The Giuliani campaign takes a nice shot at Hillary.

1:50 video

Norman Hsu, a bankrupt Hong Kong business, seems to have come to America and set up a shell corporation solely for the purpose of funneling large sums of money to democrat candidates, particularly Hillary.

New York Times story.

Gosh! Who do you suppose was supplying Mr. Hsu’s corporation with cash? Remember the Johnny Chung campaign contributions of the 1990s?

Appendix B (Footnote 1 – page 87) of the Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association: Regarding Monica Lewinsky and Others describes alleged attempts by persons unknown to intimidate Kathleen Willey from testifying against President William Jefferson Clinton in the Paula Jones case.

Willey also alleged that in the period immediately preceding her January 1998 Jones deposition, her cat disappeared, her tires were punctured, and a male jogger whom she did not recognize approached her at her rural home, called her by her name, and asked about her tires, cat (which he named), children (whom he named), attorney, and her attorney’s children (whom he also named), saying “I hope you’re getting the message” or “You’re just not getting the message, are you?” Willey 3/6/98 Int. at 18; Willey 3/10/98 GJ at 123–27. At her Jones deposition, however, Willey testified no one had tried to discourage her from testifying. Willey 1/11/98 Depo. at 86–87.

Willey told the grand jury that even though she was “terrified for my safety” because of these incidents, “I did give consideration to maybe not—maybe not being very truthful in [her Jones v. Clinton] deposition because I thought that my—that people close to me were in jeopardy.”

WorldNetDaily reports today:

Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she was the target of an unusual house burglary over the weekend that nabbed a manuscript for her upcoming book, which promises explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Willey told WND little else was taken from her rural Virginia home as she slept alone upstairs – electronics and jewelry were left behind – and she believes the Clintons were behind it.

The break-in, she said, reminded her of the widely reported incident 10 years ago in which she claimed she was threatened near the same Richmond-area home by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The theft of the manuscript early Saturday morning was suspicious, she told WND, coming only days after the first mainstream media mention of her upcoming book, which is expected to include accusations of campaign finance violations and new revelations about harassment and threats by the Clintons and their associates.

“Here we go again; it’s the same thing that happened before,” Willey told WND. “They want you to know they were there. And they got what they wanted. They pretty much managed to terrorize me again. It scared me to death. It’s an awful feeling to know you’re sound asleep upstairs and someone is downstairs.”

The book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton” by World Ahead Publishing, WND Books’ partner, is due for release in November. Willey said the stolen manuscript was not the book’s final copy.

Among its revelations is Willey’s identification of the person who threatened her just prior to her testimony against President Clinton – a man who turned out to be linked to the Clintons.

Willey believes the break-in and theft were prompted by teasers of the book’s contents published last week in U.S. News and World Report’s “Washington Whispers” column and the New York Daily News. …

Longtime Clinton lawyer David Kendall was not available for immediate response to Willey’s new claims, and Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign has not responded.

Anne Reynolds, crime analyst for the Powhatan County Sheriff’s Department, told WND she could only confirm, due to department restrictions, that there was a break-in and entry reported Saturday in the vicinity of Willey’s address and that an officer responded and turned the case over to the criminal investigations department.

It certainly sounds like the Clintons have resumed active political careers again, doesn’t it?

Recently both ordinary people and rival candidate’s spouses have raised the question of whether a candidate’s less-than-edifying private life does not shed negative light upon his or her qualification for the highest office in the land.

———————————

WBZTV reports that an ordinary NH voter was able to put Rudy Giuliani visibly on the defensive:

Rudy Giuliani is the latest candidate to get caught off guard by a cut-to-the-chase question from a voter.

I spoke with the Derry, New Hampshire woman who brought him up short, and she’s feeling the heat for her question.

Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien says she was just curious about the apparent lack of support for their father’s candidacy by Giuliani’s son and daughter from a previous marriage, but that query and Giuliani’s dismissive reply have been the buzz of the political world all weekend.

“I asked him how he’d expect the American people to give him loyal fellowship if he was having a hard time getting it from his own family.”

Giuliani’s response: “There are complexities in every family in America. The best thing I can say is kind of leave my family alone, just like I’ll leave your family alone.”

Keller: What did you think of his answer?

Katherine: I thought it was a little defensive. I guess he’s still not ready to talk about the whole thing because it’s very uncomfortable for him.

———————————

Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Michelle Obama made a not-very-cryptic reference of the same kind.

Chicago Sun-Times:

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part “to model what it means to have family values,” adding “if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.” She didn’t elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

Hillary can easily unify the democrat party, simply by giving Barack Obama second-place on her ticket. But Bob Novak says that democrat insiders think Hillary will need a non-conspicuously-liberal running mate from the South to have any chance of winning.

Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her choosing her principal rival — Sen. Barack Obama — for vice president.

They maintain Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, he represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.

This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton’s running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

After they made us lose in Vietnam, wrecked the US economy, and destroyed the nation’s cities, being identified as a “Liberal” came to be regarded as no longer a compliment. In the late 1960s, leftists like Hillary preferred calling themselves “Radicals.” But, as Jonah Goldberg observes, the favored term in pinko circles these days is “Progressive.”

At the recent CNN/YouTube debate, Hillary Clinton was asked to define what a liberal is and declare whether she was one.

“You know,” the New York senator said, “it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.”

I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ ” Clinton continued, “which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.”

Now, when the presumptive standard bearer of the Democratic Party and the political (and matrimonial) heir to the only Democratic president to be elected to two terms since Franklin Roosevelt says she’s not a liberal, it’s actually quite a big deal.

But first, do note how crafty Clinton is being. She makes it sound as though she’s lamenting the unfair transformation of the word “liberal” from lover of individual freedom to champion of big government.

How, exactly, does Clinton think liberal came to mean “big government?” Could it have had something to do with her attempt to nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy under her health care plan, or maybe with her book, It Takes a Village, which suggests that the government intrude itself into every nook and cranny of our lives?

Clinton’s answer taps into the common complaint on the left that the word “liberal” has fallen into disrepute not because of the policies of liberals, but thanks to the villainously cynical distortions of conservatives. “The greatest triumph that conservatives ever achieved,” liberal columnist Clarence Page recently complained, “is to make liberals embarrassed to call themselves ‘liberal.’ ”

Right. The failures of the Great Society, bussing, racial quotas, high taxes, the Vietnam War (both its beginning and end), Jimmy Carter’s “malaise,” the nuclear freeze movement, lax law enforcement, speech codes, abortion on demand, bilingual education and, of course, Michael Dukakis: We’re expected to believe none of these things can be weighed against liberalism. Liberalism, after all, is never wrong. It must be those mustache-twirling henchmen Lee Atwater and Karl Rove who are to blame.

One might also ask, if Clinton laments how liberalism has become identified with big government, why it is she wants to revive the progressive label. After all, if liberal is a misnomer for statists, progressive represents a long-overdue return to truth in labeling. In Europe, after all, liberals are the free-market, small-government types. But in America, the same people came to be called conservatives in no small part because they were trying to conserve liberal ideas of limited government amid the riot of social engineering during the Progressive Era that Clinton is so nostalgic for.

Indeed, she’s right that self-described liberals championed the sovereignty of the individual, which is why the authentic liberals were hated by progressives who believed that, in the words of progressive activist Jane Addams, “We must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be content to realize his activity only in the connection with the activity of the many.”

As late as 1951, Sen. Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican” to his fans, insisted he wasn’t so much a conservative as merely an “an old fashioned liberal.”

Even so, progressives were more desperate to seize the l-word for themselves because they needed it more. They so ruined the word “progressive” — particularly during the excesses of World War I — that they had to abandon it like a rider leaving an exhausted horse behind. By the late 1940s, “progressive” became little more than a euphemism for a Stalinist or at least a useful idiot for Moscow.

Read the whole thing.

People like Hillary don’t mean Progressive in the sense of free silver coinage and restraints on railroads. They mean Progressive in the Henry Wallace, only faintly concealed Marxist, sense of the late New Deal era.

I just refer to them as “commies” myself.

J.R. Dunn is not so pessimistic about next year.

So we’ve got a candidate who is among the most radical ever to stand for the presidency. One who was furthermore at the very center of the most corrupt administration in modern history. Who has a lengthy trail of dubious (to put it mildly) deals and arrangements behind her. Whose record as a senator is conspicuous for lack of any serious accomplishment. Who is, above all, one of the most unappealing personalities to run for president in this or any other era.

According to reputable polling, 52% of the voters have gone on record to declare that they will never, under any circumstances, cast their vote for Hillary Clinton. The last time I looked, 48% was a losing number in the presidential sweepstakes.

You’d think that, under those conditions, the GOP would be aching to come to grips with Hillary. But you’d be wrong. According to the conservative commentariat, the election is over, a year and more ahead of time, and Hillary has it in the bag.

It’s a similar case with Congress. The Democrats, in control of both the House and the Senate, have astonished the world by getting even less done than the recent GOP Congress. None of their electoral promises have been kept. (Apart from raising the minimum wage, which took eight months, and an “ethics” bill distinguished only by the fact that it’s emptier than most such exercises – I’m surprised they didn’t add an earmark or two before they passed it.) Their greatest effort was put into trying to pass – not once, but twice – the immigrant amnesty act, possibly the most actively detested bill of the new century. The boast of the new Congress, run by some of the most ghastly personalities on the national stage (Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, and Reid) is that they’ve done their best to undermine the Iraq war effort – not, historically, a stance to gain much in the way of a public following. (Trust me on that; I’ve checked.)

The numbers concur here as well. Confidence in the Congress bottomed out at14%, one the worst levels (the worst, did I hear someone say?) on record. Fool all the people all the time? This crew can scarcely fool themselves.

But we get the same response from conservative pundits – the Congress is lost. Forget about 2008; head for high ground, the deluge is coming. …

Read the whole thing.

Michael Goodwin, in the Daily News, takes the occasion of Hillary Clinton’s denunciation of George W. Bush commutation of the Libby prison sentence to do some remembering.

When President Bush commuted Libby’s prison sentence Monday, Sen. Clinton was quick to denounce him. Under Bush, she said, “cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.” …

But when I stumbled on a list of Bill Clinton’s pardons posted on the Drudge Report, I was instantly back on Jan. 20, 2001. That’s when Clinton, in his final hours as President, opened the floodgates, issuing 140 pardons and 36 commutations.

The list of people Clinton let off the hook was a rogue’s gallery of drug dealers, petty criminals and the politically well-connected. One was Bill Clinton’s brother Roger, one was a college friend and another was a former business partner. Their lawyers’ connections were key in others, including the lawyer for a man who laundered more than $100 million for the Cali cartel.

Some cases reeked of blatant corruption. Hillary’s brother, Hugh Rodham, collected $400,000 from two big-time criminals who got pardons. When the news of the payments broke, the Clintons claimed surprise and demanded Rodham give the money back.

But Bill Clinton never gave Denise Rich her money back. The former wife of disgraced financier Marc Rich gave $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library and raised and contributed more than $1 million to campaigns of the Clintons and other Democrats. Her husband, who had fled the country rather than fight charges of massive tax fraud and trading with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, suddenly received a pardon. “Utterly false,” Bill Clinton later said about charges he sold the pardon. “There was absolutely no quid pro quo.”

A friend of mine suggested that the best rejoinder to Hillary would be for the White House to issue a pardon to Hillary and Bill for any of the crimes during his governorship in Arkansas or during the Clinton presidency for which prosecutable evidence may yet one day emerge.

That clever Ann Althouse has a larger, easier-to-watch version than Hillary’s own web-site does.

Despite the cut-to-black, Hillary’s website actually does reveal her choice of campaign song: Celine Dion singing You and I.

The video is amusing. Her choice of song is lame.

Hillary at Applied Materials

Palo Alto Daily News:

Clinton used the presidential campaign stop at Applied Materials in Santa Clara to unveil a nine-point “innovation agenda” to combat fear of surrounding global competition. …

The senator’s nine-point agenda focuses on spending more government funds on education and research in math, science and technology, and on using incentives to encourage companies to pursue new ideas. …

Clinton’s proposals include doubling the budgets of the national science and health foundations, increasing the number and size of innovation-oriented fellowships and starting a $50 billion “strategic energy fund” to break the cycle of energy dependence.

The senator also emphasized the need to build the infrastructure for innovation, including constructing broadband Internet works, recruiting more women and minorities to the fields of science and technology, and retaining foreign workers who graduate from U.S. universities. …

her affirmation of visas and green cards for immigrant and foreign employees brought the afternoon’s most enthusiastic applause.

A remedy for our democrat friends having problems achieving the necessary enthusiasm for a certain candidate.

1:40 video

Hillary Clinton’s campaign site is asking readers to help pick her campaign song, suggesting as possibilities:

City of Blinding Lights – U2

Suddenly I See – KT Tunstall

I’m a Believer – Smash Mouth

Get Ready – The Temptations

Ready to Run – Dixie Chicks

Rock This Country! – Shania Twain

Beautiful Day – U2

Right Here, Right Now – Jesus Jones

I’ll Take You There – The Staple Singers

Skippy offers a few alternatives here.

The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog reports:

Washington Wire came up with several suggestions this afternoon for songs that could be used as Clinton’s campaign song. Sadly, we weren’t allowed to print them, as the editors deemed them “inappropriate” and it was “unseemly” of us to suggest them.

There are some more suggestions in this Shakesville posting’s comments.

My own suggestion would be the song performed on this 2:28 video.