been better for her campaign to give this back when they first found out he was a fugitive and wanted criminal?

Instead of stalling and stalling and hoping it would go away, they should have done the right thing from the beginning.

Well, is spite of the fact that the campaign has returned the contributions, albeit with the proviso that the individual contributors could make new donations, don't expect any answers to the real question in the Hsu case.  Hsu's illegal investment scheme was, in fact, a campaign contribution scam, wasn't it?  From the Washington Post:

Clinton's campaign chairman, Terence R. McAuliffe, declined requests to explain how Hsu had become so prominent in her fundraising.

John Solomon and Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Sep 11, 07

And they had been warned:

A report emerged yesterday that the Clinton campaign ignored warnings about Hsu. Earlier this summer, Democratic Party officials raised questions with the campaign about whether Hsu had been involved in an illegal Ponzi scheme, according to a source familiar with the exchange. (The Los Angeles Times first reported yesterday that a Clinton finance director for the West Coast brushed aside questions about Hsu.)

The source, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity, said the Clinton finance team did a second search of public records looking for any problems based on the allegations and found none. The campaign did not directly talk to Hsu about the allegations, the source said.

John Solomon and Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Sep 11, 07

Another case of don't ask, don't tell?  This situtation has brought similar 90's Clinton fund-raising problems to the attention of the national media, including the Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung stories, remember?  The Trie case is remarkably similar.

You should have seen people talking about how her giving the 4600 back was all she needed to do.  When obviously it is a lot deeper of a connection than people were talking about.  She returned 850k, not 4.6k.  Huge difference.  The people blogging saying things were square were wrong, and it is obvious because the Clinton campaign went well beyond what was "square" to the bloggers in support of Clinton.  

Of course this means nothing.  That is why she is in Florida, fundraising and forum pandering to make up for the 850K.  She need to come here to Iowa, because there were quite a few at the grocery store talking about this in Des Moines.

Actually, I think it was closer to 4 mill after it was all tallied up. Think I read 3.8.

Can't knock her for having a great communications team.  They know how to generate good news and how to lessen the impact of bad news.  I just wish we had her comm's team on Obama's staff.

Waiting on Hillary?  Hillary's camp knew about this questionable figure in June.  Take a lead.  This was a Hillraiser.  It is quite obvious the only thing that was cared about was depositing his 850K he brought to the table.  No one can equate almost 1M dumped, due to campaign negligence.  It was, I don't blame Clinton, but her finance team who knew people were questioning this person.  All other democrats amounts are clearly no where as large as this.  And I applaud Clinton's team for now doing background checks.  If the other camps are not doing it, I would suggest they do.

"Why does he always wait for Hillary before he takes action on these ethical issues?"

What follow the leader ethical issues are you referring to?

I don't take issue with Hillary Clinton accepting donations or fund-raising help from Hsu if they truly didn't know of his conviction.  I do however take issue with the ridiculous defense of Hsu's relationship with the Paws.  There were MANY on this board who made the ridiculous claim that there was nothing unusual about a working class family, living in a small crowded house, donating more to a political campaign than the patriarch earned in one year.  Someone even called it a Chinese witch hunt, which was outrageous. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.  As an African Amerian, I would have been no less suspicious if the Paws of San Francisco were the Johnsons of South Central LA.  There is no way in hell that a working class family--not under duress or suffering from collective insanity--would donate tens of thousands of dollars to a political campaign and remain in cramped living conditions.  It was an absurd defense.  Why not just say from day one that it didn't pass the smell test and give the money back?  It would have been a closed story.  Instead Wolfson's defense was "Obama took money too."

The Clintons have always made a distinction between lying and not being forthcoming with the truth.

He gave 24.5K total for Obama's PAC fund, all pre-presidential.  He has turned in 7K, but unclear of the rest.  I contacted his campaign and was told all monies will be donated to charity.  Awaiting the pr, as we know, when you have to relinquish monies you try to keep it quiet.  But again, the story is not that the money was given back, of course it has to be.  It is the amount large amount amassed to almost 1M, that is the story.  And look for more to be dumped, as this unwinds.  Transparency is needed for all the bundlers.  Who are they?  Their background?  And are they con-men, or FELONS?