Say it ain't so!! Poor Chinatown residents that don't even have trackable addresses being able to raise $380,000 toward Clinton's campaign and actually saying that they were pressured to give money!! Who would have thought!!!!

So what does the L.A. Times story tell us?

1.  There are a lot of Norman Hsu's in the world that are running their money thru poor people in Chinatown.
2.  Clinton receives money from people that do not live in Chinatown, or are not living at all.
3.  I love the way the Times mixes the Clinton name with gangsters and mob bosses, a taste of things to come.
4.  Average family income in the area is $21,000.  I wonder how people could be giving thousands of dollars if they are so poor. 45% of the population is living below the poverty line.  The democrats should have used one of these families instead of the Frosts.
5.  one person went to a Clinton rally, but did not give her $1000, even though this person's name was on the list.  That alone, should have set off red flags that there is a criminal element in the Clinton campaign.
6.  A man makes $500 a week, living in New York City, and yet he can afford to give $1000 to Hillary Clinton.  Very interesting, I wonder how he can live on that?

Once again, the liberal media has shown that when it comes to playing dirty, the Clinton name shines brightly.

I think a lot of democrats are going away in Louisiana after the way they handled the Katrina disaster.  Bad enough Ray Nagin lacked the intelligence and guts to handle a dangerous situation, now the democrats have wasted billions of dollars building things that have nothing to do with the rebuilding of New Orleans.

Amazing how strong arming donors extend to even the poorest and most vunerable with the Clinton campaign.
It's not enough to shake down the wealthy who can afford it but, to shake down the very poor is just amazing.
It's not enough to arm twist the big shots into endorsing but, hang their vunerability over the heads of our most vunerable.
But, for someone who's reputation is not associated with honesty, intregrity or compassion, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
I just wonder how long it will take for my party to wake up and see that the clintons are not something our party needs to relive or their ethical problems and daily soap operas.
And if my party still insists on living in a koolaid haze and nominate Hillary, how long before the people in my party are going to be wishing they listened to the warnings.

Rudy speaks to Value Voters tomorrow. He is the one candidate for the republicans who could cause the religious right to form a THIRD PARTY. Here's what they're saying about him. (From "The Page")

Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, on Giluiani to the Washington Post: “He has done everything to . . . put his finger in our eyes and tell us this constituency does not matter.”

But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, says this about Giuliani’s appearance at the Summit: “He’s dehorned [just] by coming.”

But (another “but”) Ohio conservative leader Phil Burress says the only way he can convert them, “is to stand up and say, ‘I’ve been wrong all these years. I’m now pro-life.’”

But (one last “but”) Bill Bennett says, “He fights for causes dear to the heart of the audience he’s addressing, and he ought to remind them of that.”

Rudy scares his own party more than he scares us democrats...

http://thepage.time.com/

Note to First Read Staff;

The sometimes two plus hour delay in posting our comments here negates the primary purpose of the blog, real-time discussion and debate of the, "red meat" items being presented by your staff. It is frustrating to post an item and not see it appear for hours.
If this blog is for the folks who post on it, your management of the process should be more user-friendly.


Van

No time like the present to send along this little tidbit, since campaign corruption of various sorts and degrees has all but been raised to the power of a positive virtue by those who assure us in so many words that this is some kind of Dirty Campaign To End All Dirty Campaigns, so with your kind indulgence, Mr. Murray ...

SCENE:  A courthouse in Chicago. “Kid” Gleason, regular-guy manager of the 1919 Black Sox and definitely NOT in on The Fix of the World Series that year, is being questioned about his earlier playing career as a pitcher, and has just stated that yes, the pitcher is the  most important link in throwing a ball-game. He is desperately unhappy about The Fix his own guys pulled behind his too-trusting back, and just as unhappy that his testimony will further incriminate starter Eddie Cicotte. He wishes he was anywhere but on that witness stand  --  but he’s Kid Gleason and he is under oath.

PROSECUTOR:  Were there gamblers involved in sports in your day, Mr. Gleason?

GLEASON:  Sure. How you gonna keep ‘em out?

PROSECUTOR:  Were there incidents where games were thrown?

GLEASON:  I heard stories.

PROSECUTOR:  Were you ever approached personally?

GLEASON:  Oh, no ... no, not personally. I ... I, uh, I had, uh, y’know, a reputation for, uh, bein’ the kinda guy who wouldn’t go for somethin’ like that.

PROSECUTOR:  So you  never had any thought of instigating a deal?

GLEASON:   Oh, no ... no ... I never, uh ... I mean, I can see, though, where, uh ... well, maybe if a guy feels like he’s bein’ underpaid and, uh, maybe falls in with the wrong kinda people and they fed him a line ... how he could ... y’know, people are human. But I never, uh ... well, not that I’m a Holy Joe or nothin’ like that, but I just, uh --

PROSECUTOR:  You don’t have to apologize for being honest, Mr. Gleason.

GLEASON:  Yeah ...

--  from John Sayles’ “Eight Men Out”

* * * * * * * * * *

See ya after The Series, y’all ... or not ...

I wonder if the repubs will backstab mccain again with their lies about mccain and his family, no lie or backstabbing tactics are too far for repubs.

Hey Jerry-do you and Rush sleep together?
Your song is as old as his

Interesting piece that hasn't been posted here;

The Power of 'Madam President'

y Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A21

A friend of mine in New York -- a high-powered professional woman -- told me the other day that she thought the country had moved beyond the point where women should want to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she would be the first woman president. "Just vote for the best person," she said, with what sounds like impeccable logic.

But Clinton, according to all the polls, is winning overwhelming support from female voters. And the reason, I think, is that there's a flaw in my friend's logic: Except in some sort of arcane higher-dimensional geometry comprehensible only to mathematicians, you can't get beyond a point that you've never actually reached.
The fact is that we've never had a female president. And for many women across the country -- especially those of the boomer generation who have seen the role of women in American society change so dramatically -- Clinton's election would be a historic milestone and a source of great pride.

That's certainly not the only reason Clinton leads the national polls for the Democratic nomination. She started with universal name recognition and has proceeded to run a smart, largely mistake-free campaign. She is surrounded by the aura of her husband's eight-year administration, and while that may be a mixed blessing if she gets to the general election, it's a huge asset among the Democratic faithful.

But her lead among women over Barack Obama and her other rivals is so huge -- and so much greater than her lead among men -- that it has to have something to do with gender. Which is perfectly understandable.

Obama, of course, would be the first African American president, which would be equally historic. And the predictable notes of caution that must be inserted into any column about Clinton's campaign -- that the polls in Iowa show a close three-way race, that anything can happen in New Hampshire, that Obama can rebound in South Carolina, that Howard Dean was leading in the polls four years ago, that nothing matters until someone, somewhere, actually casts a vote -- are more than cover-your-behind caveats, they're real. There's plenty of time for the whole nature of the Democratic race to change.

But some of the numbers are stunning. A national CNN poll released Wednesday showed that among registered Democrats, 68 percent of African American women said Clinton was their likely choice for the nomination while only 25 percent backed Obama. By contrast, Obama led Clinton -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- among African American men.

The CNN sample of black voters was small, meaning those numbers are not precise. But even taking into account the margin of error, the poll reports an unmistakable tendency that clearly works in Clinton's favor: To the extent that African American voters are taking identity into account as they ponder the presidential race, women are considering not only race but also gender. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign, has called it "the 'sistah' vote."

That advantage among blacks is mirrored among Democratic women overall -- and with a series of "Women Changing America" campaign events during the past week, including a huge fundraiser Wednesday in Washington, Clinton has been making an overt appeal to consolidate this support. Her campaign Web site is full of encomiums from women -- professional women, working-class women, stay-at-home mothers -- who express their pride in the first front-running female presidential candidate. Clinton asks voters to help her shatter " the highest glass ceiling."

At recent campaign appearances, Clinton has told of meeting an elderly woman -- born when women didn't even have the vote -- who came up and said she just wanted to shake the hand of the first female president.

As the old proverb goes, "women hold up half the sky" -- actually, a bit more than half. If Clinton can sustain her advantage among women -- especially among the working-class and middle-class women who could be said to constitute the spine of the Democratic Party -- it's hard to see how Obama, John Edwards or any of the other challengers can gain much ground on her.

Not that they aren't trying. Clinton's rivals are full of promises and proposals that are meant to appeal to female voters -- initiatives on issues such as family leave and health insurance. All the Democratic contenders have records of support for gender equality. All of them, especially Obama and Edwards, are more than capable of projecting themselves as strong-yet-sensitive, modern, caring guys.

But they can't hide the fact that they're guys. And she's not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801702.html


Van

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem

Mitt Romney looking like the pandering politician? Surely you jest!

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

So now we see..Objective beat Obama in $$ and donors it doesn't matter how you do it.  Want to take a bet that there is plenty more where this came from?

The arguement that we didn't know is getting old.

Well Van explain this one away...?

Hillary is going to PRISON, This illegal contributions from Illegals will bring her down, its time for the Democratic Party to investigate with with a special prosecuter. Nancy Pelosi makes major mistake on turkey as Democratic member abandon her, She needs to step back a bit.. the 3 words that the Democrats and the Media do NOT want to hear. VICTORY IN IRAQ

Van

I agree with you on the delay in posting comments.  Seems like certain times of the day are worse than others.  Very frustrating!

I'd love to see how the liberals in here are going to defend Hillary after this one, specially those in new York (I won't mention names).  By defending Hillary, you agree that she needs to be a criminal to be president.  If you vote for Hillary, you are basically giving the OK that crime is a good thing.

Ha!  At what point will H.R. Clinton supporters concede a crooked candidate.

I agree, a GOP that sets up a contrast to Clinton, that's what's needed to win--sorry Rudy.  (Romney or Huckabee).

They are both celebrities, though I will concede better than Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.  Giuliani happened to be mayor of a city during a tragedy, of which he questionably did a good job following 9-11.  Hillary got elected to the Senate after not really being a long-time NY resident and I think it would be impossible to deny that name recognition and other circumstances helped.  I would be excited to know where she would be in this world w/o Bill.

"Note to First Read Staff;

The sometimes two plus hour delay in posting our comments here negates the primary purpose of the blog, real-time discussion and debate of the, "red meat" items being presented by your staff. It is frustrating to post an item and not see it appear for hours. If this blog is for the folks who post on it, your management of the process should be more user-friendly."

Hear, hear.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem
Thanks Dirty Harry (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 9:55 AM)

Now that's something you won't find covered on MSNBC.  Considering all the crap First Read covers I would think this would at least be mentioned.

Not that they aren't trying. Clinton's rivals are full of promises and proposals that are meant to appeal to female voters -- initiatives on issues such as family leave and health insurance. All the Democratic contenders have records of support for gender equality. All of them, especially Obama and Edwards, are more than capable of projecting themselves as strong-yet-sensitive, modern, caring guys.

But they can't hide the fact that they're guys. And she's not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801702.html


Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 9:54 AM)

Van...you logic along with theirs is insulting to women.  It assumes that we we prefer a woman regardless of how corrupt she might be...

When women and hopefully not to late democratic women realize just how corrupt Hillary is, NO, like myself they WON't support her

Van, Dot, CitizenJ, and others:
Unfortunately, the way the system is set up on the blog, Domenico, I, and a couple of others have to approve each comment before it's posted. So, if we're busy at work -- or if it's after hours or on the weekend -- that's the reason for the delay. We appreciate your feedback and we'll try harder to get your comments posted as soon as possible. Thanks for understanding. And thanks for reading us!

Van I see is trying to change the subject...he doesn't want to address the fundraising scam.

As always he goes into the Hillaryis44 library and  pulls out documents.

We want to hear your defense Van, of the topic of the day.  Do you think any of them are attending the Birthday concert?  This woman put the "C" in corrupt.

She would do anything to try and out raise Obama.

The letter that Dingy Harry wrote demanding Rush be silenced is now $2.1 million dollars......

Wish I was a millionaire, i would have bid on it.

The money is going to the Mainre Corp/law enforcement fund and Rush is matching the total bid.....

By the way, how much did Harry Reid donate to this fund last year?  Probably none, he doesn't care about Marines.

I don't see what the big deal is about the Chinatown thing.  The Democrats have been illegally funding campaigns and falsifying voter registrations and absentee ballots for 50 years.  I guess when you falsely, and knowingly, blame the Republicans for fraud they start to believe their own lies.

 Why does  Mcain remain a republican?  The Rewpublicans crapped on him time and time again. Even Bush put his character assasins on him in South Carolina. Wonder who was worse his Republican friends or his viet cong prison guards.?

Frankly, the Value Voters would be dissatisfied with JC himself.

NotALemming:

It could be because of the past Clinton crimes?

For a woman who is talking about a "brand new day"...
we wake up every day to a new Clinton crime finding.

Jerry, how much did you donate to the 'Mainre' Corp law enforcement fund last year?  I'm guessing $0, so by your logic that means you don't care about them either.  Do you let Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly do all of your thinking for you?  That 'Dingy Harry' nickname is the height of clever repartee from you and your ilk.  If you ever once posted anything that wasn't straight from the First Book of Rush, I might gain some respect for you.  Kool-Aid drinkers, extremists and 'true believers' on both sides of the political spectrum that do nothing but spew venom and name-call  are indicative of the level we've sunk to these days.

Both sides are guilty of nefarious conduct when it comes to campaign fund raising.  It's ludicrous that Hillary's being targetted here.  Why not look into the dirty coffers of Guiliani, Romey, and McCain?  And this kind of stuff doesn't have much impact on the general voting public. It's a distraction from a discussion of the real issues facing this country, and how they are going to be solved.  In fact, it's better catagorized in the column of smear politics, or mud-slinging. This will backfire on the rethuglicans.    

rightwing bushie toadies have no credibility on issues of legality and morality since they support a bunch of criminals in the WH and congress who lied us into war, profited from it and then don't have the balls themselves to go fight, just cheerlead

Mark-

"Unfortunately, the way the system is set up on the blog, Domenico, I, and a couple of others have to approve each comment before it's posted."

That said, racist sexist and personal attacks commonly blot the blog despite your lag-time. It doesn't really seem like there is much moderating at all;


"We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others."

If you were taking the time to actually enforce your own rules it might justify your reason.
Even if you were applying stringent standards to what gets through to the blog, it shouldn't take HOURS.

Thank you for your response.


Van

I don't get how Brownback never got religious right support. Isn't he their perfect candidate?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

One thing that really must be admitted by all interested voters - a democratic administration on their worst day could never remotely approach the singular accomplishments of the Bush administration in lying, incompetence, governmental malfeasance and generally corrupt behavior.  

Yes folks, there really is a sliding scale, and these nitwits are so far off the right end that a scale extender had to be created to accomodate their new record.  

So have all the doubts you want about various democratic candidates - but know that if we make it to 2008 without another Bush war, life will improve in all sorts of ways.  Not necessarily to the degree that we might like, but the Bush fiasco will take many years to undo - much like Bill Clinton was forced to do when he resurrected the economy and put the federal budget in the black after monumental mis-handling and overspending by the Reagan administration - essentially Bush's role model.  

Even so, he and his boys have outperformed the previous master of mis-management by a large margin.  Don't be distracted by the neocons and right-wingers....they have no place left to go except to bother more even-minded thinkers - kind of like a swarm of flies bothering the after-school celebration picnic.  Well, schools' almost out and hopefully we all learned a thing or two.  Dump the GOP.      

Where is the proof of dirty money in the GOP race?

If the press can find Hillary's dirty money....
why can't she?

Bill clinton's past will be the defeat of Hillary.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a divorce if she loses.

'...To them, Giuliani (abortion, gay rights), Huckabee (lack of money), McCain (past scuffles with the Religious Right, campaign finance reform), Romney (Mormon faith, evolving position on social issues), and Thompson (scant church attendance, Dobson’s criticism) all seem to have warts...'

You didn't mention the stupidity and the cowardly draft dodging.

Warts, my foot !!
... these bozos have TUMORS !!

Just shows that our system of campaign financing is corrupt.  The idea that money is speech is fatally flawed, but it was enshrined in conservative thought all during the period when they were winning the fundraising contest.  Money is not speech.  In our system money comes closer to being votes, and some people have way more votes than I.  As long as money is speech the people with the most money will find some way to funnel it to the candidates.  Money is not speech, it never has been, and accusations of corruption will be a part of every candidate in every campaign until we set aside that insane concept.

Nuanced:

What does Jimmy Carter have to do with that?

"I guess when you falsely, and knowingly, blame the Republicans for fraud they start to believe their own lies."  NotALemming, ever heard of Jack Abramoff?  There's plenty of dirt on everyone's hands.  Is anyone willing to work together to clean it up?

And this kind of stuff doesn't have much impact on the general voting public. It's a distraction from a discussion of the real issues facing this country, and how they are going to be solved.  In fact, it's better catagorized in the column of smear politics, or mud-slinging. This will backfire on the rethuglicans.    
pat, huntington, ny (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 10:42 AM)



Pat..what color is the sky in your world?

Sierra:

Dan rather tried the draft dodging thing with President Bush.....

Really worked for him didn't it?......

By the way....
what time is the ceremony for the drug center?
what is the name; Drugs for Thugs?

Harry Reid knows Jack Abramoff.......
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.


Bipartisan Spread  Many of the top beneficiaries of the campaign contributions that Jack Abramoff and his team of lobbyists directed from Indian tribes were Democratic legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Campaign Diaries just updates its House rankings -- with full detailed descriptions and ratings of all vulnerable seats. Check it out <a href="http://www.campaigndiaries.com/houserankings">here</a>">http://www.campaigndiaries.com/houserankings">here</a>: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/houserankings

Pat...really I am beginning to lose confidence in you? It is one thing to support a candidate but when you know they are blatently wrong and continue to defend them, that kind of speaks to your character!! It is sad (and pretty scary) if this type of stuff don't have an impact on your VOTE, I mean really.

Support your candidate on substance, your vote affects all of us to some extent, I hope you don't get defensive and lash out about my post, I am simply challenging you to STOP! THINK!!, learn about each candidate, know why you support that candidate, know what issues the candidate has fought vigorously for and against, and know what separates them from their competitors!!
And please don't simply say experience, their is good experience and bad experience. I don't want to know the "quantity" of the time they have spent in Washington/politics, but the "quality" of the time that they have spent there!!

Simple solution - ban all television ads for political candidates. Let them debate as much as they want, let them publish on the internet, but eliminate the huge cash outlays for TV ads from the electoral process.

Harry Reid knows Jack Abramoff....... But not as well as the republicans who were so far up his ass that they were chewing the same piece of gum...


Investigative Reporting | The Washington Post's Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for coverage of the Jack Abramoff scandal. Read their coverage below:
"Former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to cooperate in an investigation into his relationshps with members of Congress. Sources familiar with the federal probe have told The Post that half a dozen lawmakers are under scrutiny, along with Hill aides, former business associates and government officials.

The scandal prompted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) to give up their leadership posts, and on Oct. 13, 2006, Ney pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the scandal. On Jan. 19, 2007, Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison for his role in the scandal. Two of Abramoff's former business partners have pleaded guilty. Three men have been arrested in the slaying of Gus Boulis, who sold Abramoff and partners a fleet of Florida casino ships in the fall of 2000. Another former Abramoff associate, David H. Safavian — most recently the top contracting official in the White House Office of Management and Budget — was convicted for lying about his dealings with Abramoff."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html

Guilt by association vs. IN JAIL.


Van

Dave, NH - the sky is a lovely shade of light blue here in NY [except today, very cloudy, expecting severe thunderstorms...must mean Jerry is arriving at LaGuardia soon.].

I don't think I said anything outragesous.  The fact is that if you walked up to any stranger on the street and asked them what is the most important factor for them in chosing a candidate, I highly doubt that their campaign funding practices will top their criteria list.  BUT I will admit, that if a candidate has engaged in campaign funding that knowingly violates applicable rules regulations and laws, then yes, it should be a matter for discussion and debate against that candidate.  However, it is not the end all be all for candidate selection.

Judging from the past year, Christian Conservatives have picked up a few Warts of their own.

Van: If you dislike this blog so much, go elsewhere. We all can do without your page long entries and paste. We all can read newspapers. We dont need a link to the L.A. Times or the NYT to help you support liberal views. Half of the she-i-t you post is BS anyways. A typical NY liberal that thinks he is smarter than the rest of us.....BTW..you have the audacity to speak of personal attacks...man you guys attack Bush personally everyday so dont come in here frontin' like you are so morally correct. If you can disrespect the leader of our country then you can be disrespected too. If you cant handle that, then step.

Dingy Jerry is on a  roll today! If you are stupid enough to think that only the Democrats are criminals, then you are right where you should be in your daily worship of George Bush and his thugs. Neither party gives a damn about you Dingy jerry, even though you want to believe the Republicans are in your corner. Guess its easier than thinking!

Pat:

High of 90 today not a cloud in sight.......


I would say your defense of Hillary is going to be a long day (and weekend).  Now everyone is going back those FEC files with a fine tooth comb and lots of reporters looking and looking hard.

Steve Turner:Christian Conservatives have picked up a few Warts of their own.......

I owuld say the Clintonites have walked into a room full of rat traps and set them off....

The only member of the GOP that could honestly beat Hillary is Ron Paul.  What does Guliani offer that is significantly different that Hillary?  He's pro war, gun control, and isn't going to bring anything significantly different.  On the major issues (the war, debt, personal liberty, etc) none of the annointed front runners honestly stand a chance due to this fact and the fact that GWB has managed to leave the people a very sour taste of the Republican Party.  Ron Paul is the only one who has a shot at changing that. His campaign is doing wonders right now, and he's raising money too.  It's time for people to start recognizing this, as he represents the only legitimate alternative to the current front runners.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):