If John McCain were doing this, the press would be crying bloody murder:

He may now be running the biggest underground finance operation since Nixon deployed the plumbers as his key operatives in 1972.

And there seem to be a lot of parallels with the voter registration fraud being perped by ACORN. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

And of course, if McCain ends up losing this because he didn’t have enough money, it will be justice, because it was his idiotic assault on the First Amendment that got us here.

Well, I guess now we know what Senator Obama meant when he told his followers to “get in people’s faces“:

Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim’s car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter “B” into her face, Richard said.

And they accuse McCain and Palin of inciting violence.

Well, it could have been worse (and it may become so if he’s elected, and in control of the Justice Department). She should consider herself lucky.

[Update on Friday afternoon]

It turns out to have been a hoax. What a stupid woman. Normally it’s leftists who stage things like this.

Why wouldn’t the Obama campaign prevent them?

John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane (zip code: a nonexistent 99999) was able to donate with no problem.

Despite the fact that the card holder’s name and address do not match the name he provided.

John McCain’s website? Rejected the same non-matching-information donation.

I guess when you’re gathering up tens of millions from the Saudis and Gazans you have to be a little lenient on matching up credit card donations.

Incidentally– when I f***ing order cheesesteaks from my local deli, I get dinged when I forget my current zip code and give them my old one.

Again, though: If Obama were demanding that credit card information matched donor information, he couldn’t draw in $150 million largely from fraudulent overseas donors.

Oh, such suspicious minds.

Why isn’t this as big a story as the Palin family wardrobe?

More at Powerline.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Steyn has further thoughts:

I was interested in the subject because I also have an online credit-card operation over at my website (obviously a little smaller than Senator Obama’s), and so I looked into what our CC processing requires. In order to accept financial donations from “John Galt” and “Saddam Hussein”, whoever runs the Obama website would have to modify the default security checks required by their merchant processor.

Now sometimes you do have to do a bit of modifying. My website has a lot of customers from overseas, and the default security settings can sometimes be a bit too eager to reject credit cards from countries where the “state or province” box is non-applicable or the postal code is in a non-American format. In other words, the default settings on a US online processing operation (with their bias toward US address formats) should be just what a legitimate US political campaign (anxious not to accept illegal foreign donations) is looking for. Instead, the Obama site appear to have intentionally disabled not only all the address checks (thereby facilitating overseas contributions) but the most basic criterion of all: the card name match (thereby enabling entirely fake contributions).

Yes. This doesn’t happen by accident.

I don’t think so. In any event, this one is still roaring, and connecting the Obama dots in a way that the press refuses to do.

[Update an hour or so later]

The proof continues to pile up that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in the 1990s. Why should we think that his socialist views have changed?

From Lisa Schiffren:

…a few days before Labor Day, lightening hit. The governor of Alaska turned into a vice-presidential candidate, who had to show up in front of the nation for the next 60 days, several times a day, always looking camera-ready, and impeccably turned out. She also had to project that new, somewhat amorphous thing: female power. We, as a nation, have not yet been led by a woman, and we aren’t sure what it looks like. It will, of course, vary from woman to woman, depending on her personal needs and style, but not so much. Can’t be too sexy, too severe, or too casual. For sure it requires perfectly fitted, constructed jackets, with a serious shoulder line, in good quality fabrics. Nowhere are those cheap. Palin had to look at least as good as the women we see on TV all the time. You may not realize it, but you don’t see Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer or any of the on-camera female talent at the networks, CNN or Fox in off-the-rack stuff from Macy’s. It is all upscale designer stuff, and at the low end it costs a couple of thousand per outfit. Always. Hair and make-up is done, professionally, any time you see them, at the cost of much time and money. That is the visual standard women at the upper end of politics must meet. Condoleezza Rice, who needed to project power, figured it out. Others have not. If Palin hadn’t bothered with any of it, we would have heard about that too.

Had she been a creature of Washington, Palin would have had closet full of suits, unexciting, perhaps, but appropriate. Had she been a former First Lady running for president, whose husband has raked in $109 million in the last 8 years, she could have called Oscar de la Renta, and and had him come for a fitting. He did well with Hillary’s jewel-toned pantsuits, (at a few grand a pop?). She might already have collected some of those great Gurhan necklaces, which accentuated Hillary’s suits all election season. (Look up for yourself what they cost.) Were she Speaker of the House, and the wealthiest Democratic lawmaker, she could have called Georgio Armani himself — and worn the Pelosi pearls that cost more than the Palin’s house.

I think that this is a stupid and trivial issue. Can you imagine what the press would have made of her had she made campaign appearances in jeans and parkas?

D. J. Drummond explains.

Obviously they have to be, since they’re all over the map. At most, only one of them can be right. Of course, knowing they’re wrong doesn’t tell us what’s right.

[Mid-morning update]

Michael Barone has further thoughts.