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?
20 November 2007 at 0 03
As much as I’d like to see a woman president, I don’t trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.
20 November 2007 at 8 28
I agree; I don’t trust the woman, either. But as far as the “woman president” thing goes, I think a big problem we all have in the politics in this country is we’re a balkanized nation of hyphenated Americans. African-American, Asian-American, Gay-American, Muslim-American. What happened to plain-jane, good ol’ fashioned Americans?
Focusing on the demographics takes away from the debate, and it takes away from the issues. I imagine there are a lot of people supporting Hillary because she could be the first woman president. Who cares if she has any character? Who cares what her record is? Who cares where she’ll take us as a country? We could put the First Woman President in office!
Or Obama could be the First Black President…
Or Kucinich could be the First Hobbit President…
What I’d really like to see, in an ideal world, is some double-blind process, like some college admissions or job applications. Each of the cadidates fills out a form plainly statting their stances on a given range of issues, from which all identifying information is removed — name, party affiliation, state of residence, age, dates of service, etc. — and then is serialized: Candidate 1, Candidate 2, and so on. This gets mailed to each registered voter, and that — not insta-records or rhetoric — is what we have with which to make our choice. But that would never happen.
So, if you’re undecided, do this: google Ron Paul. Then look at his website. Compare.
Then do the same thing with the other candidates you’re interested in. See whose record matches their rhetoric. Then make your choice.
20 November 2007 at 9 26
And, as if in answer to the above, there’s this.
Sorta what I’ve been thinking all along.
20 November 2007 at 11 30
It has been my opinion that if this country isn’t ready for a woman anchor on the Evening News, I don’t think we’re ready for a woman President. When Katie Couric is at the top of her class, I think that will prove that we’ve evolved enough to tolerate hot flashes and girdles in the Oval Office.