If Rezko Is An Issue . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

then he is indisputably Obama's issue. Via Turkana, Rezko's donor list, lots to Obama and other Dems, none to Clinton. Of course, Obama's real estate deal with Rezko is the point that is his biggest vulnerability.

But let me say it again, it should NOT be an issue. But when the Media and some Left blogs act as if a photo with Rezko is an issue, then fairness dictates that Rezko must be a BIG issue for Obama. Rezko's donations to Obama the last few years here:

REZKO, ANTOIN WILMETTE, IL 60091 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $10,000 primary 10/03/03
REZKO, ABOUD RIVER FOREST , IL 60305 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 primary 03/31/03
REZKO, ANTOIN WILMETTE , IL 60091 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 primary 03/31/03
REZKO, RITA WILMETTE , IL 60091 HOMEMAKER OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 primary 03/31/03
REZKO, ABOUD RIVER FOREST , IL 60305 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $-500 general 03/31/03
REZKO, ANTOIN WILMETTE , IL 60091 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $-500 general 03/31/03
REZKO, RITA WILMETTE , IL 60091 HOMEMAKER OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $-500 general 03/31/03
REZKO, ABOUD RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $1,000 primary 12/31/02
REZKO, ANTOIN WILMETTE, IL 60091 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $1,000 primary 12/31/02
REZKO, RITA WILMETTE, IL 60091 HOMEMAKER OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 general 12/31/02
REZKO, ABOUD RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 general 12/31/02
REZKO, ANTOIN WILMETTE, IL 60091 REZKO FOODS OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $500 general 12/31/02
REZKO, RITA WILMETTE, IL 60091 HOMEMAKER OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $1,000 primary 12/31/02

< Court Disqualifies Bernie Kerik's Lawyer | Strangest Comment Of The Day >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

If Rezko Is An Issue . . . | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST

When I said there was no story to Obama and Rezko, I was referring to the house and property issue and the fact that Rezko later was indicted for matters unrelated to Obama.

On the campaign contributions, I haven't followed it closely yet. If Obama said he returned all donations and it turns out he only returned some, and that he knew he didn't return all, that might be a different story.

Then again, it may be that he was talking about Rezko's personal donations not all Rezko-associated donations. He could clear that up pretty easily if that's the case.

So, I'm sticking with the non-issue for now, but if it takes hold in the media, then it's an issue whether it should be or not...and on the campaign contributions, I'm reserving judgment until I learn more.

: Obama campaign donated some campaign (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:33:59 PM EST

contributions to charity and, just after the Nev. Dem. caucuses, made another such donation. According to the Chicago Sun-Times articles, Obama campaign has not yet divested itself of all donations attributable to Rezko, his business, his family, or his bundling for Obama. As I recall, the total was around $200,000 and the divesting is about $100,000 so far.

Rezko an issue (none / 0) (#1)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:02:22 PM EST

Why I think he is an issue:
Obama had a 17 year relatioship

When his properties started failing Obama still took money. Properties did not have heat, Obama took 1,000 donation.
When Rezko was under investigation Obama did the real estate deal in 2005.
When the projects failed, Obama in the classic elitist attitude blamed the failure on the "neighborhood demographics" and social conditions in this African American community. He did not blame the developer Rezko who was also the manager.
Rezko was his biggest bundler for state senate and US senate.

This is no casual picture Op.

Can you imagine.... (none / 0) (#8)
by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:12:33 PM EST

Excellent points stellaa, and can you imagine what the republicans would do with the fact that Rezko is an Arab....Wow they would crucify him in the GE.....that is a guaranteed loss for democrats...How incredibly stupid of Obama to allow himself, even after the man was under investigation, to do business with him......


this is not an issue (none / 0) (#30)
by ogo on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM EST

The only real knock on Obama wrt Rezco is that he has handled this abyssmally.

He has had an ongoing relationship with Rezco throughout his political career. It is just so ridiculous to parse it as "I did 5 hours of work". Obama's fact check page says Obama never represented Rezco true but they knew each other for years and Rezco donated and bundled and held fund raisers for Obama. Obama wrote letters on his behalf. This is like I barely knew Kenny-boy.


: He said 5 hours work (none / 0) (#50)
by Tano on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST

in response to Hillary claiming that he was representing him.
She did not make reference to their long-term relationship. If she had, and he had responded with the 5 hours remark, then that would have been very deceptive of him.
But that is not what happened. She made reference specifically to him representing Rezko, as a lawyer. And apparantly he did that for 5 hours.

Is is unusual for a politician to donate (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:03:01 PM EST

campaign contributions to charity, as opposed to returning the donations to the donor?

No (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST

yes (none / 0) (#51)
by Tano on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST

Is there room for "maybe"? (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST

Bothers me the news reports say Obama campaign returned the contributions. Not an exact use of the English language.


: when they are returned (none / 0) (#57)
by ogo on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST

Unless a campaign just keeps the money the only thing they can do is give it to charity. Giving the ill gotten gains back to the ill-getter isn't a great solution. I've never heard of it being done.

BTD (none / 0) (#3)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:05:02 PM EST

I would like to challenge Josh to do a side by side comparison of the Duke Cunningham real estate deal and the Obama deal.
I am talking the transaction details. It looks like a Duke to me, not as obvious, but c'mon.

There is no comparison (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:16:04 PM EST

NONE.

Please stop sliming Obama.

This site does not condone false smearing.


While I agree. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST

that there doesn't appear to be much to the Rezko real estate deal, any time a politician is in a real estate deal with any business interest -- especially someone under federal investigation -- it's bound to raise questions.

Obama himself indicates it was a mistake (a "boneheaded" one, in fact). There's no quid pro quo, but there was a big mistake in judgement, admitted by Obama.


So what? (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST

We do not question our pols without evidence.

Heck, we should not do it to the other side either.

But I'll admit we are more flexible on that than maybe we should be.


I'm not questioning. . . (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST

I'm accepting Obama's statement on the situation that he made a boneheaded mistake in judgement.

That matters because one of his campaign planks is superior judgement (on the Iraq war, for instance). His self-confessed bad judgement on another matter is germane to the broader judgement issue.

[Firefox says to write judgment and not judgement. Which is right?]


Judgment (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST

is a legal term.

Judgement would be correct in your usage.


: Well, if you're Canadian (none / 0) (#36)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:10:18 PM EST

Preferred spelling in British English is judgement. Preferred spelling in American English is judgment.
British spelling acceptable in some American dictionaries (but not to a lot of American English teachers).
Blame Noah Webster, probably. He actually went out of his way to deviate from a lot of British spellings toward the cause of creating American English. He just caused a lot of headaches.

Certainly, Senator Clinton is free to make (none / 0) (#46)
by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:52:37 PM EST

that argument.

Not sure she wants to go down that road, though.


No, I'm sure she'll leave. . . (none / 0) (#64)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:34:42 PM EST

the negative campaigning to pseudonymous Obama supporters in the blogosphere.

But it is something for people who are undecided between Obama and Clinton to consider, and it's always in reserve if Obama tries -- for instance, in a debate -- to attack Clinton's judgement.


Are you accusing Obama of having (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST

sockpuppets in the blogosphere? Now that is a very serious charge.


: Not sockpuppets. (none / 0) (#68)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:24:23 PM EST

Obama visited Daily Kos once and I don't think he was too impressed with the response -- as I recall he had some negative things to say about the blogosphere afterwards.
There are a number of borderline deranged poo-flingers working on Obama's behalf (or at least they think they're working on Obama's behalf -- some of the time they do more harm than good to his campaign, I think). At least one such person is well-known to the commenter I was responding to.

And. . . (none / 0) (#26)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST

I like to see the extremists' eyeballs bug out of their heads.


How is it a slime (none / 0) (#63)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST

I think it would be a journalistic service to do a side by side comparison of the real estate deals, and why one is illegal and the other may appear illegal, but instead is just "bad judgement". Someone with legal/and political ethics. I realize appearance of something being illegal and something really being illegal are two different things.

Where I become almost irrational in my anger about the Rezko issue is Obama's attidude in his response to the Sun, the most egregious of his offenses, in my opinion, he blames the tenants and the neighborhood for the failure of the project. Is this not bothering anyone else as much as it bothers me? It's the 6th question down. Tell me if I am totally losing perspective on this. For people who work in neighborhoods particularly low income neighborhoods, this is a true slap. If yes, cause I respect you guys I will shut up about this and just wait and see.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article


Obama & Rezko (none / 0) (#66)
by norris morris on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:07:26 PM EST

You have a nerve calling anyone a smearer because they are looking into obvious problems regarding Obama's friend and patron, indicted Tony Rezko.

Obama has had many opportunities to speak up last year when the Chicago SunTimes, and Chicago Herald Tribune both asked him to clarify the work he'd done on all foreclosed government subsidized low-income housing that were neglected by slumlord Rezko and collapsed due and only due to his being given thousands of apartments he didn't heat,repair,or pay mortgages on.

This is not a smear. Rezko,was a friend, patron, and huge contributor to Obama for 17 years, including a sweetheart land deal. At best Obama appears indifferent to his constituent's suffering, and appears greedy to conduct personal deal with Rezko just as Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald [yes, Libby's Fitzgerald] was investigating and charging Rezko

Obama has been evasive and inaccurate when Tim Novak of SunTimes asked him some simple questions
in 2006, and 2007.

I cannot help thinking that Obama's constituents in his South Side district were never represented.

Virtually thousands of complaints about no heat for 5 weeks from Rezko's unpaid mortgages all occurred after government.state,city paid Rezko up front to rehab these buildings and delivered tax abatements.

To muddy these already muddy waters was the issue of Allison Davis, Obama's boss [lawfirm] that worked on many of these projects, and was financial expediter for community groups involved in receiving rehabbed apts, as well.

Obama and Michelle Obama socialized with Rita and Tony Rezko. What do you think this doofus situation calls for? Amnesia?? GOP is just waiting. I am disappointed in Obama.

Rezko's trial for fraud,kickbacks and corruption is February 24th,2008.


Randy "Duke" Cunningham, my former (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST

Representative!, pleaded guilty to steering military contracts towards the man who helped him on the house deals in Del Mar and Rancho Santa Fe. Cunningham was in a position to do so due to his committee assignments in Congress.

None of the newspaper articles I've read about Rezko's relationship with contain any information about any connection between (1) the purchase by the Obamas of the house, the purchase by Rezko's wife of the adjoining empty lot, or the subsequent purchase by the Obamas of 1/6th of that lot from Rezko's wife, and (2) Obama doing anything for Rezko or his wife based on Obama's political position.

Obama & Chicago SunTimes (none / 0) (#67)
by norris morris on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST

This is a very long story involving many deals and issues between Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, Rezmar, and Obama's lawfirm: Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. Allison Davis, Obama's boss also did biz with Rezko, and ultimately became his partner.
Also pertinent is the role Obama played in Illinois Senate where his district is where these slumlord activities occurred.

Rezko and Obama and his law firm are all well covered in series of excellent articles from 2007 to present, by investigative reporting team headed by Tim Novack of the Chicago Sun Times.

There is a great deal to read, so go to: www.suntimes.com and look for Obama archives and recent and past coverage.

Both the Sun Times and Herald tribune of Chicago have been covering this since 2006 & 2007 to present.


Read all of them... (none / 0) (#69)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:37:10 PM EST

I have read all of them that is why I don't get why people are not outraged. To me I keep repeating the biggest outrage is blaming the tenants for deals that were structured badly and where the developer took the money and left the tenants homeless. Then for Obama to blame them is outrageous. It's driving me mad.


: How can one say there is no issue w/o (none / 0) (#70)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST

having first read these articles, which I have.

PS (none / 0) (#4)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST

I am Syrian Lebanese...so I can say this, to top it off, Rezko is Arab. Ok...I said it, I know it's nothing,but to the Repugs? its an issue.

Hmm. (none / 0) (#5)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST

I didn't know that. And, of course, it makes no difference in determining whether Obama's relationship with Rezko is completely proper or not.

However, if at any time (the primary or the general) Obama is really hit with the Muslim accusations, having his principal financier in Chicago turn out to be an indicated Arab American is going to play right into the slime.


Syrian (none / 0) (#15)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST

It's not just that he's Arab, but Syrian. The Republicans will stir up Syria-related terrorist news and dog whistles to imply that Obama is the Manchurian candidate once again. This will happen in the general election if Obama is the nominee.

This might be a concern we could dismiss if Obama had shown he was capable of defending himself properly, but the opposite has been the case in my view.


: I doubt that the people. . . (none / 0) (#22)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST

they would be attempting to reach with that kind of attack are interested in differentiating among different Arab countries.

That was all I was saying... (none / 0) (#62)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST

At some point it will percolate. God knows I try to pass for Italian as much as I can. I apologize if it came wrong.


the Chicago Sun-Times articles include the (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST

information Rezko is Syrian American.

But today I learn he owns Panda Express!


You should not have said it (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST

Do not say it again.

Not here.


BTD (none / 0) (#16)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST

It doesn't help Obama that Rezko is Arab.

Maybe we could leave it at that. That is a reflection of American society and the Republican fearmongering, not of some of us bringing it up in this blog.


: I do not care (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST

what someone thinks about the benefit or consequence of the man's ethnicity.
Do not discuss it here.
We will fuel no bigotry here period.

The only reason (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:11:43 PM EST

I know about this picture is from your posts. You are the only "left blogger" I have seen talking about this. It was mentioned in the Caucus blog, on NY Times which explained the issue, and how Clinton has no connection.

I don't really see your rational for attacking Obama for something he didn't do, which you claim is a non issue.

: Sheesh (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST

You need to grow up if you are really saying that.
Get a grip jgarza.

: Greg Sargent, TPM Election Central, (none / 0) (#20)
by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:26:47 PM EST

has a post on it.

and now we are (none / 0) (#9)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:13:50 PM EST

discussing some guys ethnicity
CLASS ACT

"some people say" (none / 0) (#27)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST

That's what's happening here. It's a way to get a story out without looking like you're trying to get the story out. It's a Fox News special and one that TalkLeft seems to have picked up on in their Bashing of Obama.

Take a scroll through the posts of the last week and look at the number of, and kinds of stories on Obama and Hillary. In other words, look at this blog in the view of the Forest and not in the trees of the individual posts.

There is clear bashing on Obama throughout the story lines brought up - while BTD attempts to look Neutral in the individual blogs themselves. He must have learned well from the tactics of Fox News.


That is an offensive comment (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST

Do not do it again.

You do not get to insult me, Jeralyn or this site for free.

I am not allowed to take you to the woodshed but I am allowed to delete your insults. Stop them or stop commenting.


Offensive? (none / 0) (#34)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM EST

BTD - go count the posts of the past week. Here are the numbers (of course I may be one or two off)

Posts about Obama - 19
Posts about Hillary - 7

Almost all Obama posts point to something negative - or a negative story line. Almost all Clinton posts are presented as "news".

You're claim of neutrality is what's offensive.


andreww, BTD is just going after the (none / 0) (#38)
by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST

hypocrisy of the media (and the Obama campaign). Someone has to be fair and objective. Obama's people keep these stories alive by their inability to let it go.


what did Obama have to do with (none / 0) (#40)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:21:55 PM EST

the pictures?


BTD is not fair and objective (none / 0) (#41)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:28:07 PM EST

No posts on the impact of a former president slamming Obama.

No posts on the dangers of two family rule spanning decades

A week of inaccurate posts slamming obama on reagan - followed by a single appology

No posts now questioning Hillary's comments about delegates - Just presenting it as news here!

And on and on and on. My issue isn't with the viewpoints expressed - it's that they're wrapped in a false veil of neutrality.


do you make these demans elsewhere? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST

Is this the only blog you read? I wonder if you have made these requests for fairness at other blogs. I could find you a week on just about anywhere that has a pattern of posts against a particular person or topic and it doesn't reflect on the totality of their coverage or overall fairness.


Surely you are not requesting an (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST

entire week of mea culpa re interpretation of Obama's comments about Reagan?


: of course not (none / 0) (#52)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST

but posts on the other topics i mentioned - absolutely.

No cursing (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST

I was not insulting you. Indeed, I know you and I know you are not a problem on this.

But I am trying to establish a firm line here and that means I use you as an example somewhat here.

Do not take it personally. Except for the no cursing thing.

Ack (none / 0) (#24)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:32:27 PM EST

I know, we're going to cool back down. I have immense respect for you.


I deleted the comment with (none / 0) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:37:41 PM EST

cursing.


: in fairness (none / 0) (#61)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST

How about retracting that comment about "fueling bigotry here" that now stands unresponded to because you deleted my response?
That is an ugly charge.

Me? I'm just LMFAO over here in the corner. (none / 0) (#31)
by scribe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM EST

Here's the picture of Hill, and Bill and ... in the middle ... Mr. Rezko.

Now, let's see if I can paste the picture in here without totally skewing the site.
Guess not. But it's at the link.

There was a post earlier on this (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM EST

Paste in in that one if you like.

You can see a full discussion of the issue from my perspective.


Nice picture, eh? (none / 0) (#35)
by scribe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:07:02 PM EST

Funny, Hill looks ... blonder.


So I guess (none / 0) (#37)
by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST

You're admitting that having anything to do with Rezko - even just standing next to him with absolutely no indication that the politician even knew who Rezko was - somehow makes the person dishonest and is a fair comment on whether they should be the nominee. Wow, I'm glad there's no evidence Hillary took money from him or anything because that would look really bad.


: so good (none / 0) (#39)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:16:59 PM EST

It is one thing to call Obama the (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST

Media darling, but isn't he also the Talk Left darling on the issue of his relationship with Rezko? It is a "pol is a pol" issue, except that Obama represents himself as above all that sleazy stuff, including taking money from national lobbyists. If he would come off that meme and also just admit what his relationship with Rezko consisted of, the Rezko relationship would be be moot unless something additional is brought to light by investigative journalists, Rezko's impending trial, or some enterprising political investigator.

Whoever sent that into the Today (none / 0) (#45)
by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST

show did neither Obama nor Clinton any favors.

I still stay it was Rezko himself, miffed at Clinton's reference to him as a slumlord.

Who else would have that picture on file? A picture like that gets taken, and then they give the copy to the donor.

Pretty obvious what happened.

: DNA tests pending. (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:59:24 PM EST

: Campaign lesson #447 (none / 0) (#49)
by scribe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST

Don't call someone a slumlord.

Clinton (Off Topic but newsworthy) (none / 0) (#48)
by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:01:32 PM EST

New endorsement

: Wow (none / 0) (#55)
by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:18:44 PM EST

That is a big surprise.

: Interesting snippet: (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:34:40 PM EST

"[T]the position of the ownership and readership of this newspaper. . . ."
Usually a newspaper endorsement purports to be from just the editorial board.
Also, no evidence HRC was ever a "farm girl."

ABC News (none / 0) (#56)
by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:19:29 PM EST

ABC news reporting that there is another $100,000 that Rezko donated to Obama over the years that hasnt been returned...

The Rezko photo with the Clintons was taken at a Sen. Carol Mosley Braun fundraiser in 1997 in Chicago. Rezko was one among many Braun contributors who stood in line and posed for pictures with the President and First Lady.
Clintons...Rezko donated $1000. to Ms Braun campaign at the time of the picture

: Chi press, a week or so ago, said same amount (none / 0) (#58)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST

out -- but to be clear, the total (about $200,000, last I read) is from Rezko and his "associates," "circle," and such euphemisms in most reports.

The issue of being corrupt (none / 0) (#71)
by lily15 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST

Several commenters are correct in stating that this should be explored further. It is absolutely a question of judgment. It is also a question of hypocrisy. Additionally, something does not have to be criminal to be unethical or corrupt. Consider: Obama called Hillary "corrupt" on numerous occasions and in the debates for behavior that was clearly not criminal and not corrupt. My guess is that Hillary would never engage in the type of conduct that Obama engaged in here. After all, she has been investigated for far less when in the White House. But by Obama's own standards, is his own behavior corrupt as opposed to boneheaded? Obama started the name calling, not Hillary. Maybe we absolutely need to examine the actions of Obama, who seems to have no problem with the word "corrupt," especially when tossed out about Hillary.

: Hypocrisy and bad judgement (none / 0) (#72)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:16:49 PM EST

I find the whole "bad judgement" classification the biggest hypocrisy of our society. Poor people who get in trouble never get "the bad judgement" card. Wealthy people and politicians get off with the bad judgement card. There is an inherent injustice. The second hypocrisy is creating this artificial persona of idealism, progressivism and transcendancy (I hate that word in this context) when you have all the human/political foibles that others have. You make deals, you compromise, you pander...etc. Either we thrash it out now, or we risk having it blow up in our face.