Will The Clinton Hate Help Obama In A General Election?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Publius of ObiWi seems to think it is possible:

Here’s the point (and I'd welcome conservatives' thoughts on this) – Obama seems to be steadily gaining likeability points on the other side just because he happens to be fighting the Clintons. Any enemy of the Clintons can’t be that bad, the argument seems to go. . . . All that said, whatever likeability points he’s gaining now may not matter as people fall back into party lines for the election. But then again, it doesn’t take all that much peeling off of modern coalitions to create a landslide win.

Actually, it will take a significant amout of peeling off, say 5-10% at least. More than that there are two problems with Publius' argument. More . . .

First, there is no evidence that Obama is benefitting from this NOW in terms of votes. That some conservatives and the Media say nice things about Obama has not translated into Obama runing well with Republicans in polls. There simply is no evidence to support Publius' thesis. And Obama is running against Hillary NOW. He will not be in a general election, so the enemy of my enemy theory simply makes no sense in logical terms.

Second, what price this appeal? Will Obama completely disappoint this slice of the electorate if he gains their votes? Will Obama just ignore them and his reelection chances?

Sorry, but this is a bogus theory. Here's two MUCH better theories for Obama - (1) because the Media loves him he can get more independents; and (2) he is bringing many new voters out to vote for him. I think there are plenty of counter theories to those but these at least make sense.

< The Mittster On The Rise In FL | The Divisiveness Is Tearing The Party Apart! Isn't It? Hello? >

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.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Will The Clinton Hate Help Obama In A General Election? | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

what belies that theory is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST

Hillarys current standing in the polls...Her average in Florida is 18% ahead of Obama...the number of voters in the election there are more than all the other states that have voted so far...I personally think that those demographics after Tuesday will reflect more readily on the nation as a whole than anything to date...What say you??

: athyrio (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by cdo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:35:54 PM EST

I think you are right. Hillary is far from done, as much as the media would like to bury her. Florida should be a wake up call that South Carolina is not a microcosm of this country, demographically speaking. Latinos represent a bigger number of voters across the country, they can be counted on to go to the polls, and the favor Hillary right now by a pretty large margin.

Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by cdo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST

Independent leaning republicans will already have a candidate in McCain, so I can't really see any noticeable pick up for Obama in that scenario...possibly, if their nominee is Romney.
Obama might also appeal to some Evangelical types...what with the halo and all. But Obama Republicans? Sounds like wishful thinking. An Obama/McCain match up will be, I think, the worst scenario for Democrats. He may be able to shirk off the experience thing now (since many people delude themselves by not considering Hillary's eight years as First Lady to be experience and Edwards time in office wasn't much either)...but how well will his "vision" carry him against a Vietnam Vet and long time senator? Obama is getting a big free ride now...hope he enjoys it cause he ain't seen nothing yet.

independents (none / 0) (#67)
by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:49:06 PM EST

cannot vote as dems in many of the super tues states, which might explain why they held back the Kennedy endorsement until now. Good strategy for the primary, not so good for the general election, when those same independents (and some repubs) will eat their own crap before they vote for a Teddy Kennedy endorsed liberal.


hahahahaha (none / 0) (#68)
by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:54:28 PM EST

I enjoyed that.


: thank you (none / 0) (#69)
by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST

On the other hand, can we assume that the repubs like to eat crap because they were clapping like crazy during that preposterous SOTU tonight?
"Please, sir, can I have more crap?"

Real Negatives To Pushing Clinton Hatred (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by MO Blue on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST

Real deap seated concern about the ecomony will probably be one of the main factors in the 08 election IMO. I think the majority of Americans look back on Clinton's presidency and see a time when they and those they know were better off financially. This should have been a real plus for the Democratic party. Instead of building on this mental image, we have party members not only dismissing those years as irrelevant and distastful, but supporting a candidate that defines the Reagan presidency as the one of clarity, optomism and dynamic change.

Clinton hatred removes the possibility of using those years as examples of when people and the country were better off financially than they are under a Republican president.

The meaning of they (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:57:03 PM EST

is the wealthy media tycoons, and the wealthy corporate execs in general. many of them sits on the same board. I know from my years has a CPA. A true democrat with a fighting chance is a threat to them, which is Hillary. Obama does not threaten them, I truly believe that the larger conspiracy is to get Hillary out of the picture, so that they can use their influnce in negative adds, and proganda, and Black vs White when the time comes to ruin Obama. Obama is a game of chance, and i'm not a gambling man. Hillary is a safe bet. If we get bambuzled into Obama sweet little speeches, then we all will pay the price in November. We should start thinking with our heads and our sense of reason.

: I was afraid (none / 0) (#35)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST

"they" were

wealthy media tycoons, and the wealthy corporate execs in general. many of them sits on the same board.
Seems like alot of Dems are coming out of the wood work now to endorse Obama.
I keep thinking about what happened with Kerry. This is just SOOOOO BAAAAD!

hmm? (none / 0) (#1)
by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST

weeeeell. if he is in the GE then she isnt so no.

Electile Disfunction (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST

I have self-diagnosed a recent problem I have as that of electile dysfunction. It is the inability to get excited about anyone running for president, in any party. I know others that are suffering from this aliment. Symptoms I have notice are a) Turning off the news when the presidential race is talked about. b) Going BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH out loud when my ear catches one of the liars talking. c) Wondering what ever happened to good old boys like LBJ, Nixon and That peanut guy. d) A queasy feeling of doom in my stomach combined with a headache. e) Reserving movies for the entire evening of Nov. 4, 2008.

I fear 9 months from now this epidemic will reach pandemic proportions with only one choice left to the voter, the same choice we have had for sometime now. Who do I vote against? Which talking head is the least harmful? Should I even vote?


: Romnealis (none / 0) (#8)
by white n az on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST

the cure to electile dysfunction.

: That is so funny...I feel the same way. (none / 0) (#11)
by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST

I have watched basketball and now golf today. I haven't read a newspaper. I did read three diaries on Kos just because I'm still in wean mode but other than that, I'm over it too.
(I don't include Nixon as a good ole boy though).

Sophistry (none / 0) (#3)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST

Way to much sophistry, turns on itself and then what? This of course then would make sense that Obama hearts Reagan comment and why he said it.

No but (none / 0) (#4)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST

Obama will carry 40+ states in the general. Its not Clinton hate, but Obama's appeal.

Uh, evidence? reasoning? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST

anything to support this statement? Bueller?

That is, anything to support this, if you want to be at all persuasive. This isn't a ballot; it's a blog. Thanks.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST

The commenter is a republican. That's support enough for me.

: Thats (none / 0) (#34)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM EST

Thats my estimate and I'm sticking with it.
Its a small sample, but the Dems in the family will vote Dem no matter what, and the Indy's would be pleased as punch to vote for the first black president as would some of the Repubs.

Ha! I just read more than 40, almost (none / 0) (#7)
by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST

50 on DK. 49-1 to be exact. There's a diary youknowwhere that says Freepers love Obama (and thinks this is a good thing) and the commenter's are predicting a blowout. I recommended the diary just because it is so silly. God forbid a moderate Democrat like Hillary but they're bragging that freepers love him.

I really wish I could be a believer.


okay (none / 0) (#12)
by Nasarius on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST

I assumed that's an entirely faith-based comment, since the general election polling that's been done usually gives the edge to Edwards by a significant margin, and even he isn't looking that good.

I'm sure Obama could win, but latent racism plus McCain (and the ensuing media lovefest) will make that very difficult.


abdul that is silly (none / 0) (#17)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:56:52 PM EST

to just make up numbers like that...Many of the Hillary voters expressed reservations about voting for Obama in the SC primary if he got the nomination but all of Obama's supporters in SC said they would vote for Hillary...that is a hugeeeeeeeeeeee problem at this point...You just cannot take the main line democratic vote for granted...Look at the polls...


naw, sorry! is the next feature starting (none / 0) (#21)
by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST

soon? i want to get some popcorn. oh, that's right, i'll be super tuesday.


Please don't assume (none / 0) (#62)
by echinopsia on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:52:08 PM EST

that because he appeals to you he appeals to everyone.

His supporters are pissing a lot of people off right now.


You're not considering the youth vote (none / 0) (#6)
by white n az on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:24:02 PM EST

I agree that Obama can and will bring a lot of young voters that don't know the Clinton years and only have the MSM's narrative to guide them.

Whether he can ultimately draw in the independents is left to be figured out but it appears that might be the case. Probably the bigger issue with independents is that the Republican field fails to inspire on all but a Huckabee level (which certainly makes a strong argument for him as a vp choice by McCain or Romney)

If you accept that Obama is pulling educated white male votes then it's reasonable to think that he is making headway but Super Tuesday will tell us a lot more about where we stand

News Flash (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM EST

the white male voters in SC went to Edwards...


: Thought stats showed, as in NH (none / 0) (#24)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST

that older white men in SC -- and almost all are white in NH -- went for Clinton. See pollster.com.

Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#66)
by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:28:56 AM EST

but they don't even come close to the Baby Boomer vote, and Clinton is winning those quite handily.


Yeah, I'm starting to think the stars are (none / 0) (#10)
by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST

aligned well for Obama. He's going to have a weak competitor if he wins and the media loves him. I am seriously beginning to doubt my own views.


That may be true... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by BernieO on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST

...if the Republican nominee is Romney, but remember, many in the media have had a crush on McCain for years now so who knows who they will pull for. Although, now that they have set the rules so that practically any criticism of Obama is considered racist, they may feel intimidated by their own standards.
I do think, however, that the vast majority of Americans are frightened about their own future and the future of this country. I find it hard to believe that when push comes to shove they will feel comfortable voting for someone as unproven as Obama, no matter how much they may like him and his message.


: From exit polls in SC (none / 0) (#22)
by RalphB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST

21% of Obama's voters thought Clinton would be the best nominee in November. Identity politics at it's best. :-)

Actually I did (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:39:01 PM EST

I'm not convinced the youth vote should be (none / 0) (#61)
by echinopsia on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:49:14 PM EST

relied upon. They're kids, they party, they get hungover, they go to school, they skip class, they blow things off, they aren't responsible. Especially affluent youth. He may have their support now, but I wouldn't plan on it lasting through the summer.


: They were important in Iowa -- on semester break (none / 0) (#63)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM EST

but election day is different.
(Btw, Iowa campuses also are filled with Illinoisans, so that helped; it's an easy ride across the Mississippi. Interesting to see that ever since, including yesterday, Clinton won a lot of college towns.)

I reject out of hand blog featuring (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST

a picture of a cat.

: but (none / 0) (#28)
by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:45:14 PM EST

the little kitty is holding a firearm? Isnt that cute?

Yes. It's bogus. (none / 0) (#23)
by oldpro on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST

Your theory number 2 is possible. Number 1, unlikely. If he is the nominee - particularly against McCain - the media will turn on him. That would make theory number 2 imperative...perhaps even likely.

BTD, can you please check on the (none / 0) (#25)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:47:52 PM EST

following? There's a claim over at MYDD that Bill C. was asked specifically about black candidates when he mentioned Jesse Jackson.
I think that makes a lot of sense. You're about the only reputable blogger who would find it worth the time to correct the story, if this comment is right.

Here's a comment saying so on Salon (none / 0) (#37)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:59:34 PM EST

to Joan Walsh's piece today on the SC win:

The sound of Karl Rove laughing

If Karl Rove laughs because spin was successful and people were gullible enough to believe it, does it make a sound?

Someone just posted something that has been missed by a good number of folks, and it can be confirmed as true, if you want to check. Here it is again:

"Bill was asked by a reporter whether he thought Obama could "win as an African American candidate. It was to this question that he referenced Jackson and complimented them both Jackson and Obama for running good campaigns. The reporters question was edited out..."

Surprise! People believe everything that is on the "news". More often than not they don't even seek legitimate news sources or check to see who wrote it. They won't get access to the reporter's question! Reporters are at times provoking the interviewee to see if something can be taken out of context. That's the idea.

The context and the questions are usually edited out so that the spin can begin. . . .

-- edziu's muse


No video but narrative... (none / 0) (#38)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:09:53 PM EST

No video but there is a narrative sequence of lead up to the question, I did not post the whole article

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
COLUMBIA, SC -- At the end of a week in which he's often been the center of attention, former president Bill Clinton struck a conciliatory note, admitting that he has gotten "hot" defending his wife even as he defended his campaign role.
"I have not said anything that is factually inaccurate," he said.
Clinton had some scrambled eggs and grits with supporters this morning before setting off to visit polling locations here and upstate. As he greeted voters at the Meadowlake polling station, a woman greeted him and said, "You're doin' good. Just watch what you say."
"My message has been 99.9% positive for 100% of this campaign," Clinton said to reporters later. "I think that when I think she's being misrepresented, I have a right to try to with factual accuracy set the record straight, which is what I've tried to do."
A number of prominent Barack Obama supporters and neutral observers have criticized Clinton's vocal role on his wife's behalf. John Kerry told National Journal that "being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth."
"Did you notice he didn't specify?" Clinton said when asked about the comment. "They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing gets specified. I'm not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me. He can support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. But there's nothing for me to respond to."
Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Clinton again passed. "That's' just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere."
The reference to Jackson seemed a way to downplay today's result in a state where a majority of voters are African American. Clinton was also asked today about charges of race baiting, and defended himself by citing testimony from John Lewis and Andrew Young, who marched with Martin Luther King. "I don't have to defend myself on civil rights," he said.
Clinton repeated that it's been harder dealing with the barbs of a campaign as a surrogate rather than a candidate. "I think it's harder to take when you hear people say things and call them names for months," he said. "I think I was a little hot in New Hampshire. And I think I got criticized for that." He said one person told him he told the truth, but that people "don't wanna see you mad about it." He said, "I think that's advice that I should have taken."

MSNBS


Here's some video: (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:15:26 PM EST

BILL CLINTON


I can't view that.. does it answer the (none / 0) (#43)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST

question?


The questioner asks for Bill Clinton's (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:27:48 PM EST

reaction to Barack Obama's comment it takes two of them. Clinton laughs, then says: "that's a bait too" then makes his comment about Jackson's primary wins and compliments both Obama and Jackson on their good campaigns.


So there's no question about Obama (none / 0) (#45)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST

as the black candidate?


No. (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:29:34 PM EST

the video starts before that question? (none / 0) (#48)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST

The video posted at (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST

poligazetee starts off with the questioner asking Clinton about Obama's comment it takes two.


No, it starts at that question and (none / 0) (#53)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:36:54 PM EST

Bill's reply is that it's "bait, too."

So it still leaves us not seeing and hearing the question that was the first "bait."


the question before (none / 0) (#55)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:38:36 PM EST

A number of prominent Barack Obama supporters and neutral observers have criticized Clinton's vocal role on his wife's behalf. John Kerry told National Journal that "being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth."
"Did you notice he didn't specify?" Clinton said when asked about the comment. "They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing gets specified. I'm not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me. He can support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. But there's nothing for me to respond to."
Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Clinton again passed. "That's' just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere."

: to me (none / 0) (#59)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:52:35 PM EST

there is nothing racist about that statement in its totality...another blow up by the clinton haters in conjunction with the MSM...that is what is disgraceful...To accuse Bill of racism with his record of civil rights is stupid and mean spirited...

The video is in a post at (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST

poligazette.com


check my post above (none / 0) (#49)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:33:20 PM EST

it has more than the video


Pins and needles here; suspense is (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:37:50 PM EST

klling me. Is Clinton's comment "despicable"? Not to me.


: Well that's the other point (none / 0) (#56)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:43:36 PM EST

Manufactured outrage over stating the obvious.. rather reminiscent of the Kerrey brouhaha.
Hussein---BOO!

: It looks like Obama may play the victim (none / 0) (#57)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM EST

all the way to the White House.
Ugh.

They hate Hillary (none / 0) (#26)
by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST

because they fear her. The right hatred for Hillary means that she is doing something correct. They are having a honeymoon with Obama, because they do not think he can defeat them. Oh bye the way, if Obama gets the nomination the honeymoon will be over. We the left, are playing into the media tycoons hand and not truly seeing what they are doing. The media tycoons wants nothing more than an Obama nomination, then they will take their gloves off and put their friends in the White House again. Remember that Blacks made Obama won SC (81%) (and 55% of all that voted were Black), not Whites (24% for Obama)(and about 40% of all that voted), if this trend continues how can Obama win? I'm not trying to get racial just laying out the facts.

here's a thought (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:55 PM EST

they know she is going to win and want to make a real contest out of it - for ratings and to fill their empty airtime.

Of course, this would make them irresponsible but so what? It's the story, baby!


THEY (none / 0) (#30)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:47:24 PM EST

Who do you mean by they?

Check this...

Democratic state legislators from marginal districts will make the argument at a press conference Monday afternoon that having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket will help them in November.

: Re: (none / 0) (#65)
by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:03 PM EST

It's obviously relevant who would be the best candidate for downticket races, but still, there's something a little sickening to me watching Democrats call a press conference to say, in effect, Hillary is going to hurt us if she's the nominee. I mean, imagine where that leaves Hillary if she IS the nominee.

I think (none / 0) (#31)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:50:29 PM EST

the Clinton hatred stemed from the right wing not being able to beat them in major political races on more than one occasion....They hated that...So they started trash talking Hillary etc. years ago in case they ever dared show their heads again ...and it is working....people mouth off that they hate her but really dont know why...so sad....However, never underestimate the pissed off females in this party come voting day.....


: Yep. A friend calls us POWs (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM EST

Pissed Off Women. :-)

WOW (none / 0) (#36)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST

Look at this link comparing all the demographics of each state against each other for black vs white of each candidate...Results quite difference than is being reported...

Clintons Hatred (none / 0) (#39)
by koshembos on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:12:24 PM EST

There is something terribly wrong with a society that hates a couple of people (never mind that one of them was a pretty successful president), spend a lot of time fomenting more hatred, encouraging this hatred and bathes in this hatred. Mind you we are talking of haters from the extreme right to the extreme left and many in between.

It's as if the slogan of our politics is: Haters of the Clintons unite!

: Victims of the culture wars (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST

Hatred was the fire of the right wing. Then when Obama acts as if both sides are to blame, this is what pisses off old timers like me. They fueled homophobia, the working class against people on welfare, they started the wars, they demonize entire religions, they want to criminalize everything that is not in their range of crime..the list goes on. That is why I find the Obama message offensive. Sorry, but there is someone to blame and it's not the baby boomers, the Clintons or party politics, it's the demonizers.
That is why I hate the feelings of anger and hate that I have had the past few days.

I'm scratching my head here (none / 0) (#41)
by white n az on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:17:44 PM EST

I understand Lynn Sweet's position but I can't figure out why Blagojevich is radioactive for his association with Rezko and Obama is not.

radioactive (none / 0) (#51)
by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST

Racism.


Governor (none / 0) (#52)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:36:38 PM EST

The allegations are that the governor...long name, was the biggest beneficiary in the pay to play schemes by Rezko. He may be under investigation. So, everyone is staying away from him it will raise the Rezko phantom.


: Racism, white guy just can't buy a break :-) (none / 0) (#60)
by RalphB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:34:30 PM EST

Re: (none / 0) (#64)
by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:47:48 PM EST

The indictment against Rezko alleges, among other things, that Rezko tried to extort $1.5 million from a businessman in exchange for a state contract, and the payoff was to be made in the form of a donation to Blagojevich (who isn't actually named, but the papers say it's him). Unlike other episodes where Rezko supposedly told someone to donate $10k to Obama, and Obama probably had no idea it was even dirty money, if the allegation is true one has to assume that Blago was doing something in return for that kind of moolah.
