The New York Times digs into the Hsu fund-raising scandal and how it is biting the Hillary Clinton campaign. Most revealing bit in the story: Right after the Clinton campaign gives the money back to the donors connected to Hsu, they're going to ask the donors to make a new donation in the same amount.
In other words, returning the money is just for show - Hill still wants the cash.
More from the NYT:
The strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal campaign deliberations, added that the Clinton campaign was deeply worried that the controversy could grow. "They are worried there are more out there," the strategist said. "Bundlers. The feeling is there are a few more that will have Hsu problems."
In defense, Clinton advisers note that her top Democratic rivals, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, have their own fund-raising problems that will prevent them from attacking her over Mr. Hsu.
Mr. Obama has taken only a measured approach when dealing with donations raised by Antoin Rezko, a Chicago developer facing federal corruption charges. While Mr. Obama has given to charity contributions from people connected to the criminal case involving Mr. Rezko, he has kept thousands of dollars more that Mr. Rezko raised from others.
Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is saddled with Geoffrey Fieger, a lawyer who was indicted last month on charges of using straw donors to funnel illegally more than $125,000 to Mr. Edwards’s 2004 presidential campaign.
The NYT says the Clinton campaign has long been worried that there would be "some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged"
And, yet, her campaign is intent on not really giving back the dirty Hsu money, just pretending to do so.
