In a piece that manages simultaneously to pooh-pooh luxury brands like Gucci and Prada for supriously manufacturing their ostensibly high-end, European goods in China and to castigate the "xenophobic" brand executives who seem to believe Chinese manufacture indicates lower quality, New York Times op-ed columnist and Newsweek cultural correspondent Dana Thomas supports the former claim with a questionable source.

[The high] prices are worth it, we are told, because these goods are handmade in Europe by artisans. In fact, that is not always the case — as we learned from the recent news reports on the activities of Norman Hsu, the Democratic political fund-raiser indicted on charges of investment fraud. Mr. Hsu told potential clients that he would use their money to finance the manufacturing of Gucci and Prada items in China — and promised a 40 percent return on the investment.

This was surprising, given that both brands have long maintained that they do not produce their wares there. A Prada spokesman reiterated it when the Hsu news broke, telling Women’s Wear Daily that Prada does not manufacture its products in China — though if you look inside one of Prada’s popular nylon toiletry cases, you’ll sometimes find a small tag that states otherwise.

Thomas may not have fully understood the nature of "the Hsu news", because at the heart of matter is the allegation that Hsu’s apparel activities were wholly fictional.  The "charges of investment fraud" relate to an alleged Ponzi scheme, in which the only business being done was the recruitment of more investors (and the occasional flood of contributions to dozens of Democratic candidates).  I visited Hsu’s stated places of business back in September and failed to find not only a bustling apparel conglomerate, but any trace of Hsu or his many business entities.

That’s not to say Gucci and Prada aren’t using Chinese labor - just that the allegation is poorly supported by parroting Hsu’s phony claims.  Dozens of investors were hoodwinked by Hsu, a mistake that has left them tens of millions of dollars poorer.  At the time, his A-list political affiliations and the impressive early returns he generated for his investors were enough to overshadow Hsu’s otherwise unverifiable business activities.  With these political and corporate veneers now stripped away, it’s odd that Thomas is still so willingly duped.

Source: Suitably Flip

The Hillary Clinton juggernaut likes to try to run over every new threat, especially the ones it can call "old news."

Every new book on her life, personal and political, is dismissed as "old news" — unless the person retelling and reshaping the "old news" is Hillary. Her recounting of her life is minty-fresh. Every other book smells like a reopened casket.

Whenever — if ever — authors of Hillary books are introduced by the national media, the tone of the interviews focuses in on Hil-lary’s talking point: "Why should anyone care?" From the start, the message is that these books belong in the garbage can, not in the library.

The books that have come out this year have provided interesting new material that should in some way shape the media’s understanding of Hillary. Yet, even liberals like Carl Bernstein or the New York Times duo of Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta have seen their books presented not as "news" but as pernicious attempts to change Hil-lary’s narrative.

How is it that the wife of an impeached president, the policy architect of a 1,300-page left-wing health care fiasco and the document-shredding stonewaller of a welter of scandals can turn her controversial career and bizarre First Marriage into assets and not liabilities?

How is that Team Clinton, disgraced and disgraceful, is back for another presidential run? Credit the national "news" media.

Tim Graham, my colleague at the Media Research Center, and I have spent a couple of years reviewing all of the national media’s framing and promotion of Hillary Rodham Clinton since her national debut in 1992. Their often-gushy and gooey treatment of her political life and ethical fiascos can be summed up in one word (and one book): "Whitewash."

They are the stereotype of the aggressive watchdog, except the media elite are baring their teeth and growling and barking at conservative critics of Hillary — while rolling over and playing the slobbery pooch for her.

They have downplayed or ignored her every scandal, bizarrely suggesting to the public that they should hold her in high esteem for her honesty and integrity. A Time reporter just called her a "moral conservative."

They have taken her stark black-and-white voting record that scores 95% or 100% rankings from liberal interest groups and implausibly painted it into a landscape of soft and comforting centrist pastels.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hillary Clinton juggernaut likes to try and run over every new threat, especially the ones they can call "old news." Every new book on her life, personal and political, is dismissed as "old news" – unless the person retelling and reshaping the "old news" is Hillary. Her recounting of her life is minty-fresh. Every other book smells like a reopened casket. Whenever – if ever – authors of Hillary books are introduced by the national media, the tone of the interviews focuses in on Hillary’s talking point: "Why should anyone care?" From the start, the message is that these books belong in the garbage can, not in the library. The books that have come out this year have provided interesting new material that should in some way shape the media’s understanding of Hillary. Yet even liberals like Carl Bernstein or the New York Times duo of Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta have seen their books presented not as "news," but as a pernicious attempt to change Hillary’s narrative.

How is it that the wife of an impeached president, the policy architect of a 1300-page left-wing health-care fiasco, and the document-shredding stonewaller of a welter of scandals can turn her controversial career and bizarre First Marriage into assets, and not liabilities? How is that Team Clinton, disgraced and disgraceful, is back for another presidential run?

Credit the national "news" media.

My colleague Tim Graham and I have spent a couple of years reviewing all of the national media’s framing and promotion of Hillary Rodham Clinton since her national debut in 1992. Their often-gushy and gooey treatment of her political life and ethical fiascoes can be summed up in one word (and one book): "Whitewash."

They are the stereotype of the aggressive watchdog, except the media elite are baring their teeth and growling and barking – at conservative critics of Hillary, while rolling over and playing the slobbery pooch for her. They have downplayed or ignored her every scandal, bizarrely suggesting to the public that they should hold her in high esteem for her honesty and integrity; a Time reporter just called her a "moral conservative." They have taken her stark black-and-white voting record that scores 95-percent or 100-percent rankings from liberal interest groups and implausibly painted it into a landscape of soft and comforting centrist pastels.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hill has compiled an updated roster of Congressional endorsements of Presidential candidates (HT: Matt Lewis).  Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton is out in front, with 59 Representatives, 9 Senators, and one non-voting Delegate in her corner.  That gives Clinton 3/4 of the Senatorial endorsements and just over half of the House endorsements announced to date.

Here are a few other statistics worth a ponder.

15% of Hillary’s House and Senate endorsers (10 of 68) received tainted contributions from Norman Hsu’s donor network, compared to 7.5% (40 of 535) of all current Congress members.  A majority of her Senatorial endorsements (a whopping 56%) received Hsu money, compared to 28% of all current Senators.

That means legislators who threw their weight behind Clinton were twice as likely to be greased by Hsu as their average colleague.

(The percentage of Obama endorsers who received Hsu’s support rate was not meaningfully different from the Congress-wide rate (7.7% vs. 7.5%) and not a single Edwards backer saw Hsu money.)

Likewise, Hsu-gilded legislators backed Clinton with roughly twice the frequency (25%) as Congress on the whole (12.7%).  Hsu’s beneficiaries were 5x likelier to endorse Clinton than Obama (25% vs. 5%), while her endorsement advantage Congress-wide over Obama is only 2.6x.

Whatever causal link may lie behind the divergence is of course left to one’s imagination.  The pattern does lead the more feverishly conspiratorial to wonder whether the seemingly scatter-shot dispersal of Hsu’s support among dozens of candidates may have served a more focused end, such as the elevation of a single candidate for whom those recipients may have later had an opportunity to toss an endorsement.

But it’s equally possible that Norman Hsu simply admires politicians who admire Hillary Clinton and that he chose to support them without so much as the most tacit of quid pro quos.

Or it could be a little of both.

Source: Suitably Flip

By the time Norman Hsu flew to Beverly Hills in early September and checked into the Raffles L’Ermitage hotel, the life of the top Democratic donor and self-professed clothing magnate was coming unraveled.

Mr. Hsu, a slight, 56-year-old immigrant from Hong Kong, was under investigation for campaign-finance violations. An old grand-theft charge had come back to haunt him. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other politicians had begun returning his donations. He was so distraught that he sent off suicide notes before leaving his Manhattan home for California.

Still, he appeared unruffled when he settled into the hotel’s café to comfort a nervous investor, Martin Waters. Mr. Hsu was dressed in jeans, Prada shoes, a black T-shirt and a baseball cap. "Don’t believe what you are reading," Mr. Hsu said, according to Mr. Waters, who owns a small clothing company and was owed more than $20 million for deals he and his friends made with Mr. Hsu. "Plenty of people are still supporting me," Mr. Hsu assured him, mentioning Pennsylvania’s governor, who initially stood by him when news of his troubles broke. "Your loans are secure." Mr. Hsu also met with other investors that day, but his effort to salvage his reputation went nowhere. Within weeks, federal prosecutors in Manhattan had charged him with fraud and election-law violations, accusing him of running a "massive" Ponzi scheme that cost investors more than $60 million. Mr. Hsu’s story has received considerable public scrutiny over the past few months, but one question still looms large: How did his classic immigrant pursuit of the American Dream become so twisted? An in-depth look at Mr. Hsu’s peculiar rise and abrupt fall reveals a man consumed with a desire to gain respect and wealth, even as his scattershot business ventures failed at every turn. In politics, he found everything he seemed to be looking for — glamorous friends, acclaim and a measure of credibility that he used to help attract investors to his dubious business pitches. His business failures and resulting deceptions required him to construct a facade. To those who met him, he seemed a success, filled with confidence, warmth, generosity and sincerity. But he was dogged by lawsuits and angry creditors, once outwitting an intimidating debt collector nicknamed "Shrimp Boy" by telling police he was being kidnapped. He would tap one circle of friends, then disappear, only to turn up later with new friends and new funding.

Politics was a world where his schmoozing and fund-raising talents were powerful currency. He became a "bundler," someone who could induce hundreds of acquaintances to donate. Bundling has emerged as a major source of U.S. campaign-finance abuse, and Mr. Hsu was in the thick of it.

He befriended Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats, decorating his SoHo loft with their photos. He displayed a saxophone autographed by former President Bill Clinton, bought for $26,000 at a Red Cross benefit. He sported a chocolate-brown leather bomber jacket with the presidential seal. "Bill Clinton gave this to me," he told Mr. Waters.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems that no bad Hillary Clinton deed goes unresponded to.

As we are in the midst of a presidential campaign, this by itself is not an issue. That it is the national media that is leading this charge is. One need focus on but the latest corners of the Clinton pantheon to come to light to see the full court press the press puts on when their girl needs them.

In an October 10 Boston Globe interview, Senator Clinton let her socialism slip a bit, saying "I have a million ideas. I can’t do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign - especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I’m trying to do - everything I propose I have to pay for. You know, you go to my website, you’ll see what I would use to pay for what I’ve proposed. So I’ve got a lot of ideas, I just obviously can’t propose them all. I can’t afford them all. The country can’t afford them all." (Emphasis ours.)

The Republican National Committee, and later in a presidential debate Republican contender Rudy Giuliani, focused like a laser on this statement, specifically the first and last lines, and had a field day.

The Globe was appalled that anyone would use Hillary’s words against her, and appeared embarrassed that they were the source for the slam. Not only did they reprint the text of the interview, they went so far as to pen an editorial defending Senator Clinton. They opined that her remark "has been so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript", asserted that "Clinton was saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around" and concluded that "what Americans really can’t afford are cheap political distortions."

Differences on the meaning of what the Senator said aside, this mop-up work should be the work of the Clinton campaign’s political and PR divisions, not that of a supposedly impartial and neutral news entity. The examples of Democrat malfeasance with the words of Republicans are many; of media outlets rushing to cry foul and correct the record precious and few.

And then there is the ongoing MSM Clinton reclamation project that is the Norman Hsu saga.

Hsu had been long on the lam from the law and long on dollars for Hillary Clinton. He dodged sentencing on 1992 grand theft charges to which he pled no contest, but found time amidst all the subsequent running to raise and deliver $850,000 to Campaign Clinton’s presidential effort.

Read the rest of this entry »