Posted on 09/13/2007 11:35:20 AM PDT by jdm
John Edwards isn’t exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing Hillary Clinton, or bringing up the Clintons’ past scandals – recall his “the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent” speech. In fact, that speech came on the 23rd of August, just a few days before the whole Norman Hsu mess exploded on the nation’s front pages.
Yet John Edwards hasn’t yet commented on the Norman Hsu matter.
There’s no mention of Hsu on his web site. (A few blog posters have mentioned it on his site, but nothing from the campaign itself.)
A voice in the Edwards camp did express frustration at Hillary’s now-we’re-returning-it-now-we-aren’t stance: “I guess it depends on what the definition of ‘refund’ is.”
That was a reference to this detail in coverage of Hillary’s handling the funds, “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.”
“Here’s what I find stunning,” says the voice in the Edwards camp. “The first day they decided to give back the $850,000, they took this holier-than-thou approach. But now we hear they’re building a system for bringing back that money… When you get tainted money, usually you give it to charity. This is a disgusting, craven strategy. They want the headlines that they’re doing good, and reporters are like putty in their hands, and then Terry McAuliffe’s going to ask for the money back. It’s so Clintonian, it’s what drives Democrats nuts, and it really gets to what Edwards said in that speech – that the problem with political nostalgia is that you only remember what you liked – not what you didn’t like… If you want the parsing of language, we’re not your camp.”
John Edwards “hasn’t received a dime from Norman Hsu,” I’m told. It’s a golden opportunity to slam Hillary. So why the silence from the candidate himself?
The Edwards camp has stated they're now doing criminal background checks on their donors. I'm thinking out loud here, but I wonder if the Edwards camp wants to complete the check on their own donors, and once they're given a clean bill of donor health, so to speak, they'll open fire on Hillary over Hsu.
“a willing suspension of disbelief.”
I can’t quite get a mental image of President Edwards, or him in the White House, but I do like the giant killer role for them.
He probably won’t say much..........hoping for Vice-President position.
If you would like to send Hillary!!(tm) a Donation:
Press ONE for Cantonese
2) Mandarin
3) Manchu
4) Jin
5) Min
6) Wu Tang Clan
7) Wang Chung
8) General Tso
9) Espanol
Hillary won’t give a pennny of it back. Who would dare check on her?
Cat Fight!! May the best girl win.
We can hear Hill saying, “I didn’t have sex with thos H$U returns!”
Whaddaya call a Chinese Donator’s Coffin?
A HSU BOX!
to win the Rat nomination! But even the Dems are not that stupid... 
are they?
Well... 
they did run Kerry in 2004.
Check my tagline.
Should we offer our services for a Hsuicide Watch for H$U?
The source of the quote is an anonymous person at the Edwards camp? Pretty wordy for an anonymous source!
Then I go to the article linked and that quote is not there. What’s up with that? Did they erase it or is the link wrong?
Ree-cycled for ree-funding.
“Here’s what I find stunning,” says the voice in the Edwards camp. “The first day they decided to give back the $850,000, they took this holier-than-thou approach. But now we hear they’re building a system for bringing back that money… When you get tainted money, usually you give it to charity. This is a disgusting, craven strategy. They want the headlines that they’re doing good, and reporters are like putty in their hands, and then Terry McAuliffe’s going to ask for the money back. It’s so Clintonian, it’s what drives Democrats nuts, and it really gets to what Edwards said in that speech – that the problem with political nostalgia is that you only remember what you liked – not what you didn’t like… If you want the parsing of language, we’re not your camp.”I don't think the author of this NRO piece is saying the above paragraph was posted at johnedwards.com; however, I thought that at first too. I don't think it appeared on Edwards' blog but was then deleted. Who knows who Geraghty was talking to in the Edwards' camp. It's hard to tell.
Yes, that’s it. It’d be great to have anyone from the Edwards camp openly call Clinton “disgusting” and “craven.” So I went to the link hoping to get a hint who might have said it, and the whole thing was gone. Waaah! :(
Any squabbling among the Dems will help keep this story in the public eye. By himself Norman Hsu is not a very interesting person, but if he causes a Clinton-Edwards fight he could really sparkle, and that’s good for us.
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.