One of the few things Hillary or Giuliani have said with which I can agree is “America can’t afford” Hill’s ideas. My lovely bride, one of Clinton pollster Mark Penn’s infamously touted potential “24%” women, recently vented (candidly) on Hillary:
What is she thinking?! He [Bill] is a lying, philandering SOB! What difference does it make if he knows where to buy flowers or jewelry?! Or, more believably, if one of his assistants knows where to buy them? Who cares?! Who would vote for her?
I hate to use such anecdotal evidence, but it seems the Clinton campaign may not have its thumb on the pulse of female Americans. (Vote for her just because she’s a woman? As if her politics has nothing to do with anything?) But it kinda relates to character, which is the point of the following.
Now, nearly a decade after her husband sold US ballistic missile technology to Red China for campaign money, Hillary seems to be lobbying for (more) money from Chinese nationals:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown [in New York City], but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.
The story then documents several instances of multiple large donations and reimbursed donors, or “straw donations” prohibited by law.
In addition, yesterday’s search by The Post also turned up several $1,000 donations from Chinatown that were made by cooks, dishwashers, a cashier and a college student. The Findings closely match a report yesterday by the Los Angeles Times that found a huge number of Chinatown donations from donors listing bogus addresses or in amounts unlikely, given the donor’s occupation.
The Times examined 150 donors, one-third of whose addresses could not be found. [Listed addresses turned out to be an STD clinic and a knock-off watch shop, for example] As with the Post search, most of the donors are not registered to vote.
In April, for instance, the Clinton campaign raised $380,000 from a single fund-raiser in Chinatown, the Times said. By comparison, Sen. John Kerry raised $24,000 in Chinatown during his entire campaign…
[New York Post, 20 October 2007]
Identity politicians raced to fill the gap with implications (stopping short of actual accusations) of race-baiting and xenophobia, along with a healthy dose of “mind yer own business!
In the wake of the Norman Hsu debacle, you’d think Billary would want to distance herself from any appearance of impropriety. Nope. She’s bulletproof (unlike Clinton whistleblowers):
“We do not ethnically profile donors,” growled [Clinton campaign communications director] Howard Wolfson. “Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American.”
Apparently, this “no profiling” policy includes screening for the required minimum residency status required of campaign contributors by law, as at least one donor interviewed in the LA Times story admitted to not being a legal resident.
But my concern here is this: since all the pundits claim the natural, or at least obvious, choice for Dems is Hillary, do we really need another president who’s been bought and paid for by foreign interests?
