The New York Times and Washington Post have long articles today in which the reporters try to trace Norman Hsu's fund-raising contributions to Democrats. The articles practically take it as a given that Hsu's fund-raising was illegitimate because he was a a fugitive from California and they've managed to track down unhappy investors in his business deals that were unrelated to politics.

Despite new interviews reported in the articles both with people that knew Hsu and those whom he asked to contribute to various candidates, one critical allegation is missing: None of the contributors so far have said Hsu reimbursed them for their donations. Without reimbursement, there's no campaign finance crime. Bundling donations is legal and all the candidates have bundlers.

It's been my impression since the story first appeared in the Wall St. Journal that Hsu did nothing illegal in his fund-raising activities. The media keeps looking for and coming up short in discerning Hsu's motives in becoming a bundler for various campaigns.

Hsu strikes me as a political groupie, someone who wanted to go to the parties and mingle with the VIPs, and the way for him to do that was by becoming a big donor.

More...

"You gets no bread with your one meatball."

In Department of Justice news:

An internal Justice audit, released Friday, showed the department spent nearly $7 million to plan, host or send employees to 10 conferences over the last two years. This included paying $4 per meatball at one lavish dinner and spreading an average of $25 worth of snacks around to each participant at a movie-themed party.

This song has been around at least since the depression. Bing Crosby, the Andrews Sisters and Josh White sang it during WWII. I really like the versions by Baby Jane Dexter and Ann Rabson, but I couldn't find videos of them. Here's the lyrics:

[Once he arrived in the Senate, after winning the primary and easily dispatching his Republican opponent, Obama did not emerge as a key voice on the war.

The Washington Post this morning writes about the principal reason Senator Barack Obama is flailing in his Presidential camapign:

[S]ome antiwar Democrats have raised questions about the depth of Obama's opposition, taking aim at one of the signature arguments for his candidacy -- that he is the only leading Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the beginning. They say that while Obama did argue against the war as a Senate candidate, he tempered his rhetoric and his opposition once he arrived in the Capitol, rejecting timetables for withdrawal and backing war funding bills. . . .

Simply put, Obama has not led on Iraq. He could lead now. He has chosen not to.

I am a strong supporter of Senator Chris Dodd's campaign for the Presidency. I think the leadership he is demonstrating as Senator now, especially on Iraq, is evidence of the type of leadership he would provide as President. But I would be hard pressed not to be a supporter of General Wes Clark if he were in the race. I strongly supported General Clark in the 2004 race and I lament that he is not our President now. On foreign policy and military issues, there is no one I trust more than General Clark.

So General Clark's endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton this morning does have an effect on me. The main effect is it makes me want to know the role General Clark would play in a Clinton Administration. If he were to have a leading role on national security and foreign policy issues, there is no question I would be much more favorable to the Clinton candidacy. Will he? As Jeralyn notes, Jerome Armstrong queried on whether General Clark might be Senator Clinton's running mate and not surprisingly, General Clark demurred. But the Clinton campaign can give us an idea of whether and what General Clark's role might be in a Clinton Administration and I would urge them to tell us more about that. More.

Update: Here's Gen. Clark's statement.

*****

In a blogger conference call this morning, Gen. Wesley Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. (Big Tent Democrat and I were both on the call. Be sure to read his separate post on the endorsement.)

Big Tent asked him for thoughts on Hillary's Iraq plan and what he finds attractive about it. Answer: Hillary understands the proper role of the Senate and the executive branch. She's aware of what the power of the Senate is given the current makeup.

She believes we should begin withdrawing forces now. So does he. She believes in diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors. She has said there would be no permanent presence of troops in Iraq.

Taylor Marsh asked about Hillary being Commander in Chief. Answer: She'd be great. She's loyal and will be loyal to the armed forces. She's very strong and decisive. She's been to Iraq, Bosnia and other places. He thinks the troops will be very proud of their commander in chief.

Jerome Armstrong: Would he accept the VP nomination? Answer: He hasn't thought anything about that. This is about putting the right person in the White House.

More....

Here is the Hillary Clinton campaign's response to the Giuliani ad attacking Move On and Senator Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush's failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's record in the campaign's first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics."

It is worth noting, that Senator Clinton, unlike me for instance, refrained from criticizing Move On for its ill advised "General Betray Us" title. Say what you will about Senator Clinton, she does not criticize activist groups like Move On and the Netroots. Some folks who made a big deal about criticisms of Move On, like Matt Stoller, should take note and commend Clinton for not taking the, I believe, merited shot at Move On. On the flip is the Clinton statement Rudy lied about distorted.

In the ridiculous item of the day category, who smuggled underpants to two detainees at Guantanamo? The military wants to know. They accused the detainees' defense lawyers who adamently deny being involved.

Both prisoners were caught wearing Under Armour briefs and one also had on a Speedo bathing suit, items the military said were not issued by Guantanamo personnel or sent through the regular mail, according to a Defense Department letter obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

A spokesman at Gitmo, Army Lt. Col. Ed Bush says this is a very big deal.

"There is no room for error when working in a dangerous environment, and constant vigilance is of the utmost importance," Bush said.

More...

The latest AP poll shows Republicans are divided about who to support for President.

The poll showed the contest remains a virtual tie between Giuliani, the former New York mayor, at 24 percent and Thompson, the actor and former senator from Tennessee, at 19 percent. Not far behind at 15 percent is McCain while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 7 percent.

The numbers were about the same in last month's poll. Who's supporting Giuliani and Thompson?

Giuliani and Thompson each had about a quarter of those over 50, white males and married men. They also each had about one-fifth of conservatives, Southerners and evangelicals.

As to the Democrats, Hillary's lead remains strong. Here are the numbers:

I've long been skeptical of political polls and "polling inisghts." So of course I love this line from Ezra Klein's review of pollster Mark Penn's new book:

Penn['s] . . . new book Microtrends is so bad that the question—in a fair world—isn’t whether it will destroy his own reputation, but whether it is so epically awful as to take the entire polling industry down with it.

From Klein's pen to God's ears.

It took 25 years to remedy the prosecutorial misconduct that tainted Crossan Hoover's murder conviction. Hoover was convicted of beating a man to death when he was 17, at the direction of his employer, who hoped to turn Marin County "into King Arthur's court, with himself as king and teens as knights."

He might have been found insane if jurors had been given proper instructions and if the prosecutor had not withheld key information from a psychiatric witness, U.S. Magistrate James Larson said in a Sept. 7 ruling.

A court-appointed psychiatrist testified that Hoover was motivated by money, not by mental illness. But prosecutors didn't give the psychiatrist the facts he needed to make an informed judgment.

The psychiatrist, John Buehler, has since said his assessment of Hoover would have been different if he had known that information. "The prosecutor's manipulation of the evidence provided to his expert, Dr. Buehler, so distorted the expert's testimony as to amount to false evidence," Larson said.

If prosecutors decide to bring Hoover to trial again, perhaps this time they'll play by the rules.

(Photo by Reuters)

Today is Alberto Gonzales' last day as Attorney General of the United States.

Who will replace him? Joe Conasen at Salon wonders whether Bush would dare to nominate Ted Olson. Reporter Matt Cooper, who hired Olson for his Supreme Court appeal in PlameGate, praises Olson.

Peter G. points out in the comments here, the valid reasons for not appointing Ted Olson are not his politics, but any lapses in his integrity, principles and competence. Criticism should be leveled at him for his own actions, opinions and choices rather than our opinion of his clients.

In my view, this is fair game:

Via atrios, Pennsylvania Democrat and ertswhile Netroots favorite Joe Sestak has caved in on Iraq:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) . . . said Democratic leaders should set aside their demands for immediate withdrawal "and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity for a deliberate redeployment."

. . . Sestak has been among those Democrats who think that setting a "date certain" for withdrawal is the best way to force Iraqis to assume more responsibility.

But he now believes the length of time needed to redeploy, and the potential for the entire Army to "unravel" unless troops are redeployed, require a compromise.

Good bargaining there Admiral. So are we going to support primarying Sestak? The Netroots/activist strategy on Iraq in 2007 has been an abject failure.