home

Rezko Trial Set to Begin: Implications for Barack Obama

Let me start out by saying, as I have before, that I don't think Barack Obama did anything illegal in his dealings with Anton "Tony" Rezko. Obama has labeled his involvement with Rezko and his wife in the purchase of his home "boneheaded." In other words, since Rezko was under federal investigation by a grand jury at the time Obama bought the $1.65 million house, it was bad judgment, nothing more.

Rezko's trial begins next week. It is a trial about the politics of crime and the crime in politics. As I do many such trials, including that of former Ill. Gov. George Ryan, I am going to cover it. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because Barack Obama's name will come up.

It seems the American media, aside from Obama's home town papers, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times, and the New York Post, are mostly lying low on it. Across the pond, as Instapundit notes, it's of interest to the TimesOnLine, which has a three page article on it today.

Also today, the Tribune reports that the Judge has allowed "Public Official A" to be unmasked as Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And that Obama's name will surface during the trial.

[More...]

Another reason to cover the trial is that as the Post points out , while the Rezko trial is occurring too late to help Hillary Clinton, it may be good fodder for John McCain.

Starting with the Post, here's how it frames the issue of the Rezko-Obama relationship:

Obama's ability to make the right call on important issues, and his claim to be untainted by politics as usual, is seriously called into doubt by his alliance with the property developer and fast food franchiser Rezko, a close personal friend and one of his most generous donors.

....While there is no suggestion that Obama has done anything illegal, the Rezko trial will focus attention upon the propriety of a deal between the senator and Rezko that substantially raised the value of the senator's sumptuous home on Chicago's South Side. What Rezko expected from Obama in return remains unclear.

The unspoken question: Does anyone get something for nothing?

The Post delves into the history of the home purchase:

In June 2005, Obama bought a 98-year-old Kenwood mansion from a University of Chicago doctor for $1.65 million, using a $1.69 million advance he received from publishers Crown for his book, "The Audacity of Hope." The same day Rezko's wife Rita paid the doctor $625,000 for the empty lot adjoining Obama's property.

Even though at the time Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration, Obama did business with him, buying for $104,500 a 10-foot wide strip of Rita Rezko's lot, ostensibly to provide space for a fence. The deal left Mrs. Rezko's lot too small to build upon, thereby lifting the value of Obama's home.

Now, the first attack Obama can expect from Republicans:

But that [the home purchase] was not the end of the affair. The senator's claim to have been completely open about his relationship with Rezko was called into doubt on Monday when the senator belatedly admitted that, before he bought his home, he and Rezko visited the property together.

Turning to Rezko, none of his charges involve Barack Obama. But, they are serious charges.

Rezko is a presidential candidate's nightmare buddy. He stands accused of demanding fake finder's fees for payments made to Illinois teachers' and health workers' state pension funds. And he is accused of defrauding GE Capital out of $10 million in loans for his fast-food franchises.

According to court documents, Rezko is also accused of prompting "at least one other individual" to give money to Obama's senatorial campaign, then reimbursing him, in violation of federal election law.

Another issue is the recommendation of people for jobs:

Prosecutors have submitted to the court a 26-page list of those Rezko wanted appointed to posts in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration. The list contains those whom Obama recommended for state jobs. On Thursday it was reported that among those Rezko proposed for a job was the real estate agent who conducted the sale of Sen. Obama's home.

Warranted or not, there will many articles written about Obama's relationship with Rezko which will draw more interest in Rezko's trial. Journalists sitting in on the trial will relay the goings-on to their readers, and it will be in the news.

The links between Obama and Rezko that will be on show in the forthcoming trial may expose a chink in Obama's shining armor. Hard evidence of his at best naivety in the face of political corruption may not come quickly enough to help Hillary Clinton, who must win in Texas and Ohio on March 4 if she is to escape defeat. Most of the coming week in court will be taken up with jury selection.

If the Rezko trial comes too late to alert Democratic voters to the murkier side of Obama's time in Chicago politics, John McCain can be sure to exploit the court-attested fact that the Illinois Senator is not as free from the influence of sleaze as he likes to suggest.

The Post says the case will be the first of Obama's "squeaky clean" image. In light of the pass Obama has gotten in the media to date, I doubt it will amount to much. At least, not unless and until his opponent is John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton.

< The Rules Are What They Are: That Does Not Make Them Right | Inside The Texas Polling >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thinking he did nothing illegal may be irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    When the trial begins, if Obama is implicated and the investigation and evidence reveals a connection that may be criminal, then it is what it is.

    Winning Texas and Ohio might turn out to be the most important challenge Hillary Clinton has ever faced in her political career.

    The results of March 4th could very well change the course of American history.  Imagine if she were to hold on and the shiny image of Obama begins to crumble due to this trial and other vetting that still needs to take place.

    With the wins, Clinton could allows us to make the right choice of nominee.  Without it, we will be stuck with Obama regardless of what we learn from here on out.

    The Media (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    Won't do that.

    They don't shoot their wad on something like this (sorry about the colorful metaphor), they don't want resignments, they don't want to destroy careers, all they want to do is render the politician powerless, dragging it out as long as they can.

    As much as I like the scenario above, they're holding these cards for the general election, and even then, if Obama still wins the General Election, it's still all we'll hear about for the next 4 or 8 years.


    [ Parent ]

    I can almost hear (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    a bozo like Boehner calling for a special prosecutor, and I can envision a Democratic AG not wanting to appear biased, and in the interest of "fairness" doing just that - and as usual, we will get bogged down in all kinds of crap that will dog us for years and affect our chances of holding a majority in Congress as well as the WH.

    It's why I hope that Hillary hangs in there - because I do not believe the Rezko trial is coming too late to help her.

    [ Parent ]

    the Republican media has a life of its own (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    One month and a half between March 4th and Pennsylvania.  Hundreds of hours for Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News to fill airtime.

    I do believe the media would start reporting "bad stuff" about Obama eventually as long as the right wing noise machine lights the fire for them.

    Regardless of what any of us think, let's agree that it's better for Clinton to have that extra month than not to have it.  At least there would still be hope.

    [ Parent ]

    Well Sure (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    I can agree with the extra month.

    I don't agree with Rezko becoming Obama's downfall.


    [ Parent ]

    it's irrelevant what you or I think (none / 0) (#75)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    this is my favorite line today, btw. When it comes to this Rezko stuff, none of our opinions matter right now.  But Fitzgerald's will matter a lot.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
      Actually, this is one of the few cases where the Superdelegates provide a valuable check on the system, if as seems highly unlikely-- this becomes a campaign destroying issue, then they can step in(at the convention), if not then the elections on 3/4 probably end the primary season.

     Frankly, I think Rezi, not Rezko may end up being the issue, especially given Obama's rather lengthy record of legislative achievment in open government issues (you can contest a lot of his record, but in this case he has been a true leader, and he along with Feingold, Mccain, and strangely enough Coburn, have been consistent on these issues). The Rezi case shows a recent lapse in judgment for Mccain (Rezko, can be written off due to Keating, at least that's my hope I may be wrong).

    [ Parent ]

    This is a criminal justice blog (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    So it is completely appropriate for you to cover the trial and anyone who complains about that is being silly.

    But I don't think you can blame the national media for not covering it given that "none of the charges involve Obama" and Rezko is not a national figure.

    Trial hasn't yet begun. NYT and (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    LA Times have run articles about Rezko/Obama relationship and bail revocation of Rezko.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#29)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    The Rezko relationship is fair game.  But Jeralyn's post hinted, and I anticipate other commenters arguing, that if the media does not devote extensive coveage to the trial itself, that will indicate pro-Obama bias.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think the media will be able (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    to resist this trial.  I expect daily updates in the major newspapers, although most people don't read a daily paper.  

    [ Parent ]
    Nightline...300.000 thousand dollars less? (none / 0) (#85)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Nightline reported on it last night. Obama has been friends with Rezko for 20 years and he bought the house from him for 300.000 thousand dollars less than the asking price. Boneheaded?

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (none / 0) (#90)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    Obama did not buy his house from Rezko. And what land he did buy from Rezko's wife was not undervalued. Read more here. Many people have the facts wrong about who Obama bought the house from, and Jeralyn's wording on this post doesn't seem to help.

    [ Parent ]
    he bought a 10 foot strip of Rezko's wife's land (none / 0) (#98)
    by g8grl on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM EST
    for 100K rendering the remaining piece (that Rezko's wife kept) virtually useless (completely unbuildable).  So to recap, Rezko basically bought a piece of land for $600K so that Obama could buy the house next to it.  Then Rezko devalued his property by selling part of it to Obama for 1/6th of the price and making the rest of his investment worthless.  Sure it's not illegal, but it sure is fishy.  It's obvious that Rezko was expecting something in return.

    [ Parent ]
    But the is no Quid pro Quo (none / 0) (#122)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    Frankly, I think the fact that Obama had a friendship apparently with Rezko softens the implications, friends help each other (and there was no apparent legislative help), like the article cited notes, a Rezko friends son got an internship. Don't try to make something appear where there isn't anything, its like the GOP deal on HRC's cattle futures stock, where she got a tip from a friend and turned a grand into 100,000 dollars, but nothing was given in return.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (none / 0) (#129)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    You are the first person which I have read that understands this facet of the transaction. The sellers could have cared less who paid what at closing, they only wanted money that totaled the amount for which they wished to sell the property. By selling the garden of the home the value is decreased. By slicing off the edge of the lot the value of the lot is decreased. I have found that people do not understand that decreasing the amount of surrounding property in an estate type home decreases the value significantly. The corner lot which was the garden has easements on both street sides, and the area does not allowing building on zero lot lines, therefore the building footprint would be small and limiting that which could be built. The informed buyer would not buy an estate home which could have a possible development of townhouses or condos built next to it as it would decrease the value. A bank or mortgage appraiser would also take this into account if it was known at the time of the mortgage appraisal. The issue is in kind subsidy from Rezko.  

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo NOT (none / 0) (#142)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    That's a very compelling paragraph.  Unfortunately it is completely and demonstrably false.  Rezko sold the rest of the lot to another developer for $575,00, resulting in a total profit of $54,000 including Obama's purchase.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 0) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    I hate when reality comes crashing down on Internet theory.

    [ Parent ]
    The current owner is a (none / 0) (#183)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Rezko attorney per ABC news story and is for sale currently. The property is being sold around in a circle of associates. Mr Rezko has been telling the Feds that he is broke and out of assets but he owns this lot so he got rid of it. The selling price can be for a nickel and a hug but what matters is what it is worth. When looking at real estate the appraisal is what courts and banks go with not the asking or selling price. Your story is dated 02/07 where the ABC story was in 2008. I do not think this was a crime but rather an ethics violation.

    [ Parent ]
    If you knew about the current owner (none / 0) (#189)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    you were being dishonest for not mentioning that in the previous post.  Your insinuation that a $575,000 real estate deal involving someone who is currently under federal investigation is a sham does not pass the laugh test.  And as I'm sure you know, but didn't mention, the lot is on the market for $1.5 million.  But I know, I know: that's a sham too.  Even though nobody pointed that out in the Sun-Times story.  

    [ Parent ]
    He put it up for sale (none / 0) (#191)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    only after he was indicted.

    [ Parent ]
    Landmarks Commission (none / 0) (#213)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    Michelle Obama was on the Landmarks commission.  One of the issues about selling the property was getting certain approvals from the Landmarks Commission.  Well, gee whiz, Michelle was on the Commission and quite right before the purchase.  She was able to make sure the waivers would get approved.  

    [ Parent ]
    The story (none / 0) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
    was that Rezko bought it to develop into condos.  Really? In that kind of neighborhood with Single Family Zoning?  In what planet?

    [ Parent ]
    Sigh (none / 0) (#149)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    Well, here's what's what reported:

    Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

    But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006.

    So we learn the quite reasonable fact that the price of a plot of land does not, in fact, scale linearly.  This seems like a pretty reasonable model -- there's a base price that reflects the fact that the plot is large enough for a house, and then the value will scale based on size.  If anyone who works in real estate would like to correct this, I'd be happy to know about it.

    Second, if a 1500 sq ft plot was one-sixth of the plot, then the total Rezko plot, after selling the strip, was 7500 sq. ft.  Obviously, this is more than enough land for a house to sit on.  (Or one really huge garden!)

    [ Parent ]

    thats obviously not true (none / 0) (#217)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    since Ms. Rezko subsequently sold the remaining parcel and did not lose any money on the two deals.

    [ Parent ]
    Nightline. (none / 0) (#99)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    You should write to Nightline and tell them they got their facts wrong. They reported it last night. So Jeralyn's wording is in synch with abc news.

    [ Parent ]
    that's wrong (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    Michelle Obama made three offers on the house. The owners accepted her final offer. Rezko wasn't the seller of the house. His wife bought the lot next to it. Obama later bought 1/6 of the lot from her at the no discount.

    There are questions about where Mrs. Rezko got the money to buy the land -- not about whether he got a sweetheart deal.

    Also, I believe the sellers had made it clear they would only sell the land and the lot together. So without Mrs. Rezko's purchase of the lot, the Obamas could not have purchased the house.

    I'm sure Obama supporters will correct me if I'm wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe this is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by g8grl on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    Again, what's left unsaid is that by selling 1/6th to the Obamas for $100K they rendered the 5/6 they didn't sell useless to anyone except the Obamas as a garden plot.  So essentially they got $100K for a $600K investment.

    [ Parent ]
    It amazes me (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    that people know what the value of the property is sight unseen.

    Why would 1/6 of the property being taken render the property useless?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm guessing its zoning laws? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The operative word (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    being "guess".

    [ Parent ]
    Local building codes? Zoning laws? (none / 0) (#128)
    by magisterludi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Zoning (none / 0) (#216)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Something I don't understand.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    ...I haven't been following this at all cause so pardon my ignorance, but if the homeowners wouldn't sell the house without the land, why didn't the Obama's offer to buy the house and the land?

    [ Parent ]
    They couldn't afford the house and yard. Barack (none / 0) (#154)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    approached Tony Rezko to help him buy the house. The house and side lot were being sold separately for the first time and the owners were stipulating that both had to be sold at the same time because the owners were leaving Chicago.

    So Tony got Rita Rezko to buy the side lot and they closed on the same day so the owners could leave. If Tony's wife hadn't purchased the side lot then the Obama's couldn't have purchased the lot with the mansion on it because they couldn't afford both.

    rezkowatch.blogspot.com and hillaryis44.org have alot of the backstory on this if you're interested.

    [ Parent ]

    Presumably (none / 0) (#155)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM EST
    the fact that purchasing the extra lot would have cost an addition 600K.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm no Obama supporter (none / 0) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    but clearly, since apparently seller would only sell both properties at once, and since the OB's couldn't or wouldn't buy both properties, for them to be able to buy only the house, someone else - anyone else - had to simultaneously buy the vacant lot, and their pal, Rita Rezco, stepped up to the plate.

    Not a big deal really, as the Rezco's are/were real estate developers and I assume they easily could have built a home on the lot and sold it.

    However, they sold 1/6 of that lot to the OB's for 1/6 of the $625K (or whatever) they paid for it, and the remaining 5/6 of the lot is now too small to build a home on, according to the local zoning regs, so no one can build a home on that lot.

    Therefor, it would make sense that now, since there can be no home built on that lot, that vacant lot is worth a lot less than 5/6 of the $625K (or whatever) Rita initially paid for it, so the Rezco's took a loss on the deal. And since the OB's home will never have a house next door on that lot, the value of theirs home should get some benefit.

    Also, buying a home for less than the asking price is pretty common. Whether buying for ~15% less than the asking price is common, I can't say, but I will say that's not much more of a % less than I bought my home for.

    An allegation some are making is that because the Rezcos were buying the lot at full price instead - of dickering for a lower price as most every buyer does - the seller was more inclined to accept a lower price on the home, which would indicate additional benefit the Rezcos gave the OB's.

    Ultimately I think any real issues are based on timing, and since Rezco was indicted at the time of the deals the OB's look bad, and rightly so.

    Is this a really big issue for OB? I would think not, but then I tend to poo-poo all these soap-operatic type (imo) campaign issues...

    [ Parent ]

    addendum (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    It looks as though Rita Rezco did sell the remaining 5/6 of the lot to another developer and has profited about $50k between the OB's and the other developer.

    And it looks like the OB's are going to get a condo development as a next door neighbor. That, presumably, will reduce the value of their home.

    [ Parent ]

    Kudos (none / 0) (#171)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    to you for the correction, s-u-o.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Rezko was indicted (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    at the time Obama bought the house, he was under federal investigation though.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? Thanks. (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    That makes the issue even more murky and, imo, less of a problem for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Why Would Only Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    Correct you if you were wrong? Sad but true though..

    I pulled the primary lever for Hillary and would correct you if I thought you got something wrong about Obama.

    I guess it is that I am not high on either candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Couldn't You Find a More SINISTER Looking (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    picture of Senator Obama for this piece?

    Holy....

    And it's not that sinister (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you noticed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    all the "sinister"-looking photos of Hillary at TPM, dkos, and all over the corporate media for months and months?

    [ Parent ]
    that's the photo that accompanies (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    today's TimesOnLine article.

    [ Parent ]
    Hat Tip To Murdoch (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not suprised to see this at TL. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Disappointed, but not surprised.  Oh well--less than a week left.

    Do you anticipate FP of (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    DK will cover the Rezko trial?

    [ Parent ]
    not really (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    Did you actually read Jeralyn's post? Go back and do so. This is going to be a problem for much longer than a week.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you hope it will be (none / 0) (#48)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    But in reality there isn't much there.

    [ Parent ]
    Given the trial doesn't begin until (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    March, it seems premature to state "there is no there  there."

    [ Parent ]
    If you've ever been involved in litigation (none / 0) (#55)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    you know that by the time the trial starts almost all the important facts are out.  Perry Mason moments are quite rare.

    [ Parent ]
    I have been involved in a great deal (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    of litigation.  Given this trial is partially about allegations of bribery in Chicago government, it seems to me there may be information known to the prosecution and defense that is not yet public knowledge.

    [ Parent ]
    uh, ok (none / 0) (#66)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    You think anyone here wants McCain to win? You're crazy.



    I think this is a situation that looks bad for Obama, even if there's no genuine substance.

    [ Parent ]
    many people here care only about Hillary (none / 0) (#78)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    And don't really care if McCain or Obama wins.  It's Hillary or nothing for them.

    [ Parent ]
    The authors of this site (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    are not among them. We will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. We want a Democrat in the White House.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me too (none / 0) (#170)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    I will donate to HRC's campaign and happily vote for her if she is the nominee.  Unfortunately  Hillary-haters and Obama-haters appear willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    [ Parent ]
    I listened to Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    and took her lead. When asked whether she would support Hillary if she won the election, Michelle said she would have to think about it, and that it depended on the issues, the tone of the campaign etc.

    Well, her tone was plain nasty, the tone from the Obama campaign has been underhandedly dirty against Hillary; the Harry and Louise ads, the Spanish radio ad in Nevada, distorting her statements, and the nasty behavior of his supporters who demonize anyone who disagrees with him.

    Hillary has been called Billary, B**tch, the beast, she-devil, etc, etc.
    Yep, I don't like the tone and Michelle, if it's good enough for you and Barak, it's good enough for me.

    So JJE, you should be happy some of us are actually honoring the Obama's way of doing things and what Michelle is on record as saying she would do... Lead on Obama, lead on!

    [ Parent ]

    No she didn't (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    When asked whether she would support Hillary if she won the election, Michelle said she would have to think about it, and that it depended on the issues, the tone of the campaign etc.

    Michelle Obama did NOT say that.  

    Hillary has been called Billary, B**tch, the beast, she-devil, etc, etc.
    Yep, I don't like the tone and Michelle, if it's good enough for you and Barak, it's good enough for me.

    If you don't like reading hostile nasty rhetoric don't read political blogs where anonymous jerks can say whatever they want.  Regardless, I fail to see what that has to do with Michelle Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me but I was watching good morning (none / 0) (#136)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    america that morning and she did say that among other things.  It may not had been the only thing she said but don't say she did not say it.

    [ Parent ]
    No she didn't (none / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    She was asked whether she would be willing to WORK to support Hillary Clinton.  It was pretty clear.  

    I hate when people drop words from quotes that utterly change their meaning.  And nevermind it was a loaded question.

    The quote....

    ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

    OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

    ROBERTS: That's not a given?

    OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

    Start off with a negative hypothetical, at least in her view, and then ask her a loaded question.  

    [ Parent ]

    You are absolutely correct. That was the question (none / 0) (#192)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    However, when Bill Clinton was asked if he would campaign for Obama if he was elected as the nominee, he without hesitation gave a resounding yes!

    Although you are correct about the question being about campaigning for HC. Michelle's tone and body language left no doubt in my mind that she would not support her.  

    Again, technically you are correct, but in communication; body language and tone, are as important or more important than words.

    OBAMA:  I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

    It was a negative hypothetical, but Michelle is an educated woman. She is a lawyer. Are you telling me she doesn't know how to handle a "loaded question" and use it to her advantage?

    That's how lawyers make their money.

    [ Parent ]

    I see (none / 0) (#176)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    Your position is motivated by petulance and anger over something a candidate's spouse said.  Fortunately most people have a better sense of perspective.

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite (none / 0) (#186)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    She speaks for him and shares his ideology. It gives me insight as to what kind of uniter he is.

    If he disagrees with her he should say so publicly...like they forced Bill Clinton to apologize.

    It's only fair.

    [ Parent ]

    more about my position (none / 0) (#196)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    I support Universal Healthcare. Obama's plan is not universal. Hillary supports the Latino community, Barak, according to Dolores Huerta, has never been near a rally to support Latino workers.

    Hillary is ranked higher in progressive issues than Barak.

    She has passed countless legislation to benefit Americans.

    Barak voted present over 100 times in IL. Hilary took a stand in controversial issues that are now causing her problems.

    Barak lied and said he passed a nuclear safety bill but in fact the bill never passed and worse he watered down the bill after consulting with Excelon.

    There are countless issues for which I support Hillary and not Barak. So no, I am not motivated by petulance or anger over what a candidates wife said.

    Your attempt at dismissing my opinion by making me out to be an emotional and uninformed voter doesn't fly with me.

    But of course this is all typical of Obama's supporters ammunition.

    Personal attacks!

    [ Parent ]

    Mexboy, you appear to be confused (none / 0) (#199)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    The issue is whether, if Obama is the nominee, hard-core Hillary supporters, a class of which you appear to be a member, will vote for him.  You said you wouldn't and referred to something that Michelle Obama said.  I pointed out that that position is rather irrational.  In response you have listing various pro-HRC talking points and specious and contradictory anti-Obama falsehoods that you have apparently swallowed wholesale, as if they had something to do with the question of voting for Obama in the general.

    Pointing out that your arguments are nonsensical is not a personal attack.  You may be the epitome of sweet reason in 99% of your life.  That does not, however, render your stated rationale for not voting Obama in the GE a rational one.

    [ Parent ]

    You're in for a rude awakening (none / 0) (#209)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    if you think the hard core HRC supporters are going to vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    "Rational" Bullying 101 (none / 0) (#220)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    Frankly, JJE, this post and your earlier one addressed to mexboy sound like a personal attack to me. You seem to think your opinions are facts and that if mexboy doesn't agree with you he must be irrational, because I'm sure you view your own opinions as the height of rationality.  You may not realize it, but your post sounds very demeaning, and not only are you NOT making any (rational or otherwise) points with mexboy by this kind of talk, you likewise aren't winning any other converts with  this kind of emotional bullying.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks tree (none / 0) (#224)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    I had to take a few breaths in order to keep it civil in my response.

    [ Parent ]
    First of all don't patronize me (none / 0) (#221)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    and don't insult my intelligence.

    The issue is not as you state:

    "if Obams is the nominee, hard-core Hillary supporters...will vote for him."

    The issue to me is whether I should support someone just because he is a Democrat or whether I have a right to expect them to have integrity.

    I brought Michelle up to illustrate one of the dirty tactics of the Obama campaign. He is clearly using her as the attack dog. She was sending a clear message to Obama supporters that they should not support Hillary if she is the nominee. Barak is on record saying Hillary's supporters will vote for him, but he is not sure his supporters will vote for him. I take offense at him and his campaign taking my vote for granted.

    You then went on to say:

    Your position is motivated by petulance and anger over something a candidate's spouse said.  Fortunately most people have a better sense of perspective.

     So, I gave you specifics as to why I support Hillary, but what do you do?  You again question my intelligence and say I'm quoting talking points and swallowed the falsehoods. They're not falsehoods if they're facts and talking points are not necessarily falsehoods. (I hope logic doesn't short-circuit your sense of superior reasoning skills and intelligence too much.)

    In response you have listing various pro-HRC talking points and specious and contradictory anti-Obama falsehoods that you have apparently swallowed wholesale, as if they had something to do with the question of voting for Obama in the general.

    What is false? That the bill didn't pass? That he watered it down after meeting with Exelon?
    And yes his record and behavior have everything to do with me voting for him in the GE.
     

    I understand how my logical reasons for supporting Hillary confuse you. I'm sure you've a very nice person 99% of the time as well, but what else can I expect from someone who responds to esoteric speeches where you are exhorted to recieve the illumination that will descend from the heavens and enlighten you into voting for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I know Clinton supporters have been (none / 0) (#108)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    hoping for it to be a problem for him.

    Of course, blogs used to be about critiquing unfair media stories instead of piling on.

    Oh well, the Republican and Clinton blogs are acting in unison on this one.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, Geekesque, (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    blogs USED to be about critiquing unfair media stories instead of piling on, until Obama was teh beneficiary of the unfair media stories, and his supporters were the ones doing the piling on, at which point it became A-okay!

    Don't expect sympathy from this Clinton supporter now that Obama finds himself on the other side of the equation.

    [ Parent ]

    sympathy? (none / 0) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    No one is asking for sympathy.  We are simply asking you not to be the executioner.

    [ Parent ]
    Not even that. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    Just asking them how they're going to feel about this when Clinton drops out of the race--either in a week or in a month or in three months.

    [ Parent ]
    Should Jeralyn stop doing what she does? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    That's a lot to ask, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]
    timesonline.co.uk more REZKO SADDAM TIE (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    Either go to captainsquartersblog.com  and scroll down to the article about Saddam and find the right's take on this and the link to this article in the times london...or go directly there.

    So why can't Hillary lose Texas and wait until Penn. and see how this Rezko trial goes?  It helps the Dems and gives an opportunity to see if this will blow up in Obama's (and thus the Dems)face.  Why the rush when the trial is just starting March 3?  Maybe that's why the Rethugs want to Dems to choose by March 4.  Because who knows what things will look like by the time of the Penn. primary.

    Senators are prohibited (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    from receiving anything of more than $200 in value. According to what this post says, the Rezkos let Obama buy part of a lot which lifted the value of his home by making their lot too small for building on. So it appears they decreased the value of their lot substantially by this sale, and he gained more than the $104,500 he paid for the strip of land because there would not be a house close by. That sure sounds like a sweetheart deal to me.
    If I am reading this right it looks like a violation of the Senate gift ban.

    But how could that be? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    He's Mr. Ethics!

    /sarcasm

    [ Parent ]

    I've often wondered what, if anything, (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    Senator Obama included on his disclosure forms regarding these transactions.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    there was also an allegation that Rezko's wife bought the property next to the Obama's at the same time and then sold the small strip to the Obama's at a price UNDER fair market value.

    [ Parent ]
    I've read Rezko's wife was the purchaser (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    of the adjoining lot and she sold 1/6 of the lot to the Obamas at 1/6 the fmv of the entire lot.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 0) (#87)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    If that's true then I stand corrected. Looking back over the news articles I can't find anything that supports my recollection so it(my recollection) must have been wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    What I don't know is whether that fmv was at (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    the time she sold to the Obamas and whether it took into account the fact the remainder of the lot was not longer buildable.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    ... such an allegation would be quite easy to prove.

    So is there any evidence for this baseless attack?

    [ Parent ]

    I've asked several (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    people who have posted diaries at DK on why Rezko/Obama relationship is irrelevant to Obama's candidacy, if the have any information of an independent comparable sales analysis.  No answers from the diarists or others.  

    [ Parent ]
    umm... (none / 0) (#77)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    It would seem to me that those who believe that it IS relevant would have the burden of proof.

    [ Parent ]
    The diarists argued it wasn't (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    relevant to Obama's candidacy and proceeded to give the reasons it was all smoke but didn't care to address my questions.  Lots of "facts" but not all the facts.

    [ Parent ]
    that's what trials are for (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why did Mrs. Rezko buy the strip of land? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    Just for the heck of it? You can't paint this is a nice little coinky dink that a friend of the Obama's guys a piece of land she can't use for anything the same day that Obama's house closes. It was obviously a favor. That much is obvious. It was at the very least a favor to friends, wasn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe to make money (none / 0) (#143)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    She bought the lot in June 2005 from Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick for $625,000. In January 2006, she sold the Obamas one-sixth of it for $104,500. Then later sold the rest of the lot in December 2006 for $575,000. So that means she sold the land for $54,500 more than she paid for it. Now maybe it's not as good as turning $1,000 into $100,000 with cattle futures, but making $54,500 on a real estate investment seems worthwhile.

    [ Parent ]
    54,000 is a nice flip. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    Not all of us can get a 10,000% return like Hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    Did anyone ever consider the possibility.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    ...that the Obama's could have bought another house if they couldn't afford this one on the terms in which is was being offered? I guess that would be too big of a sacrifice.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (none / 0) (#178)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    How dare the Obamas try and get more house than they could afford.  That is so Unamerican.

    [ Parent ]
    Well since this thread is sort of about..... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    ...judgment then I'll let others decide.

    [ Parent ]
    No, Obama got no price break (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    on the land strip. That's well documented.

    [ Parent ]
    Has anyone considered (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    that Obama lives in an historic district with a board that oversees all land sales, therefore there is no way in he*l they will allow apartment buildings or townhomes or anything of the sort to be built on that lot?

    Based on current zoning laws, the area can only have single family homes.  The lot--again, based on zoning--cannot be built on (unless you want to put a 250K house on an allegedly 1.5mm piece of land)

    Read the Taylor Marsh breakdown and the Chicago Trib articles.  It's all in there.

    Does it oversee all land/home sales? (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    Or just the ones that involve historic/landmark homes? Not a trick question, I don't know the answer.

    And, fwiw, developers often get properties re-zoned and/or variances approved. That's often how they turn $500K lots into $1.5K lots.

    [ Parent ]

    Gutter Journalism (1.00 / 5) (#25)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Yesterday, a photo of Obama in native Kenyan garb released by the Clinton campaign, which they still have not denied. Today, an attempt to rewrite a NYT column by the Clinton campaign that simply pointed out the obvious; Clinton's chances are fading. Now, a release on this site filled with vague allocations and Jeralyn stating, "nothing will come of this."

    She reports the American media hasn't picked up this story. Odd, I've read the same stuff for weeks and weeks. Kind of like those health care ads the Clinton campaign just discovered..ha! Is the point that the reporting never gained enough traction to satisfy Jeralyn or Big Tent?

    The Republicans drag out Dick Morris, White Water, failed attempts at health care, impeachment, bad judgements on the part of both Clintons..

    Let me help you (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    edit your first sentence for accuracy.

    "Yesterday, a photo of Obama in native Kenyan garb ALLEGEDLY released by the Clinton campaign, which THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIED RELEASING."

    If you are trying to help your chosen candidate it helps if you don't blatantly lie. If you do, you are just considered a shill and ignored, and in the end you do more harm than good.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Jane, you are on thin ice here (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    your comments have been insulting to Talkleft, me and Big Tent Democrat and you shill for your candidate.

    Now you are trying to hijack the thread to a discussion of yesterday's photograph.

    Stop. I'd rather not ban you but I will if you don't lose the nasty tone and follow our site policy.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was on the pension board (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    for three months time, during which the Senate prevented the consolidation of state pensions, which would have stopped Rezko's pension bilking.
    I think that is a troubling coincidence that requires explanation from Obama.

    fromRezko

    is the theory that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    Rezko funneled all of this money into Obama's campaign coffers because he just liked the guy?

    Maybe you could ask Norman Hsu (none / 0) (#52)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    Why shady people donate to political campaigns.

    [ Parent ]
    I just got off the phone with Hsu (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    and he said to ask you why political campaigns like Obama's go begging shady characters like Hsu for donation.

    Obama Finance Director pressed Hsu for funds.

    Hsu Steered Major Fundraiser to Obama

    [ Parent ]

    Of course we should that is why (none / 0) (#60)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Julianna Smoot, national finance director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, originally sought the su