At least I am and I left a message for Sue to do the same. Even God rested one day in seven.

The picture inserted in this post is priceless.

The LA Times seems to be checking on Hillary Clinton’s donors in a way no other major newspaper is doing.

Friday’s story tells of people in New York’s Chinatown “donating” to the Clinton campaign. Again, it seems hard to imagine how dishwashers, waiters and chefs can pony up thousands of dollars to elect Clinton.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton’s success in gathering money from Chinatown’s least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton’s Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York’s junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors’ naive notions of what she could do in the White House.

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.

New take, old game

Beyond what it reveals about present-day campaign fundraising, Chinatown’s newfound role in the 2008 election cycle marks another chapter in the centuries-old American saga of marginalized ethnic groups and newly arrived immigrants turning to politics to improve their lot.

In earlier times, New York politicians from William “Boss” Tweed to Fiorello LaGuardia gained power with the support of immigrants. So did politicians in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and other big cities.

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton’s campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they’ve never heard of them.

If they don’t vote, can’t speak English and are concerned about the issue of illegal immigration, are they eligible to even contribute money to anyone’s campaign?

When donating to a political campaign the donor must certify he or she is an American citizen.

Where are these people getting their money with their minimum wage jobs? Maybe they are better at saving so they can bring a family member here.

We just have such a history with both Clintons now with the Chinese. Bill Clinton sold them technology for campaign contributions. The money is suspected of coming from the Chinese government itself and then trickled down to the immigrants to give to the Clintons. Probably immigrants who are afraid for their families’ lives.

We complained about the Dubai Ports deal until it was derailed, and yet we turn a blind eye to the influence being bought by the Chinese Communist government.

I’d like to hear a valid explanation of the closeness they enjoy with the Chinese and not some cock and bull story about how they saved and gave because they believed in her. I want the truth and nothing but and I want it before the election so the American people can at least make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to be messed over the way we were before.

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal has a wonderful article about Hillary Clinton in Friday’s edition.

In it she says people who know Clinton (and she knows a lot of the ones who do) do not have doubts about her toughness, but qualms about it instead.

In New York this week she told a women’s lunch that “we face a new question–a lot of people are asking whether America is ready to elect a woman to the highest office in our land.” She suggested her campaign will “prove that America is indeed ready.” She also quoted Eleanor Roosevelt: “Women are like tea bags–you never know how strong they are until they get in hot water.”

Mrs. Clinton is the tea bag that brings the boiling water with her. It’s always high drama with her, always a cauldron–secret Web sites put up by unnamed operatives smearing Barack Obama in the tones of Tokyo Rose, Chinese businessmen having breakdowns on trains after the campaign cash is traced back, secret deals. It’s always flying monkeys. One always wants to ask: Why? What is this?
The question, actually, is not whether America is “ready” for a woman. It’s whether it’s ready for Hillary. And surely as savvy a campaign vet as Mrs. Clinton knows this.

Who, of all the powerful women in American politics right now, has inspired the unease, dismay and frank dislike that she has? Condi Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein? These are serious women who are making crucial decisions about our national life every day. They inspire agreement and disagreement; they fight and are fought with. But they do not inspire repugnance. Nobody hates Barbara Mikulski, Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchison; everyone respects Ms. Rice and Ms. Feinstein.

Hillary’s problem is not that she’s a woman; it’s that unlike these women–all of whom have come under intense scrutiny, each of whom has real partisan foes–she has a history that lends itself to the kind of doubts that end in fearfulness. It is an unease and dismay based not on gender stereotypes but on personal history.

She has demonstrated her “toughness” when she fired the White House Travel team, brought in an unsavory character to check FBI files on “enemies”, invented the “War Room” and threw a few lamps around in the White House. Not to mention she thumbed her nose at the justice system about her Rose Law Firm billing records. They just suddenly appeared on a White House table, out of nowhere, with her fingerprints all over them. But it was after the statute of limitations had expired. How convenient.

No, we don’t question her toughness. We worry about the way she uses it.

The NYT reports Senator Johnson is doing well enough to seek re-election:

Senator Tim Johnson, a South Dakota Democrat who suffered a brain hemorrhage last December, announced yesterday that he would campaign next year for a third term.

“After months of rehabilitation and recovery, more than a month on the job in Washington and after my recent trips back to South Dakota, it is clear to my family, my doctors, and me that I am able to do the hard work required of a United States senator,” the 60-year-old Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

“I have said before,” the statement continued, “that I wanted to take this second chance at life and focus even harder on being the best advocate I can for the people of South Dakota.”

Here at ~J’s~, we have always wished the Senator well, and his recovery in such short order is an amazing feat. It is evident that Mr. Johnson has a strong will not only to live, but live productively and has a great family support base on which to draw.

Much continued good fortune to you Senator, and kudos to you for your perseverance and drive.

The transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s show yesterday really says it all. The “we” factor that Harry Reid attempted to interject in his little speech on the Senate floor was so far out of line that anyone with a bit of common sense could read into exactly what he trying to accomplish.

While the entire show from yesterday is available
here, what I considered a key paragraph by Mr. Limbaugh follows.

RUSH: This attempt by Harry Reid to take to the floor of the Senate at 12 noon Eastern Time today to personalize this and make it about himself, you just know the mainstream media, the Drive-Bys, will get on this story now and Reid will end up being very positively portrayed. He has quotes about how “we” never thought that the letter would generate this kind of money. “We” never thought…? “Mark May and I…” It’s Mays! “Mark May and I talked about this, and Mark May and I…” Senator Reid, let me be clear about this one more time — actually, as many times as it takes. It wasn’t your letter that raised this money. It was your abuse of power that is responsible for raising this money. No other letter you have written would be… People wouldn’t pay a dime for it, Senator! This one represents an abuse of power: a federal government official, a US senator, getting hold — after besmirching me and smearing me by name personally from the Senate floor, gets hold — of the CEO of my syndication partner and asks him to “confer” with me about something Senator Reid thought was said that was improper? Words? First Amendment? Free speech? That, sir, is an abuse of power. That is why your letter is historic, not because you signed it, not because 40 other people signed it, not because you wrote it. It is because of what that letter represents: a full-fledged, undeniable, 100% abuse of power, and that’s how this letter will be remembered by historians forever.

Senator Reid probably would have been better off just to let the final hours of this auction pass without comment, however, given the nature of the beast I do not believe he is capable of gracious defeat. You can “we” till the cows come home Senator, and even pat yourself on the back for a job well done, but you and your friends in the press might be surprised how many disagree.

The real winners here are the children of the fallen heroes. Obviously while many of us were cheering the numbers on ebay, rooting for the total to continue to rise for the benefit of those who really need the assistance, Senator Reid was opining how he could be the “winner.”

Sad, very sad.