Nobody’s Hands Are Perfectly Clean in Politics- Rezko and Obama

[realFedUp]

Nobody’s Hands Are Perfectly Clean in Politics by a blogger named looseheadprop
Feb. 6, 2008

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/

snip...
I have long been an admirer of Ms. Kennedy's and I think she has point. Problem is, Obama has a Tony Rezko problem. Actually a whole bunch of Tony Rezko problems. And a few other problems here and there which do not say very good things about his character or his sense of ethics or his ability to spot the appearance of impropriety. I include on that list the recent revelations about the legislation which he claims to have "passed" relating to leakage of nuclear material into drinking water.

REZKO

When Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko interviewed him for a job working for one of Rezko's companies. Obama turned down the job, but instead accepted more indirect employment at the law firm representing a series of Rezko's not-for-profit partners in the series of transactions to build and rehab low income housing that are now the subject of federal indictment in Chicago which US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described as "pay to play on steroids."

snip

Resko got millions of dollars to build and rehab low income housing and according to the government, embezzled the money. The people in those houses had no heat, no water. They lived in squalor--many in Obama's State senate district. You could assume constituent complaints would have come in and Obama's law firm did the legal work for those government contracts and grants. Yet he denies knowing about it.

During this period, Rezko was mentoring him and raising money for him and hosting parties to introduce Obama to influential people.

continued

[Kittycat]

1. When will the clinton's open up their finances & release donors to Bill?

[realFedUp]

2. You can't respond to the Rezko/Obama ties? nt

[Kittycat]

5. I'm from Chicago... Been there done that.

Same BS, different day.

[realFedUp]

8. The Chicago Tribune might have, but most of America hasn't yet

until the media takes the stars from their eyes
and starts really covering these issues, instead
of waiting til he's the nominee and Republicans
will definitely start covering them.

Cover now or regret later.

[leftynyc]

16. Really, so he'll be acquitted

in his trial later this month? You don't think this is going to be on the front page of every paper? I'm sure the Arkansas people were sick of whitewater also.

[realFedUp]

23. The Rezko trial will keep Obama's name in headlines...nt

[leftynyc]

And in such a good way for

someone running for the presidency. It'll make international news as well. Not all press is good press.

[Kittycat]

33. Acquitted? I wasn't aware that Obama has been indicted

:eyes:

[stillcool]

59. Requires some reading...

but there is this:

The Real Story of Rezko and Obama: 10 Myths Debunked
by JohnKWilson
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627
Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama’s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that’s the key issue here.

Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."

.........And then there is this:
http://illinoisreason.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/illinois-blogs-recap-rezko-obama-not-much-there-there/

[blm]

3. Who deep-sixed BCCI report for Jackson Stephens, Marc Rich, GHWBush, Dubai and Saudi royals

and has collected MILLIONS from these same sources?

[realFedUp]

4. You can't respond to the Rezko/ Obama ties either? nt

[blm]

11. Who CARES about smalltime Chicago wanna be player when BCCI led to 9-11

fer chrissakes?

YOU have no sense of proportion left just so you can cling to your faith in Clintons?

Geez, realF.....

[realFedUp]

18. I have a sense that this country needs experience with hope

I know who Hillary is and her strengths and weaknesses.
I don't agree with all her votes.
At the same time, Barack has served less than one
term in the Senate and he won that seat in an easy
race. He hasn't been vetted, tested, or really
examined.

I know the feeling of Obamamania because I was
a Deaniac, but where they both agreed that that
invading Iraq was a mistake, we now have to face
the real challenges of being in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hillary can do this job. I do have faith in that.

[blm]

24. The Clintons need government to remain CLOSED. Obama is surrounding himself with

strong progressive national security team - Richard Clarke, Gary Hart and John Kerry - three of the top anti-terror minds in the WORLD.

Hillary is surrounded by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who thought deep-sixing BCCI report and protecting all its criminal characters was GOOD POLITICS.

[realFedUp]

30. Actually Obama has former Clinton advisors on foreign policy...

I imagine he'll have quite a few former Clinton
advisors if he's the nominee...they did have some
of the best.

[blm]

48. And some of the worst. Who advised him to deep-six BCCI report and IranContra

outstanding matters and Iraqgate. Or protect Poppy Bush on CIA Drugrunning?


The STARS on the global terror issue are ALL with Obama. You can't name ONE PERSON on TeamClinton that has studied and countered terrorism and its intricate network of funding more than Richard Clarke, Gary Hart and John Kerry.

[realFedUp]

52. I guess Wes Clark is still an advisor to Hillary

I don't think Hillary has been president before...
although she certainly gained the knowledge by
traveling to 80 foreign countries and knows most
of the world's leaders. She also knows the processes
in the White House, Senate, state governments,
NGO's and business.

Hillary has a bigger rolodex than Barack.

[blm]

56. Kerry and Kofi Annan are very close. And Hill's rolodex is same as Poppy Bush's

and Wes Clark was not a terrorism expert.

Bill and Poppy Bush's associates got us 9-11. Hillary is STUCK with those relationships.

You would prefer the top THREE terrorism experts be shoved aside for Poppy Bush and Bill's associates who already BROUGHT us 9-11?

BTW - Kerry is close to Brown the way Bill was close to Blair. I think Obama will be fine with such HONEST and smart advisors like Hart, Clarke and Kerry.

[Maribelle]

19. What do you know about the BCCI report. It was 1992, before Clinton took office.

[blm]

28. The report wasn't released till Dec 1992 and was HANDED to Bill when he took office.

All of its outstanding matters required COOPERATION and further declassification of documents long stonewalled by Bush1.

WTF do YOU know about BCCI to pose such a dim question?

[Maribelle]

32. You use ...

WTF against me for asking that question?


Please grow up.

[blm]

39. What the Foghorn is offensive to you? How precious. So - you really don't know jack about

BCCI or how the ongoing protection of its key figures is what led directly to Bush2 and 9-11 and soontobe war with Iran....do you?

[Maribelle]

38. The report was released October 2, 1992 (before clinton was elected)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDE1F39F931A35753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=

[blm]

45. One part of the report - the entire report was released Dec1992.

BTW - Bill Clinton was ABLE to become president because GHWBush was under constant attack of bad headlines generated throughout 91 and 92 for IranContra and BCCI revelations. Corruption uncovered by John Kerry. Then Bill takes office and wants all those matters dropped.

Bill did NOT facilitate access to the documents as expected - he continued the stonewalling that Poppy Bush had established.

Did you not know that BCCI report had a list of TWENTY OUTSTANDING MATTERS that required further scrutiny and cooperation to access documents needed?

[realFedUp]

6. Can I remind everyone that Bill isn't running again?

as much as lots of us would like him to...

[TornadoTN]

10. You're kidding yourself

He's more involved in this thing than you wish to admit. The money is coming from the same sources as if Bill was running - she's using the same donor lists that are funding his library (which they both refuse to release taxes or records relating to this).

While everyone can scream to the top of their lungs about REZKO REZKO REZKO, Bill and Hillary just hope that people don't start demanding their records and start putting two and two together about who they are in bed with.

[realFedUp]

20. She's still running on her actions, experience and votes

Obama seems to running on fairydust.

[TornadoTN]

26. All I hear from Hillary is talk about the "good old days of Bill"

Which weren't very good for the American worker either.

Constant clap-trap from her about "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" and her constant references to the 90's being the glory days of America (which if you'll research wasn't as swell as we would like). Her supporters in call-in shows across this country say "I'm voting for Hillary because I loved Bill and having him back will be great".

Don't kid yourself. This is Bill's campaign just as much as it is hers.

[realFedUp]

34. The Bush duo wasn't good for America or the American workers

unless you happen to be a CEO or Dick Cheney.

and the Clinton administration did manage to
turn a Bush deficit into a surplus. This Bush
will be harder to clean up after. We should
all hope that the monumental problems can
be rolled back.

Hillary has the knowledge and rolodex to
make a better stab at it than Obama.

[TornadoTN]

58. Who is she going to call, Greenspan?

Because we all know he did such a fine job managing this economy. The set-up for this current trend started when Bill was in office (remember the tech bubble?). Bill contributed heavily to industry deregulation and the rise of outsourcing for corporations. Sure, it really raised it's head when W. took office, but we can't believe that things were perfect during the Clinton years. They weren't.

I would rather have fresh ideas and a new take on things to address these monumental challenges that we have before us. Bill may have done "ok" cleaning up from Poppy, but I don't think the Clinton approach of triangulation is going to solve anything this time around.

[blm]

57. Her actions supporting Bush and against the Kerry-Feingold Iraq withdrawal that she took to

the senate floor to condemn any withdrawal timetable in June2006?

Then Lieberman lost his primary race because of his speech against withdrawal and Hillary shifted her rhetoric and then all of a sudden SHE was for Iraq withdrawal timetable?

THAT'S a leader you trust?

[blm]

50. Can I remind everyone that Bill now needs books closed because of his protection of Poppy Bush?

You want government to stay closed for another decade?

[TriMetFan]

7. If Obama's ties are close

like they seam to be, then this stuff is going to be used against him by the re-thugs. The trail starts in March. We will see if he can be our next teflon/slick man.

[realFedUp]

9. Exactly.

Would DUers want this stuff in the open now
or open later?

[TriMetFan]

13. Obama-bots don't care.

They are to blinded by this man to see passed their own noses. I know Hillary is not perfect, but she does not have one of her friends going to trail next month.

[flyarm]

14. excuse me the obama people are the new little lord pissy pants type sheeple..

its deflect..and look the other way..only everyone else is the bad guy//their guy???? ..well hell.. didn't you know..he fucking walks on water!!

while they sip from the pool of blue kool aide.

it has gotten really disgusting and immature, as i see it..i thought dems always looked and asked questions..but not the ipod kids for obama!! no siree..they do not want to know anything about the guy..nope..


and when we all get fucked because of their false bullshit childish hope..we all know where to place the blame!!

fly

[realFedUp]

27. well, I wouldn't characterize them as such...but

it's better that voters know who and what they
are voting for.
We know who Hillary is, but we don't know who
Obama is.

Is he still taking drugs? Does he still smoke?
Does he still play poker on Wednesday nights...
just a few small questions at first.

[flyarm]

29. TIME.com: "Something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism"

TIME.com: "Something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism"
Joe Klein makes some astute observations about the Obama operation:




Thursday, Feb. 07, 2008
Inspiration vs. Substance
By Joe Klein

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Barack Obama said in yet another memorable election-night speech on Super-Confusing Tuesday. "We are the change that we seek." Waiting to hear what Obama has to say — win, lose or tie — has become the most anticipated event of any given primary night. The man's use of pronouns (never I), of inspirational language and of poetic meter — "WE are the CHANGE that we SEEK" — is unprecedented in recent memory. Yes, Ronald Reagan could give great set-piece speeches on grand occasions, and so could John F. Kennedy, but Obama's ability to toss one off, different each week, is simply breathtaking. His New Hampshire concession speech, with the refrain "Yes, We Can," was turned into a brilliant music video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities. The video, stark in black-and-white, raised an existential question for Democrats: How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?

And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

That is not unprecedented. It has echoes of Howard Dean's 2004 primary effort, although in Dean's case the propellant was neither substance nor the candidate's early, courageous voice against the war. But Dean soon found that wasn't enough. In June 2003 he told me he needed to broaden his movement, reach out past the young and the academic and find a greater array of issues that could inspire working people. He never quite found that second act, and his campaign became about process, not substance: the hundreds of thousands of supporters signing up on the Internet, the millions of dollars raised. He lost track of the rest of the world; his campaign was about ... his campaign. Obama would never be so tone-deaf, but he is facing a similar ceiling, a similar inability to speak to the working people of the Democratic Party (at least, those who are not African American) or find an issue, a specific issue, that distinguishes him from his opponent. And his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has proved herself tough, specific and reliable — qualities that become increasingly important as the economy teeters and as worries about the future gather in the land....

Obama's strength is inspiration, and it's also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party's detriment — and that is not Obama's game. After his Iowa victory, his stump speech had become a soufflé untroubled by much substance of any sort. He has rectified that, to some extent. He now spends some time talking about the laments of average Americans he has met along the way; then he dives into a litany of solutions he has proposed to address the laments. But those are not nearly so convincing as Clinton's versions of the same...

More: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1710721,00.htm...

[TornadoTN]

15. And Hillary and Bill skate through like saints, right?

Considering their dealings, they can't even release their records. How about the 20 some odd million dollars that Bill is cashing out from Ron Burkle and Yucaipa? BCCI connections that are paying their debt back to Bill for letting them skate when he took office? How about the Dubai Ports people who are now throwing loads of cash at Hillary now?

Sure, Obama is the only one who can be tainted in this election by the Republicans. :sarcasm:

[TriMetFan]

22. Again Hillary doesn't have a friend

going to trail next month. Also Resco had his low income housing in Obamas district when Obama was just a state senator. Resco is and was a slumlord in that district, and people went with out heat. Obama really does care about the poor that a turned a blind eye to this.

[TornadoTN]

31. Rezko is slime - but until I see that Obama actively participated in this

I'm going to give him a pass and take him at his word at this point. Not excusing Rezko (or Obama) but until its proven, I'm not going to buy into it.

However, we could spend all day talking about the nefarious connections that the Clinton's have and just the ones that raise suspicion. To think either side is clean is a fallacy.

[realFedUp]

37. Taking a pass isn't the same as reading about it....

Voters still need to know how long Rezko and
Obama knew eachother, the monies raised by
Tony R for Obama's campaigns, the house that
was bought etc.

Crimes may not have been committed...the trial
will tell us, but if "character" is an issue,
Rezko is an issue.

We know Hillary. We don't know Barack.

[TornadoTN]

44. Do we really know Hillary?

Why won't they release their tax records or donor records? Did you know that Hillary has a Rezko connection as well?

I don't mind reading about it, but this kind of stuff isn't specific to either candidate and to pretend otherwise is silly.

[realFedUp]

47. You could educate yourself anyway....doesn't hurt. nt

[TornadoTN]

51. Wow. That's classy.

Considering my own education credentials and political knowledge, this is mighty presumptuous of you.

I know the Rezko story. Quite honestly, I don't have all of the facts that will come to light in the trial. Until then, I'm not going to hold it against Obama because it's speculation at this point. I'll take Obama's word for now, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't given me a multitude of reasons to doubt everything that comes out of his mouth.

[NastyRiffraff]

12. Obama's people are in denial if they think this won't be used by Republicans

I don't know if Obama has any culpability in this mess, but it doesn't smell right. He needs to deal with it now before we go into the general election cycle in case he does get the nomination. If it's just a question of stupidity (Obama himself called it "boneheaded") and not legal liability, he and Michelle need to clear it up.

[pdxmom]

17. I want to know exactly how this is going to be used, considering the

Clintons have their own fundraiser problems and I seem to remember some issues in the past regarding McCain. I haven't paid attention, but I'd guess if someone wanted to dig, Romney would have some eyebrow raising connections, as well.

If people are using Rezko as a way to push folks away from Obama, it doesn't wash, unless they are also scrutinizing each candidate equally and warning people about those "ethics" as well.

[realFedUp]

21. well, if "character" is involved, then Rezko will be referenced.

A 17 year relationship, starting with a job offer
to Obama right out of law school, letters from
Obama supporting a Rezko housing project that turned
into slum housing with Obama saying not much of
anything about it and the Rezkos helping to pay
for the Obama's house and lot next to it may
bring up some issues about character.

[pdxmom]

25. But my point is that this exact same issue is going to come up with

each of the candidates. None of them have clean hands when it comes to ties with donors. Some have more problems than others. Frankly, while Rezko doesn't make me comfortable, I think that when it comes to my pro/con list for each candidate, neither Clinton or Obama wins when it comes to campaign monies.

[realFedUp]

42. But Obama hasn't been vetted totally in the media yet.

My point is that everyone has issues we can disagree
with, but Obama has gotten a media pass so far because
he gives such wide-sweeping hopeful speeches with
little substance. He has a voting record and a past
that the media can talk about.

We know Hillary. We don't know Barack.

[madrchsod]

35. you are posting an opinion from another website

as proof that obama has a problem that really does`t exist? interesting. as long as it`s a good selling point, keep the myth alive.

[realFedUp]

40. The Chicago Trib and Sun Times have both covered Rezko

google and read for yourself. Because it's an
opinion piece from another blog certainly shouldn't
stop us bloggers from posting another blogger,
should it?

[Andy823]

36. I agree, he has a problem

And it isn't going away, but what about Clinton, she has a lot more problems just like this one with Rezko, doesn't she have a "bigger" problem when the republicans start on her?

I don't think there is one "clean" politician in the country, but to keep on Obama about this without addressing Clintons ties to the same kind of people, and corruption is not right in my book.

[apnu]

41. hey, HRC has a Rezko connection too

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22947679/

[realFedUp]

53. one photo out of 10 million....not a 17 year relationship...nt

[apnu]

54. point is nobody's clean in this primary. (nt)

[blm]

60. How long was Jackson Stephens' relationship to Bill? And NOW he's tight with Dubai$$

that staked BCCI.

[mopinko]

43. there is no there there. you could assume

but you would make an ass of u and me. "his firm" as in the firm he worked for, not the firm he possessed, which this blogger ass u me d did the contracts, did not do the contracts. this firm did incorporation papers for the non-profit that got these contracts. period.
"but instead accepted more indirect employment at the law firm representing"
is a flat out lie. the firm never represented rezko. fitzgerald goes out of his way to state that obama is under no suspicion of any wrong doing.
and this law firm, btw, is made up of former members of the administration of the late, great harold washington. if you want to know who obama's local political influences are, since not to many of you bashers are aware of anything that has happened here since 1968, if not form the days of al capone-
have a little important political history al capone is dead. so is richard j daley. some on the best progressive democrats in the country are alive and well here, tho.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. The big question is, who is going to commit to put a stop to it?

One thing George Bush did to great effect to minimize the criticism towards him for his early indiscretions, was to close the loopholes which he previously enjoyed abusing. i.e. Harkin and questions of insider trading.

[realFedUp]

49. It's the media's choice if they don't want to cover him...

but our loss if he isn't.

He is fair game. He wrote two books about himself and
every detail should be in the public forum as all the
books about her are.

He did drugs. He smoked/smokes cigarettes. He had ties
and did favors for Rezko who is going to trial. All
those are facts and need to be examined before people
start declaring him the second coming.

[Donnachaidh]

55. So because it's Obama that's being talked about -- it's OKAY?

Uhhh, y'all better stop whining about the cult charges. You're proving them right. :rofl: