Time's Klein falsely asserted Clinton "had to return" $850,000 in contributions "to the skeevy Norman Hsu"

In a column in the September 20 edition of Time, Joe Klein asserted, "If she is to win the Democratic nomination, [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [NY] will have to do a fair amount of baggage shedding between now and the primaries." Klein continued: "Some of it -- like her current fund-raising imbroglio, the $850,000 she had to return to the skeevy Norman Hsu -- is a debilitating reminder of Clinton-era misdemeanors." Hsu, a "bundler" who solicited friends and associates to make contributions to Clinton's presidential campaign, was recently charged with fraud and violating campaign finance laws. But contrary to Klein's suggestion that Clinton's campaign received $850,000 from Hsu himself and subsequently returned that sum to him, Clinton received $23,000 in contributions from Hsu, which her campaign "said ... it would give to charity," rather than return it to Hsu, as The New York Times noted in an August 30 article . According to a statement posted on Clinton's presidential campaign website, her campaign is also "returning approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who gave to the campaign through Mr. Hsu and that it is implementing even more vigorous vetting procedures for its fundraisers."

From Klein's column in the September 20 edition of Time:

Clinton's utter ease with this topic, her ability to parry [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney's jabs without breaking a sweat, is the latest bit of evidence that her experience -- including past disasters -- may actually count for something. If she is to win the Democratic nomination, Clinton will have to do a fair amount of baggage shedding between now and the primaries. There is all manner of baggage to be shed. Some of it is personal: her cold, calculating image. Some of it -- like her current fund-raising imbroglio, the $850,000 she had to return to the skeevy Norman Hsu -- is a debilitating reminder of Clinton-era misdemeanors. Some of it is beyond her control, and has to do with the prospective First Laddie. Much of the substantive baggage has to do with her stiff-necked mismanagement of health care, her unwillingness to modify her ideas, to play the angles, to be a pol. Her current, clever health-care plan makes all that moot. Her load is lighter now, and the job confronting those who would defeat her is getting tougher every week.

—M.G.