about the Democratic fund-raising scandals when Bill Clinton was president, the senator’s campaign advisers acknowledge, a time...
--snip--
The campaign is refunding $850,000 to these donors, viewing the money as tainted. Yet the campaign is also risking another public relations mess by saying that it would take back the money if it clearly came from the donor’s bank account, not from Mr. Hsu or another source. The risk is that Mrs. Clinton will appear to want more cash no matter whether it was once colored by a disgraced donor...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No. Gee. Ya think...? ;)
Pump this story. Pump it every day, put it up on the big screen in Times Square, it’s still squat all.
It won’t stick in the minds of voters and in fact, the more her opponents harp on it, it will just come across as vindictive, not matter how honestly justified it is.
She may not release the names to the public, but the FBI will get the names.
APPEAR???
Right, a complete lie coming from her camp. She just wanted $$$$’s...felt she could skate like in the 90’s...on illegal campaign contributions...nothing new here...just typical criminal activity with the clintoons’... CROOKS...
Aren't the names of donors of more than $50 a matter of public record?
Exactly!!!
No one really cares about this because all politicians are viewed with suspect. If you’re a Clinton, you are especially sheltered from repercussion because as a Clinton, “you are special”.
“make her appear greedy or ethically challenged”
Yeah, right.
Why would anyone think that?
I'll believe it when I see the both sides of the cancelled checks
Poor misunderstood Hillary.
This “article” is yet another “In kind” donation by the owners and managers of the New York Times to benefit partisan political organizations and members of the Democrat Party.
Don't let us get caught?
IT WON'T MATTER. IT SHOULD, BUT IT WON'T.
She knows the fall-out. Al Gore will be the benefactor. She’s not giving the money back to Hsu that’s for sure.
I just heard her campaign was warned about Hsu during the summer from Cali dems...
it was blown off...
The article is pure BS...
More framing Clinton as a “victim” BS.
Hillary will not be president. But, the alternatives don’t look to hot either.
This is a transparent attempt by the New York Slimes to minimize the impact, by presenting Hillary as the victim of a nasty little Chinese crook....
Hillary and Bill can NEVER rid themselves of Chinese money from inappropriate sources for inappropriate reasons.
It has been the SOP since Arkansas days.
Bill has already sold the Chinese our ICBM targeting technology...
One has to wonder what Hillary is prepared to give them in her quest for personal power...
These folks are evil....plain and simply evil.
So we should elect as leader and Commander in Chief a person (a) who cannot communicate effectively with her aides and subordinates, (b) who does not manage or supervise well enough to see her directives are carried out, and (c) who does not hold accountable those who SNAFU’ed up by not following clear and vitally important directions?
Is Craig Livingstone still alive? Can he take the fall for this latest SNAFU?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.