"about what may be a camapign finance scandal"

What may be ...

You don't even feel secure enough yourself to call it a scandel or to say she did something wrong.   You are just floating stuff at this point.

Weak.

That's his response, who could win? Maybe Edwards is hiding something.

Taylor Marsh will hopefully jump on this guy.

What maybe scandels are fun to dish about during campaign season.  No doubt about it, so I understand your post.

If anyone else wants to talk about what may be scandels I will throw out two names:

1.Geoffrey Fieger
2.Rielle Hunter

All in good Friday afternoon fun after all.  Google on!

Geoffrey Fieger broke the law to raise money for Edwards and was indicted.  Who has been indicted in the Clinton camp?

Edwards lives in a glass house and is throwing stones.  That is dumb.

More on Fieger and his Edwards fundraising:

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/ 08/26/edwards-fundraiser-indicted/

If Edwards were smart he would keep the campaign focused on real issues and not baseless attacks.  He hasn't shown he can play attack politics in the big leagues and he may get more than he wished for.

will only make Hillary supporters fight harder. It reminds them of all garbage put out by the right wing during the Clinton years. Whether or not there is merit to this being ever called scandal, and I would say there's definetly not, if Obama and Edwards go after her for this they will only suffer a backlash.

Clintonistas, can your candidate explain this article then by The Nation?

Hillary's Mysterious Money Men

In the Clintons' pursuit of power, there is no such thing as a strange bedfellow. One recently exposed inamorata was Norman Hsu, the mysterious businessman from Hong Kong who brought in $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign before being unmasked as a fugitive. Her campaign dismissed Hsu as someone who'd slipped through the cracks of an otherwise unimpeachable system for vetting donors, and perhaps he was. The same cannot be said for the notorious financier Alan Quasha, whose involvement with Clinton is at least as substantial--and still under wraps.

Political junkies will recall Quasha as the controversial figure who bailed out George W. Bush's failing oil company in 1986, folding Bush into his company, Harken Energy, thus setting him on the path to a lucrative and high-profile position as an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and the presidency. The persistently unprofitable Harken--many of whose board members, connected to powerful foreign interests and the intelligence community, nevertheless profited enormously--faced intense scrutiny in the early 1990s and again during Bush's first term.

and the implication, besides being tied to Bush?

"That Hillary Clinton's campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause," says John Moscow, a former Manhattan prosecutor. In the late 1980s and early '90s he led the investigation of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) global financial empire--a bank whose prominent shareholders included members of the Harken board. "Too many of the same names from earlier troubling circumstances suggests a lack of control over who she is dealing with," says Moscow, "or a policy of dealing with anyone who can pay."

The Nation

Doesn't seem too different from the Corporate Republicans to me.   How we have change in this country?  Looks like status quo, which is totally opposite of progressive action that many of us desire.

Good to see The Nation publishing speculative hit pieces on Democratic candidates. When are they announcing their endorsement of Ralph Nader?

I understand fundraising and money to run campaigns, but this?  This is really low.  Can someone, anyone, explain to me how a dishwasher making minimum wage, afford 2300/4600 donation?  Can anyone?  I find this hard to believe.  And just the way this was done with bogus addresses, phone numbers, etc.  And it does smell like a shakedown.

Clinton need to explain this.  Period.

Now where is Obama?

Since many here are having trouble reading the actual article (I'm guessing based on their comments), here is more of it:

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.
...
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.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. ... Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. ... Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card.

The Edwards Campaign choosing to focus on this will be regarded internally as a Net Negative by Campaigns' End.

Edwards took some movies or videos he paid over 100,000 to have made off his site.  I heard they were supposed to be good.  Why did he pull them?   Is there a story there?

.... will try to "overlook" any possible scandal involving Clinton. I am convinced that the big media likes her, maybe because they think she might continue the occupation. Maybe war sells newspapers. But am am not yet convinced that this is a big-time scandal. It might be merely a smallish blemish. I will have to watch the 'net news closely for more on this one.