I find it so interesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is attempting to cast herself as the "change" candidate in the race.  She and her supporters tout her as the strongest Democratic candidate, and cite her dominance in fundraising, endorsements, and campaign organization as evidence of that claim.

But the nearly 60% of Democratic voters who support other Democratic candidates for president have a different concern.  Our fear is that Hillary Clinton is polarizing and divisive, and that her presence at the top of our ticket will cause incumbents and challengers in swing states to run away from her rather than run with her.  This claim is supported by a recent poll commissioned by a Latino interest group and conducted by former Clinton pollster Celinda Lake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201024_ pf.html A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances.  Giuliani takes 49 percent to Clinton's 39 percent.

reposted by permission of diarist, Geekesque, posted @ daily kos

Two stories running today discuss the outstanding success Hillary Clinton has had raising money this quarter.  This should surprise, well, no sentient being.  Clinton has been dominating the polls, the media coverage, and the endorsement circuit.  She is the candidate of the establishment, and the establishment never lacks for funds.

However, another story threatens to cast a cloud on this silver lining--the ongoing saga of Norman Hsu, Ponzi schemer and Hillraiser.

Indeed, the question may become whether the victory Clinton has achieved in fundraising may be a Pyrrhic one.

Well, the other shoe has dropped in the Norman Hsu case according to the AP this morning:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Federal prosecutors unsealed a criminal complaint Thursday charging Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu with breaking campaign finance laws and creating a "massive" Ponzi scheme.

The complaint says Hsu - who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and others - violated campaign finance laws by making contributions to candidates in other people's names and perpetrated a Ponzi scheme to defraud victims across the United States of more than $60 million.

Pat Milton - AP Sep 20, 07 2:33 PM EDT

In spite of the prompt response of the Clinton campaign to return the $860k of donations bundled by Hsu it would seem that there is little hope of the monies being re-contributed by the original donors if a substantial portion of these monies are found to have been made through straw donors as is alleged in these charges.  There is no suggestion of culpability on the part of the campaign but it cannot be welcome news given the significant amount, approximately 2%, of the total funds raised for her campaign.

The money was apparently obtained through a scheme which defrauded investors of up to $60M for non-existent deals to provide bridging finance for the manufacture of designer label fashion clothing in China.  Apparently these monies were then used to make contributions to Democratic candidates, primarily Clinton but also including Obama, Kennedy and others in the Democratic party.  There was also at least one contribution to a Republican campaign as well.  Which of these contributions violated Federal law by being made illegally through other people's identities is not clear.  It may turn out that campaigns which donated these contributions to charity when the original fraud allegations were revealed should have held them in escrow pending this investigation and potentially returned to the defrauded investors.

Norman Hsu's motives are difficult to discern, from all accounts he represents no special interest and sought only to be photographed with the candidates and included in the social milieu surrounding the fund-raising activities themselves.

This will certainly insure a regime of closer scrutiny on bundler contributions by all campaigns with commensurate administrative overheads, but may prove too late to contain the damage to public confidence caused by this incident.  I can think of no stronger argument for a return to public campaign finance and expect this issue to become a topic for discussion in the campaign itself.  I would be disappointed if it doesn't.

All because of disgraced democratic (if you call him that) fundraiser, Norman Hsu.  

Why return almost a million dollars in cash?  What is really up?

Confronted with new evidence that it had ignored warnings about fundraiser Norman Hsu, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign abruptly announced late today that it was returning $850,000 from 260 donors associated with Hsu.

The announcement was made five minutes after the Los Angeles Times asked Clinton officials to respond to mid-June campaign e-mails the newspaper obtained that dismissed concerns about Hsu and his business practices.

"I can tell you with 100 [sic] certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," wrote Samantha Wolf, who had the title West Coast finance director for the campaign. She has since left the campaign. "He is COMPLETELY legit." She wrote the e-mail in June to a party official who was asking questions about Hsu and his reputation in the financial world.