Hillary Prepares for 2012

Hillary Clinton apparently is not ready to go quietly into the night. On the contrary, it appears that she is already thinking about 2012. According to a story in the New York Observer online edition, Clinton is asking donors to her 2008 Presidential run to allow her to roll their contributions over into her 2012 Senatorial election fund. According to the Observer,

Hillary Clinton's campaign is sending out letters to donors asking permission to roll a $2,300 contribution to Clinton's 2008 general election coffers to her 2012 senate election fund instead of offering a refund.

Pardon me for being slightly suspicious, but how many of us actually believe that Clinton is really saving up merely for her 2012 Senatorial election? I may be incorrect, but it is much more likely that Hillary is stockpiling for another run at the Presidency. If Obama wins, of course, she will not be able to run in 2012, but if John McCain should manage to win- not an impossibility, by any means- then Hillary will almost certainly run for the PResidency again in 2012. Of course, if Obama loses this time around, it is almost certain that he too will run again in 2012, and if both run again, they will in all probability be facing another bitter grudge match, as both are well-funded and extremely ambitious. So Hillary will need every dollar she can squeeze out of her donors, since she is likely to be the underdog in a rematch with Obama.

However, unfortunately for Hillary, not all of her donors are willing to allow her to hang on to their money until 2012. As the Observer reports of its anonymous source,

This donor, at least, had no intention of signing. "Of course I'm going to get my money back," the donor told me.

So it may be difficult for Hillary to hang on to her cash. And once she loses her war-chest, she will be even more an underdog. Her campaign this time around was not well-run, and she demonstrated many times the political weaknesses that I for one suspected might doom her. She is a very weak candidate, without much real experience (other than being married to a President) and a well-documented habit of mendacity. If Hillary does run again in 2012, she will face an uphill battle, as she iwll no longer be the Establishment candidate.

My own feeling is that Hillary's chances of becoming President probably are gone. 2008 was practically tailor-made for her, and all the signs seem to indicate that this is probably going to be a Democratic year, despite the Democratic Congress' bungling. However, she not even able to grasp the nomination from Barack Obama. And if Obama wins in 2008, she cannot run again until 2016, and she is no longer very young. And unlike Ronald Reagan and John McCain, Hillary has neither a executive experience nor a reputation for bipartisanship. But most of all, she lacks Reagan's communication skills. So her age will be a much bigger stumbling-block than it was for Reagan and remains for McCain. I guess the Clintons may indeed be pinning their hopes on Chelsea at this point

Hillary's Asian Donors- Will Media Investigate?

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have a history of fund-raising from shadowy Asian donors. Bill was connected with such donors in a scandal that was never fully investigated due to most of the targets fleeing to their native countries. Now the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Hillary also is gaining money from Asian sources that would seem to merit some investigation. The question is- will the rest of the mainstream media actually follow up and report it? Other than the LA Times and a story in the Washington Times, I have yet to find any mention of this in other media outlets. According to the Times story,

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

This would seem to be an area where the FBI should be investigating if the donors actually gave of their free will, or if their contributions were 'bundled' and they were later illegally reimbursed. The story continues by saying, that at least some donors' existence could not even be confirmed. The Times wrote,

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

If Hillary is gaining illegal contributions that may be coming from foreign sources, or if her campaign is using asssociations to force residents to contribute, then they are breaking the law, and should be investigated and prosecuted. The LA Times admits that it was not able to confirm the existence of some of these listed donors. The question now is, will the media actually spend any effort in investigating these shadowy donors? Based on past experience, I'm not holding my breath. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Hsu Flees: Press Not Interested in Cash Source

Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, whose many large contributions to Democratic coffers, including Hillary Clinton came from an apparently non-existent source, has jumped bail yet again. As reported by the Associated Press,

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.
"Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu.
Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

This raises a number of questions- primarily why anyone would even think that a man who jumped bail once would bee trustworthy of being allowed to post bail a second time. However, the questions that should really be asked are where Hsu got his money, as it appears that he had no real source of income- certainly not enough to finance contributions on the scale that he made. So far it appears that not a single major news source has been interested enough to dig into Hsu's finances, just as they have neglected to report on the fact that most of his donations bear strong signs of beeing fronted through others. His benefitees, including Clinton, are only returning money given directly to their campaigns, but there was far more cash delivered via third parties who do not appear to have the resources to make large contributions, such as the Paw family.

Contrast this with the trweatment that the Press gave John Abramoff, who at least was a registered lobbyist with real sources of income. It would seem that Hsu should merit at least that level of interest. But at this time, nto a single MSM news organization has shown any interest in investigating Hsu's finances, with a few exceptions. In the same AP report that announced Hsu's flight, the reporter wrote merely,

But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates.

The fact that the money is difficult to trace to any source, appears to trouble no journalists on a national scale. is the threat of foreign corruption of the United States election process not tgrouboling to any of these so-called reporters? They still find the troubles of Idaho Senator Larry Craig newsworthy enough to be on the front page. Why is a Democratic fundraiser, with no known source of income, who is wanted for skipping bail on fraud charges and who may be linked to Chinese military money for all we know, not receiving more in-depth scrutiny?

Cross-posted on NewsBusters.