Obama Tells Sun Times Rezko is Still a Friend

In addition to being interviewed by the Chicago Tribune this week about Tony Rezko, Barack Obama also sat down for an interview with the Chicago Sun Times. More statements by Obama from the Sun Times interview:

Is Rezko still a friend?

"Yes,'' Obama said, "with the caveat if it turns out the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was, and I'd be very disappointed with that.''

And it's that friendship, Obama said, that probably kept him from realizing it was a mistake to enter into a real estate deal with Rezko.

"Probably because I'd known him for a long time, and he'd acted in an aboveboard manner with me," he said. "And I considered him a friend. ... It's further evidence that I'm not perfect.''

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kaas writes today about Obama's latest statements, "It's almost believable. As in, almost, but not quite.

The audio of the 80 minute Sun Times interview is here. The transcript is here (pdf).

< Obama Says Rezko Played a Bigger Fundraising Role Than Previously Known | MI/FL: The State Of Play >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    All those years and he still doesn't know... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    ...whether Rezko is "who he thought he was"?

    Didn't realize - after nearly two decades - that the Rev. Wright had a bit of a controversial streak?

    Either we're being played for suckers and Obama thinks he can just brush these stories off into neverland, or he is perhaps the most naive judge of character I've run into in a long time.

    He sticks by indicted felons and incendiary preachers at his peril.

    no discussion of (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    preachers here. And Rezko is not a felon. He's charged with felonies and presumed innocent.

    I think that this is Obama's version (none / 0) (#2)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    of his "finger in the hole of the dike," and only the next days will tell if the dike is not breached .  

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#82)
    by tsteels2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    This underscores, for the first time for me, Senator Obama's inexperience.  I think he is that "too loyal" friend.  That guy that will go to bat with you no matter what MOST of the time.  In that regard, maybe he needs 4 - 8 years to "tighten up".

    "friends" (none / 0) (#119)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill were friends with the McDougalls who went to jail for Whitewater and are friends with Denise and Marc Rich, among others.  Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?  

    This is just about the stupidest thing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    I have ever watched a brilliant man say and do.  This tops Bill Clinton's failure to realize that he really did have enemies out there.

    IMHO - combination of all 3 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    If only the vetting had been done - That was all we asked for so we could make an informed judgement. I am sick that it has come this situation and saddened that it has been brought about by more than just the MSM.

    True enough... (none / 0) (#8)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    ...all of these stories have been in the public domain for at least a year.  It's pretty much been the Chicago Tribune as a lonely voice in the wilderness while the rest of the MSM was parsing the latest "ill-advised" comment from a campaign.

    Credit the Chicago Sun-Times as well. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    several issues are at play for me. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    obama's choice of associates leaves me scratching my head. we aren't talking about casual friends who he might had sat on a board with in the past. these friends were close in all parts of his life. the only one closer would be family. frankly, what he has portrayed himself to be and what his choices say to me is beware. i also see some of the thinking behind the attitudes i have seen the obamas use in public statements also.

    obama doesn't seem to use a lot of common sense in his decison making. no thanks and what the media will do just leaves me sad.

    That's exactly the point... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    ...inevitably some Obama supporter will scream "Norman Hsu!" except that Hillary Clinton probably wouldn't recognize Hsu if she bumped into him on the street.

    Obama's ties with Rezko are longstanding and deep.  It's a bit shocking to have a state Senator so clueless about the nature of his personal friend's 'dealings' with state government.

    Would you rather vote for a crook or a sucker?  That seems to be the strategy decision being mulled by Obama.


    we had a gifted state senator run (none / 0) (#46)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    for mayor in houston several years ago. i watched him debate his opponent and he was also good in debate. then some information came out on him by one of the local tv stations. i can't and won't speak to the details at all here. anyway he lost the race. a review i saw written of the race said this, if he was quilty we don't want him. and if he was used without his knowledge we don't want him. he is too easily duped. or something like that! the point is obama might just be guilty of bad judgment. but it is the bad judgment that worries me most.

    There is a third alternative (none / 0) (#53)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    Obama is a loyal friend.  He realizes that their failures are a liability so he has to distance himself from them but still wants to offer moral support.  Voters would have to take the chance that his friends have not unduly influenced his actions or his attitudes.  As democrats, we have to consider how this all will play with the electorate at large.

    If he rejects AND denounces Rezko (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    while Rezko is being tried on felony charges, Obama may be criticized for being a fair weather friend.  So, you make a good point.  

    There is also the cynical view (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    that Obama may not want to antagonize Rezko.  All of this just screams out inexperienced to me.  McCain will be pushing this line out hard in the fall if Obama is the nominee.

    Are we witnessing the implosion of this campaign? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    Serious question, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I can't really tell if these things resonate with the rest of the country the way they do with me, or I'm guessing, most of the people here who are paying such close attention to the political landscape. Each of these things appears to me to be damaging, but taken together, they seem devastating -- NAFTAgate, Rezko, Wright, Exelon -- they just create a picture of a candidate that is completely at odds with the image he is projecting. I wonder though, if it just seems that way to me because one, I'm supporting a different candidate and two, because I'm actually paying attention.

    well the truth is more and more is (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    beginning to make it to the main stream media. and even they can't ignore it. i look for someone like lou dobbs to pick this up next week. morning joe was talking about it already. countdown will probably ignore it. and you can be certain this will come back even stronger if obama is the nominee.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    and you can be certain this will come back even stronger if obama is the nominee.
    This is what worries me most.

    I have the same question (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    I think perhaps so and I think perhaps that is why Hillary is laying low.

    Are the party "leaders" leaning to or supporting Obama going to wake up and say, oops with this baggage he can't make it, we have to derail his now. Sit him down and say, um Barack this is not going to work.


    This has always been my point (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    Because Democrats - fooled by left blogistan - did not vet their candidate, the Republicans will. Will the media run with these stories so the last few primaries get adequate info? I don't know, but the Republicans will in the GE. Yes, I think Clinton camp knew all these things, but they trusted their record and Democrats and they knew bringing this up would villify them. They never realized that they'd be villified any way for perceived racism.

    "vetted" (none / 0) (#121)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill and John McCain all have had much bigger scandals than Rezko.  All the Hillary folks keep saying that everything from Whitewater (for which people were also jailed) to $82,000 cattle futures to Monica and Hillary's passivity to Marc Rich pardon/Denise Rich donations to Hillary and everything in between are "old stuff".  A whole generation of voters didn't live through the "old stuff" and you can be sure that it will also be brought up in the presidential election.    

    Thanks (none / 0) (#123)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    for bringing these old scandals up. Whatever would we do without Republicans like you? Now Deconstructionist will be happy.

    I'm Not Sure How Much Faith I Would Put (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    on the "party leaders." Pelosi was quoted yesterday as saying that the nominee will be determined by the delegate count. (Can't find the article - google deficient) Doesn't look like she is backing off her undeclared support of Obama even after the press barrage.

    Superdelegates ARE delegates, so that's a truism. (none / 0) (#113)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    Pelosi was quoted yesterday as saying that the nominee will be determined by the delegate count.

    Pelosi is cleverly saying nothing that we don't already know, except that she does not expect either candidate to withdraw. Of course the nominee will be decided by the final delegate count. That count will be known when all the delegates -- including the superdelegates -- vote, at the convention.


    I maintain (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    that we do not know enough about this man, Obama.

    At this time, I feel very uneasy about who he really is.

    Politics as Usual (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    The core issue here is not that we want to destroy Obama.  We want to take away the illusion that was created that he somehow is above the politics as usual.  He takes money.  He makes deals.  He accommodates.  He made a big error with Rezko in two respects:  1.  He did not pay attention to what Rezko was doing to the people he was representing with all the bad housing deals and 2.  He entered into a real estate transaction that should not have been done--there are no ifs ands or butts.  Basic ethics.  In the small arena of a state senatorial district, you make sure the people you are associated with are not basically screwing your constituents.  It's not like Obama was naive about community development issues, he should have checked and asked.  

    He uses all the tools available in the politicians tool bag.  He gets caught up in his own mythology.  The notion that he is some special being and some transcended political figure needs to be put in bed.  Cause if he wins or if he loses, we need to put him in the pantheon of politician, not in some pantheon of heroic figures.

    Any attempt to look at his "politicness" and his humanity, is attacked with two notions:  He is above that and if you bring up his humanity you will destroy him and people will be distraught and not participate in politics or the Republicans will use it against him.  Balderdash.

     In the same context, the continued demonization, not even being allowed to be human, of Hillary is persecuted by the MSM, the blogosphere and Obama supporters.  

    We want to go into the GE with a real politician who has the moxy to fight the Republicans and win.  Not vetting the Rezko and other issues is bound to lead to a catastrophe.  

    That's the long version of BTD's (none / 0) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    position that Obama is a pol.

    I position I agree with. I wouldn't want either HRC or Obama not to be a pol.


    exactly. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    So then this isn't really an issue. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    Wrong. He's made it an issue ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    ... by claiming to be something different.

    I think what has always bothered me (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    is not that Obama is slowly being revealed to be just another politician, but that it would not have taken a whole lot of effort on the part of the media to get under the very thin layer of veneer that he applied to himself.

    I simply cannot reconcile what Obama has said in speeches and in interviews about himself, with the reality that is slowly leaking out.  Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko did not start as a friendship - it started with Rezko trying to recruit him to work for Rezko's firm.  And for 20 years, their professional lives have been linked.  I find it impossible to believe that at no time in the last 20 years did anyone ever take Obama aside and tell him he might want to be more careful, or that Obama never came across information that gave him pause.

    I have a problem with the judgment Obama exercises in deciding who will mentor and guide him, whose advice he will listen to, and an even bigger problem with how close these advisors will be and how much influence will be brought to bear on him if he ever gets to the WH.

    He hasn't really had a positive news cycle since March 4 - even the wins in Mississippi and Wyoming landed with kind of a thud, with no sparkle, no zing.  He made the rounds of the networks last night, and from what I have read, did nothing to ease people's minds - so on and on it goes.  

    What it all says to me is that he's not ready, and if people insist on ignoring the warning signs, they may very well be looking at a President McCain, and all that that will mean.


    Sun Times Interview (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    Obama claims he did not know and it was not brought to his attention that in 2002 when he appointed Rezko to his Senate Finance committee, that Rezko was in default on millions of loans when it was common knowledge. Where was he? On another planet. This is a small district, the alderman knew, he never talked? My god, this is truly unacceptable. Clueless. What a disservice to his constituents. http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/031408obama3.mp3

    Obama's own words reflect poor judgment, (none / 0) (#83)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    one or two 'lapses' would be understandable.  But by his own account, it is 'several' which to me indicates a tendency, a chronic deficiency in 'good judgement which should give voters pause.  Relying on 'instinct'? as opposed to deliberation?  Knowing your friends is part of good judgment.  Reminds me too much of W., and his 'gut feeling' and overlooking important qualifications as in appointing "Brownie" of Katrina fame.

    I am not surprised.


    I;ll agree with that but ask (none / 0) (#106)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
     is it better or worse to have the ability to examine past actions and recognize and admit failings or to remain bullheaded and never admit one's actions were questionable?

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    well, if you insist on public confessionals in all instances, you will soon run out of people willing to be candidates and run for office in such a climate.  It's the very definition of politically unreasonable.

    Ever run for office?  Ever plan to?

    I can guarantee that candidacy is the ultimate reality test for those who are so sure of what others should do...or so sure of what they would do themselves when walking in someone else's shoes.


    That's just about the silliest (none / 0) (#145)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    thing ever written here (quite an accomplishment).

      I'd say the danger of running out of people seeking great power and presitge  is one of the most remote dangers we face.

     In any event, I don't see how my question could possibly be construed as disqualiying a person seeking office who declined to admit ever having made a mistake.


    I'm an Obama supporter and my opinion is,,,,, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by robertearl on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    I really think this might be the end of Obama's campaign. It saddends be to say this. The right has latched on, and will continue to paint him as a black militant. That tag alone will cause white voters to abandon him. They are already saying that he's leading a double life.

    The MSM are always talking about the only thing that can stop Obama from getting the nom is some "catastropic" event. I think this recent stuff about Wright will do it. The Rezko thing is nothing campaired to Wright.

    Current Rasmussen poll has Obama's lead at 1 point, yesterday he had an 8 point lead. This drop is directly connected to these Wright recordings. I won't go as far as Slant head Hannity and call for his resignation as a senator, but I do think this marks the end of Obama's campaign.

    If it comes down to the Supedelegates, which I think it will, this Wright situation will be considered. And since Hillary has already been vetted, tested, etc, etc. the superdelegates won't have a choice but go with her.

    After that, we, as democrats, must come together.
    This country cannot afford Bush part 3!

    As a Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#114)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    I want to say that it ain't over. I really want to see how the Obama campaign handles this. If they handle it well it will be a good test of their skill in handling the GE. And honestly one of main concerns with them is can they do it? Do they know how to handle a GE and really negative campaign (believe me, despite what is being said the primary has been very civil).

    If they can and Obama gets the nomination I for one will be much more confident and my support for the dem nominee will be stronger.

    Remember the Repubs WILL run this campaign against either, whether its based on facts or made up stuff (swift boat) doesn't matter as much.


    we are not discussing Wright on this blog (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    comments about him will be deleted. Our readers have shown there cannot be a rational discussion without insults.

    Your Sense Of Balance (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    Seems off to me. First I think that whatever baggage either have is not going to make a difference in the GE.

    GIven that, you can't seriously argue that  Obama's baggage is anywhere near as weighty as Clinton's. Having more 'experience' does have its downsides.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#124)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    I think experience counts a lot about how to handle things like this. I am relatively sure I know how the Clintons will handle attacks. I have no experience how Obama will. Now we'll see.

    And not all baggage is the same.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    Now it is all about, not lapses in judgement, but the ability to fight them off.

    Wow. Convoluted at best. If that is your criteria, the GOP is your best choice. They are masters at turning everything, from lapses of judgement to criminal behavior, into gold.


    I think you just made my point (none / 0) (#139)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:59:55 PM EST
    The opposition IS the Republican party. Let's make sure we have someone who can repel their attacks and beat them at their game. You can find the most idyllic candidate you like, make sure he/she is pure as snow and ethical as all getup, and they will still be smeared and destroyed.

    Accept this, no matter who you support. Its not convoluted at all, its pretty straightforward and reality based.


    Clinton's baggage (none / 0) (#125)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    has already been weighed and assessed by every person on the planet, let alone American voters. It's not going to matter in the least now.

    Obama's baggage may not be so weighty. But we are only just now hearing about it, so it's hard to predict what the voters will conclude about it once they have weighed it.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    I do not buy it. Compared to the GOP this is all nonsense. What is on the table with Obama? His judgement, not criminality. There has been no allegation other than that as far as I can tell.

    When only judgement is on the table, Clinton is equally as vulnerable as Obama, because judgement is about what ifs, not discredited allegations of wrongdoing, aka smears.

    IMO, Lack of judgement is a non issue for both of them compared to McBush.


    You completely miss the point (none / 0) (#131)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    My point is people have already made up their minds about what they think about Hillary Clinton and her judgment. Her favorables/unfavorables have nowhere to go on that issue. Pretty much the same situation holds for McCain. And in McCain's case the media won't even talk about it.

    But in the case of Obama, new information is coming out that could very well affect people's opinions on his judgment. The media WILL discuss it sooner or later. It is just your opinion that it's a non-issue. But if that's your opinion, then why sweat it?


    OK (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    I disagree. In the GE all sorts of questions will be hurled by the GOP regarding judgement of a democratic leader in times of war.

    Resurfacing questions for HRC will have as much traction as the ones that have surfaced for Obama, imo. The framing will be new, because she has never run for president.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#132)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    it is the voters' judgment you need to worry about and particularly those voters who are not partisans, not well informed, easily sold by Madison Avenue or influenced by inflammatory rumors.  Propaganda is not education and it will play a huge role in decisions made by voters who Democrats need to win.

    Suspicion will not be an advantage for Obama.


    Whose judgment is worse? (none / 0) (#4)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:05:20 AM EST
    Obama's for entering a real estate deal with Rezko, or Clinton's for voting in favor of the AUMF?

    Who's judgment is worse (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    ...someone who continues to fund the war or someone who consistently votes against re-funding?

    Obama took a backseat to principle when he decided not to oppose the war during the John Kerry's presidential campaign. He told Tim Russert in an interview that it would have been inappropriate to criticize the Iraq war when the Democratic nominee (and his vice presidential candidate) had voted for it.

    Obama has admitted that he doesn't know how he actually would have voted in 2002--had he been a Senator. He's acknowledged the possibility that he would have voted in favor of AUMF.

    Please, this implication that Obama has a better stance on the war than Hillary is ridiculous. He's using his 2002 anti-war speech like Guilani used 9/11. It's historical revisionism.


    Well said but... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    ...the whole, 'what about Clinton's Iraq vote!' is nothing but a rathole of a distraction from the Rezko/Obama story.

    Forgive the glaring grammatical error (none / 0) (#12)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    I just woke up!

    Ah the standard response (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by sumac on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    to any potential concern with Obama...

    ...but Clinton's so much worse!

    Ignore any and all problems with Obama and let's talk about Iraq and Whitewater and tax returns.


    John Kass answered that pretty well (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by badger on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    From the Trib article linked above:

    So I left half-satisfied, thinking Obama more naive than crooked, wondering what the Daleys of Chicago and the Kennedys of Massachusetts will do to him.

    You can disagree with Clinton's vote, but it was neither naive nor crooked, which seem to be the choices regarding Obama's judgment.


    We have gone beyond real estate deal here (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    one additional comment on the re deal. (none / 0) (#61)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    true about re. location, location, location, and there is always another deal! what i mean is if doing the deal was so difficult and required so much dancing around, it probably wasn't a good deal. there will always be another deal coming along that just might be better and have less hassle. i wonder why they just "had" to do that deal. maybe it was love of the home! sometimes a party just loves a certain home and wants it.

    Answer (none / 0) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    IMO entering real estate deal that looks questionable. The AUMF was a complex issue, with political overtones. Its not a question of judgement, rather whether the decision was the right one.

    But to continue associating with someone with clouds hanging over his head, that is bad judgement.

    And BTW, each person is responsible for their own good/bad judgements and decisions. You can't cover up one persons errors by pointing to another persons. Well you can try...


    who says (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
     anyone (other than hoplessly devoted Obama partisans0 is trying to cover-up issues that call his judgment into question.

      Let's lay ALL the issues that arguably are relevant to considering all candidates' judgment into question and answer the question the only way it can really be fairly considered:

      Which candidate has  a better claim to the least impaired sense of judgment?


    The better claim (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    is held by Hillary.

    The evidence?

    She married Bill Clinton, a kid from the wrong side of the tracks from Hicksville Hope Arkansas with nothing to his account but a brilliant mind, a fine education and great expectations.

    Furthermore, she didn't abandon her flawed husband (as Obama has not abandoned his pastor or his friend Rezko) when trouble brewed...

    The difference is, as president, Hillary can confidently turn to Bill for input, advice, recommendations as an advisor to the president.

    Who can Obama trust and turn to when all Hell breaks loose...as it will?  Kerry?  Kennedy?  Daschle?  Durbin?  Rezko?  Wright?

    Isn't THAT reassuring, though?

    Judgment.  Yes, it matters.


    For Core Dem Values (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    Kennedy is a far better advisor than Bill, imo. Not to mention that nothing precludes Obama, were he elected, from also getting advice from the Clintons, in fact I would be shocked if he did not.

    Ahem... (none / 0) (#134)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    the subject is judgment.  Your response?

    Core Dem values.  Heh.

    I'll be happy to discuss that just as soon as you respond to my points responding to YOU about your concerns re Hillary's judgment.


    Based On (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    The muck, allegations, associations, leveled against BHO and HRC I have zero concern as it relates to either candidate's judgement.

    I am more concerned with their judgement as it relates to their votes. THe AUMF was poor judgement, AFAIC, as was voting for continuing to fund the war.


    Ahhh.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    well, that probably leaves you without a candidate.

    No (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    Just not the perfect one.

    No kidding! (none / 0) (#140)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    Earth to voters:  There are no perfect candidates!

    you conveniently "forget" all of (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    obama's votes present or otherwise, i see.

    the topic is (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    obama and Rezko. This is not about Hillary, so don't bother.

    Classic! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
      You chose a topic designed to call, at the least, Obama's judgment into question. Not entirely coicidentally, he is competing with your candidate for the nomination but no one should be allowed to raise issues which casll her judgment into question. OK, we won't ask whether Hillary's accepting "advice" from persons currying political favor  which led to no risk profit in commodities trades calls her juddment nto question. We also won't ask whether her business relations with the the Macdougals calls her judgment into question. We won't ask whether her role in the FBI files matter calls her judgment into question. we won't ask whether her role in the travel office purge calls her judgment into question. We won't ask about her relationship with Web Hubbell calls her judgment into question.

      It does make it much easier to trust her judgment if you ignore those things.

    Clinton's judgment... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    ...in no way influences Obama's judgment or vice versa.  I think there have been ad nauseum discussions of a single vote back in 2002 but, I'm sure you would admit, the last day has brought many new revelations to light about the Rezko relationship.  Do you feel as though you can have no discussion of Obama's judgment without talking about Clinton?  I don't see the relevance.

    o, but (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
      I am not so preternaturally dense as to think this site is making any attempt to allow for any open discussion of Clinton's flaws and not dedicated to raising any argument possible to discredit Obama. I find it humorous when an argument raised in that objective is one  for which  Clinton would be considered at least equally subject to skepticism but the only tactic used is to say "we're not talking about her."

      Why not? A worthwhile evaluation of these issues as they relate to both would seem fair.



    You didn't answer... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    ...can there be no discussion of Obama's judgment without discussion of Clinton?

    Whatever will you do if Obama wins the Presidency and similar questions arise?  But but but what about Clinton?  Good luck with that one.


    As an abstract question, yes there can. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:48:04 AM EST
     However, as you may not have heard, these issues are not being raised as an abstract academic exercise. they are being raised in the context of a cmpetition between parties and in THAT context it makes little sense not to engage in comparison and contrast-- unles you have no true interest in that and are simply seeking to injure your adverary by any and all means



    Wait a minute (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    So its compare and contrast to distract a discussions by pointing to another candidate. But an ad run to compare and contrast is an ATTACK if its aimed at your candidate?

    Whoa, my head is spinning.


    You clearly don't get it... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    ...since you seem to only see judgment as a relative thing.  Is there no "bad" judgment in a vacuum?  I don't get the obsession with having to hold up the Clinton-O-Meter everytime Obama gets tagged and using it as some kind of weak absolution for your candidate.  Hey, Rezko ain't as bad as Iraq so no biggie, let's move on.

    Again (none / 0) (#64)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
     I don't see judgment as only a "relative thing" in the abstract. We're not dealing with philosophical aspects of judgment. We are in the midst of a contested race for the nomination. The person who posted the original message  did so because she supports Hillary not because she has an abstract interest in the nature of judgment.

      I think Obama's judgment is absolutely open to question and that the Rezko relationship raises very valid questions concerning his judgment. I think we should explore that the same as we should explore Clinton't known dubious relationships and how they influnce opinions of her judgment.

      It is hard to imagine anyone truly believing either of them have anything approaching perfect judgment, so the pertinent questions, at least for the duration of the campaign, are whom do you believe has the least impaired judgment and why.


    If he wins the presidency as stated (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    in your hypothetical, then these two questions will be moot.

    Unless, of course, you are postulating that there is more to the Rezko deal than is already known. As I recall, BTD and JM both have stated Rezko should not be an issue in the campaign (or at least BTD has attributed that position to JM).  Presumably because in their opinion there was no there there in the words of Ms. Stein.

    I am not sure I have seen any quid pro quo here. If Rezko's actions were indeed a quid, where is Obama's quo?

    Until that is answered, there is no there there re: the real estate deal. Does he have any unsavory friends? Sure, but I could name some unsavory relationships without any quid pro quo regarding other prominent Democrats who shall go nameless as this is about Obama.

    But it is somewhat hypocritical to condemn him on unsavory relationship grounds unless we are going to condemn everyone' s unsavory relationships.

    A true  quid pro quo between Obama and Rezko would be a real issue and discussable without a whiff of hypocrisy IMO.


    Obama, as state senator, wrote letters (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    in support of potential appointees to state boards.  Some of those people were appointed and, allegedly, demanded and received money in exchange for state contracts.  Some of that money allegedly ended up in Obama's campaign funds.

    Jeralyn did state in one post that she and BTD agreed the Obama/Rezko relationship should not be an issue in the campaign.  She seems to have wavered from that view though.


    Wavered? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    I do not see any wavering. TL has been quite consistent on this, it is not about either assuming Rezko is guilty or that Obama's guilt is remotely on the table. TL's point has always been to question Obama's judgement about Rezko.

    Judgment (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    Obama and his partisans brought up the question of judgment. It is entirely fair to ask questions regarding Obama's judgment.

    In this case, I am jaded enough to believe that Obama knew perfectly well Rezko wanted to curry favor and was willing to take advantage of that desire without any real intention of giving a pro quo for it.

    Which gets back to my and BTD's judgment that Obama is a pol. A gifted one.


    Wavering in that what was formerly (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:24:24 PM EST
    deemed NOT and issue, i.e., Rezko/Obama relationship, is now apparently an issue to Jeralyn, given her repeated posts.  

    And when she wrote that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
     You may recall I pointedly asked, "why not?" i also gave my reasos for why I thought such matters should be considered issues. the difference is I think they should be considered issues with regard to ALL candidates and office holders, including ones I support and/or agrree on the issues and not just for those I oppose.

    Closer to the q p q (none / 0) (#86)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    But that doesn't quite qualify.

    As a senior associate in the real estate department in a moderate size firm, some (paralegals, vendors, junior associates) tried to curry favor with me in various ways. That doesn't mean I asked them to, and it doesn't mean I returned the favor. I am sure I am not the only one on the planet to whom  this has happened.

    I want to see a specific quid pro quo. That doesn't mean I am not open to seeing one, if one exists.

    RE: wavering- just as I will not be blind to an actual quid pro quo...


    The QPQ (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
      is only essential to the issue of corruption. It's not necessary to raise questions as to the appearance of impropriety and judgment. Even Obamna admits that.



    No argument (none / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    I was/am making a distinction between those who are speculating on corruption versus judgment. See my specific response to Squeaky above on this issue.

    I am also taking great pains not to criticize anyone personally. As passions are inflamed enough already.  I have made up my mind, I will vote for the nominee, because IMO, either (with rose and thorns) are better than McCain on the majority of issues I care about.


    No QPQ as far as I know. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    One reason paying attention to the Rezko trial is interesting.  

    The only thing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    I can say with certainty is that I won't vote for McCain. I've made symbolic protest votes before and up until 11/4. I'll reserve the option again.

      In the event, it appears my state is going to be close (a real possibility) and that its electoral votes could be decisive (certainly possible), I'd probably hold my nose, suppress my gag reflex and vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.


    I cannot ask anymore of anyone. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    I'll sleep a little better. Thanks.

    On Quid Pro Quo (none / 0) (#95)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    several lapses in good judgement may not be as fatal as corruption to Obama's campaign, relatively speaking and something that must have been discussed hence the decision to go on the interview.  

    Which explains why he maintains that Rezko is still a friend, not so much out of loyalty but the concern that Rezko might feel betrayed and shunned by his 'friend of seventeen years' and the assistance given to purchase a desired piece of property, Rezko himself might make statements that would reveal the Quo for the Quid.  Because only Rezko would know details.

    This makes the decision to give the interview as a carefully reasoned approach, with the hope that he has built enough goodwill and zealous support to skate through the temporary reaction.  Unless some parties in the media feel betrayed and they don't let go of this bone.  


    If you didn't buy a yard for anyone (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    you're probably okay, don't worry.

    Now, about the topic of this thread. . . .


    This is for Molly B -- oh, and about (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    your argument that if Obama wins, all this is moot?

    No.  History suggests that these stories don't go away; the opposition actually ratchets it up to cripple a presidency.

    We need a candidate who can get things done -- a candidate with no more surprises like this.  With the lack of vetting of Obama until now, with so much emerging only recently, I fear there are more surprises to come.  And if that doesn't sufficiently cripple a candidacy, it still could cripple a presidency.


    Why would you not think... (none / 0) (#136)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST
    ...there's more to it than has been admitted?  Do you realize that for over a year, Obama has claimed that everything you need to know is out there?  But, oh by the way, we found more money.  By the way, I forgot he did actually tour the house with us.  By the way, he did hold a fundraiser for me but I don't recall who attended.

    This doesn't necessarily dry up and blow away if he becomes President and that's my entire point.  God help you if you think that Obama's entire past has been fully disclosed and vetted because the ball is just starting to move on some of this...


    As long as we are comparing (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    It is precisely Clinton's past lapses that give me confidence in her ability to avoid future problems.  Both Clinton and Obama have shown the ability to learn from their mistakes.  Obama may in fact be a quicker study but he is still on the early side of the learning curve.  Policies being equal, I'll take an experienced pol over an inexperienced pol.  These incidents reinforce my view that Obama's call for a new politics are sincere but naive.

    That's fine (4.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
      I have no problem with someone who says I've considered all the known information and think A has better judgment than B so I'll support A or even who says I think A has better judgment than B but I'll still support B because other important consideration outweigh that didfference in my mind.

      My only purpose is to suggest that seeking to have your candidate's flaws concealed and the opponent's magnified should be identified for what it is. It's politics and it's going to be done but it's simply dishonest to deny it's being done.


    Clinton's flaws (none / 0) (#89)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    have been anything but concealed lo these past 15+ years.

    So, then (none / 0) (#92)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    was is the harm in enagaging in honest and open identification and evlauation of them?

    The harm is that it is a distraction (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    from evaluating Obama in his own right.  He won't be running against Clinton in November and everyone here is fully aware of her negatives and the narratives against her.  She is well known to the country and perceptions of her aren't likely to change much.  The risk with Obama is that the perceptions about him will change between now and November (e.g.  Dukakis 1988).  These events will play a factor.  IMO the best that Obama can hope for out of these events is that GE voters view him as inexperienced.

    You can't respond to an argument thst Obama has an electability problem by sayng Clinton has one also.  We know Clinton's problems.  We are trying to get a handle on Obama's problems.

    Pretend Obama has won the nomination.  Tell me why this isn't a problem or provide me with some arguments to use for the GE.

    Both Obamaa and Clinton need to start focusing more on McCain and the contrast with the Republican agenda.  This is somewhat harder for Obama because he is trying harder to appeal to independents and Republicans.  He also has more blanks to fll in.


    No harm, really (none / 0) (#98)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    But your complaint was that they are being concealed, when in fact they have been widely discussed for 15+ years now.

    However, it's pretty obvious you want to bring them up, yet again, to drown out discussion of Obama's flaws, which are only NOW coming to light.


    they are being concealed here (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
     point me to one post by Jeralyn where anything other than maybe some tactical political maneuver by clinton  (or omission of a tactical political maneuver) has been questioned.

      She has every right to promote her candidate and denigrate Obama. She even has the right to censor people who point out what she is doing, but that is exactly what she is doing.


    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    they are being concealed 'here'. Excuse me while I laugh.

    Obama's "friends" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    don't give you pause?

    jeralyn has already written this is about (none / 0) (#22)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    obama, so please stick to the topic. thanks

    If you think... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Alvord on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    ...Obama exhibited good judgement in his relationship with Rezko, defend his judgement.

    Spoken Like A True Republican (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    Oooh.... wait, sounds familiar.

    Only Republicans (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST
      think the judgment and character of all politicians should be carefully considered? Funny, ny impression is that they are just as bad if not worse in attempting to impose laughable double standards.

    And They Are (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    Humorless, too!

    But, somehow, they get away with it. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
     that is in part because they are not as maladroit at it as is this site. If you're going to be a hypoctical hack partisan, you should at leat be a semi-capable one.

    This site doesn't seem to be a perfect (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    fit for you.

    Nothing is a perfect fit for me. (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
     People who actually think for themselves and are willing to consider the positives and negatives of all persons and positions frequently find trouble fitting in with people whose motivations are political advantage and privilege.

    Insulting other (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    Will win you many friends. You are welcome to disagree with people, but don't call them names. This place has a LOT of people who think for themselves, and they support BOTH candidates. There have been many great conversations with supports of both candidates. But just pointing at the other and shouting doesn't make someone an intelligent conversationalist.

    Sorry this was in response to (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    Deconstructionist, post #41, darn this weird indenting!

    Ah one of those... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM EST
    ...so smart that the normal conventions of logic and reason don't apply to you...  

    Probably one of the LiveJournal trolls. (none / 0) (#142)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    Unfortunately I think I've seen some familiar arguing types leaking over here, so I suppose I should've invited people over here to the normally intelligent discussion privately rather than out in the open in comments like I did.  Many apologies....

    I pause (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM EST
     (actually come to screeching halt and see little reason not to remain motionless) when assessing all of these people and their asscoiates.  

    Query: would Obama's candidacy (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    benefit from the Obama's divesting themselves of the house and portion of the adjoining lot?

    Doubt it... (none / 0) (#30)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    ...no more than giving Rezko contributions to charity absolves him of the original decision to take them.  

    The bigger question is; would he be doing any of that if he didn't get caught?  No.


    Well, you know, Obama neve claimed (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    to be good at shuffling paper.  If the Chicago press lets his campaign know there are funds attributable to Rezko, of course the campaign is happy to donate such funds to charity.  

    Details. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    Hahahahahah (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    The core issue here is not that we want to destroy Obama.

    Just sink him?

    Coming from you that is hilarious.

    C'mon... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    don't be silly.

    Hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    Rubber bullets?

    Well... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    stay attached to the "persona" of the clean annointed one. I refuse to go to the GE with that candidate.

    Obviously (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    Your position is well known. You are not a loyal dem, or a dem at all.

    Wonderful (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    I am not a dem? or loyal dem? Personally attacking me and my loyalties what makes you the great dem loyalty tester.

    What? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    What is loyalty then? You have claimed that there is no way you will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Have misunderstood your position?

    When did I say that? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    Please do not make up stuff.

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    Here for instance.

    I refuse to go to the GE with that candidate.

    Correct me if I am wrong.


    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    "that candidate" being the deified candidate that you and the others choose to sustain. I want all the stuff out now. And I want to go to the GE with Hillary, but if she is not, I will vote for him. I have said that repeatedly. I refuse the sanctified Obama.

    Good To Know (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    That is loyalty, hard to say that there is a truer test.

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    at what loyalty has done for Bushies...

    Oh And Unlike You (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    I have deified no one. I voted HRC in my primary, but it was somewhat of a coin toss.

    Squeaky: Is it 'My party right or wrong'? (none / 0) (#91)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    America first! For me.  There is too much at state this time around to take a chance on someone with so little experience, running on his one claim to good judgement and then later admit to 'several lapses' of good judgement, because actual events have overtaken him.  I am wondering if he would ever have come out to do the interview for that Chicago paper if it were not for the fact that was preempting revelations to come--pre-spinning!

    At the very least his dealings with Rezko, reflect some kind of naivete on his part.  Nope!  


    America First (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Translates to voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever it may be, at this point.

    Until someone convinces me that a democratic vote can be anything close to voting in another 10 minutes of BushCo, I am voting democratic.


    Yes! Let his own baggage, hidden or not (none / 0) (#78)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    sink him.  I do agree with him in the sense that words matter, especially those on paper as in the Rezko real estate transaction and other stuff which will be uncovered in the trial.  

    this is a continuation (none / 0) (#110)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    of a bad news cycle for Obama that is now in it's second week and it's bound to have an impact before too long.

    His association with Rezko is indefensible. Regardless of whether it was Rezko's bundling of campaign contributions, Rezko's enabling him to purchase his house by buying the lot next door, Rezko's exploitation of subsidies for renovated housing, some of which were the topics of Obama's letters...it all speaks to the fact that Obama at best, has lacked critical judgment in who his 'friends' are.

    Yet Obama suggests that it is his judgments that set him apart in this campaign...go figure. Did he expect that the media was just going to play along forever?

    Funny. (none / 0) (#141)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:13:40 PM EST
    Didn't he say he hardly knew the man in a debate with Clinton?  So now he's going back on that, too?

    Nice.  Real nice.  More lies from Obama...anyone know how the other prObama blogs are spinning this?

    Vetting (none / 0) (#143)
    by MSimon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:43:46 AM EST
    The vetting on Obama was done. NYTs Rolling Stone. etc.

    People just weren't interested.

    Faith is an interesting thing. Belief almost always comes before knowledge. Yet if knowledge does not inform belief knowledge and belief are useless.

    Loyalty (none / 0) (#144)
    by MSimon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:54:25 AM EST
    If Obama has taught us nothing else, we should by now know that loyalty must have its limits.

    I'm an R. Huckabee would never, ever, ever get my vote.

    Just as I voted Bush/Obama over Bush/Keyes.

    Being just about party means I have lost my voice.