Obama's Third "Toxic Mentor"?

First there was Tony Rezko. Then Jeremiah Wright. Now get ready for Emil Jones, President of the Illinois Senate who was so instrumental in Obama's legislative career he referred to himself as "Obama's godfather." The TimesOnLine (UK) has the details.

Their close relationship began in 2003 when Obama sought Jones' support to run for U.S. Senate.

“You have the power to elect a US senator,” Obama told Emil Jones, Democratic leader of the Illinois state senate. Jones looked at the ambitious young man smiling before him and asked, teasingly: “Do you know anybody I could make a US senator?”

According to Jones, Obama replied: “Me.” It was his first, audacious step in a spectacular rise from the murky political backwaters of Springfield, the Illinois capital.

Obama has frequently described his closeness to Jones: [More...]

Obama has often described Jones as a key political mentor whose patronage was crucial to his early success in a state long dominated by near-feudal party political machines. Jones, 71, describes himself as Obama’s “godfather” and once said: “He feels like a son to me.”

What's the matter with Jones?

For almost a year Jones has used his position as leader of the state senate to block anticorruption legislation passed unanimously by the state’s lower house. He has also become embroiled in ethical controversies concerning his wife’s job and his stepson’s business.

None of them is linked to Obama, but the Democratic contender can ill afford another scandal related to his former Chicago allies.

The Chicago Tribune in this 2007 editorial provided the details:

It's been a rough few weeks for Emil Jones (D-Chicago), president of the Illinois Senate. He's had to defend himself against published reports about lucrative state jobs held by his wife and son, and a utility company contract given to his stepson. He shocked and undermined some of his fellow Democrats by pulling a rare parliamentary maneuver to stymie a statewide electric rate freeze.

So fractured has his own caucus become at a critical time this spring session that Jones held a closed-door meeting to try to clear the air with members.

Here's more on Jones and Obama from the TimesonLine:

At one point during Obama’s 2003 Senate campaign, Jones set out to woo two African-American politicians miffed by Obama’s presumption and ambition. One of them, Rickey “Hollywood” Hendon, a state senator, had scoffed that Obama was so ambitious he would run for “king of the world” if the position were vacant.

When Jones secured the two men’s support, Obama asked his mentor how he had pulled it off. “I made them an offer,” Jones said in mock-mafioso style. “And you don’t want to know.”

Jones is now at the centre of a long row over his attempt to block proposed laws cracking down on his state’s “pay-to-play” tradition – whereby companies hoping to win government contracts have to contribute to the campaign funds of officials.

Jones’s staff say he blocked the bill because he intends to produce something tougher. No proposals have appeared.

The above conversation also appears in the Chicago Sun Times. Jones has been called a puppet of Ill. Gov Rod Blagojevich, whose fundraising and job appointments have come under the spotlight in the Tony Rezko trial.

Related: A reporter from Chicago takes a look back at Obama. From his Feb. 28, 2008 article. This is not the Obama of hope and change, it's the Obama of politics as usual in corrupt Springfield.

< The Missing White House E-Mails | Obama, Emil Jones and Earmarks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Washington is broken (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:55:03 PM EST
    but Chicago-style politics is a cure?

    See, THAT is why this is a problem (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    try to run away from politics, and you'll be reminded that you're a politician.

    that's not what bothers me (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:01:49 PM EST
    it's a smart play, and it's been used by politicians as long as i've been politically conscious. the funniest example was gephardt, in '88, and he was skewered for it, by garry trudeau- "the outsider." i expect political spin and political games by politicians. what i did not expect was that so many seemingly intelligent people would fall for it.

    The faster they rise. . . (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:02:45 PM EST
    the harder they fall.

    You are right (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    Why are people buying it this time around?

    Ferrarro has an idea why.  But I gave it a lot of thought.  I don't think she's wrong in the absolute sense.

    But I don't think it's the primary factor.  I would say she's wrong.

    It finally occured to me when I saw Darrell Hammond do Bill on an old episode of SNL and Bill is there taking questions and finally he says you can't touch me,  "Next time you best bring Kryptonite."--  etc.

    This whole thing is their second chance.  

    I don't think anyone is buying Obama's Clean Steve routine.  They're just trying take down a great legacy that they couldn't touch before.  And Obama is benefitting from that.

    Apologies to those folks who knew what was going on all along, I think I knew it instinctually, but it only started being really clear to me over the last couple weeks.


    that is why i say i hold the dim leadership (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:44:32 PM EST
    in greater distain. they know these things and yet they gallop headlong toward defeat in november with nary a care for the american people. and let's not forget the so called media and gop (laughing all the way).

    $600 in Tiffany's trinkets (none / 0) (#44)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:03:11 PM EST
    Obama's campaign used campaign funds to buy jewelry from Tiffanys. I sure that Michelle or some other lucky lady enjoys the gift that was bought with money from Obama's contributers.

    Obama's staff mum on Tiffany's purchase



    This is a non-story (none / 0) (#62)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:44:37 PM EST
    Happens all the time you use the wrong credit card. I don't think we want to make anything of it.

    2.5 million online ads (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:36:56 PM EST
    further down in article. I guess TPM etc, got some bucks.  

    Stellaaa, there is a diary up (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    at Open Left about "community organizing," one of your favorite subjects.  Just letting you know.

    Yeah...thanks.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:47:47 PM EST
    Do I want to read it or will I want to slash my wrists?

    I only read the first part, which (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:44 PM EST
    was educational in intent.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:13:26 AM EST
    but I still find that the majority of organizing has been co-opted.  I posted my cynical view.  

    Axelrod-esque astroturfing? (none / 0) (#132)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    I've never had the time to run a content analysis on the purge over at GOS, but my intuition is that I'd find some interesting things....

    Some of us understand that (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:04:26 PM EST
    and some of of us don't.

    Unfortunately the don'ts have propelled a candidate to the brink of becoming the Democratic nominee.


    That's my feeling as well (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    BTD thinks that media love will save him. I hope he's right.

    It may get him nominated (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:14:55 PM EST
    but it won't save him.

    No matter what 'the media' does or says in the general, the Republicans, the swifties, the 507s and John McCain ("more in sorrow than in anger")  will bury Obama.

    I don't see any way out of that.


    russert showed obama (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST
    the media love he'll get, if he's nominated.

    Sounds familiar. (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:55:50 PM EST
    Jones's staff say he blocked the bill because he intends to produce something tougher.

    Kind of like Obama not voting against 30% interest rate caps.

    Ethics meme (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    For someone that considers himself Obama's godfather, he may support Obama but he sure doesn't set a good example for Obama's ethics meme.  Obama had no influence on Chicago politics yet people believe he's going to change Washington politics.  I still see blogs saying he's transformational.  sigh.

    Who was it that did the series of lip bites?  Obama's fits in.


    What's that we've been saying about not (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    having been vetted?  Hello out there in the land of change and hope, I'm talking to you.

    I've said it a million times myself (none / 0) (#107)
    by MMW on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:55:16 AM EST
    You don't let your opponent vet your candidate. Although I should have been more explicit - you don't let the GOP vet your candidate when you're a Democrat. The other way around is okay, because this election cycle has proven without doubt that the Democratic party symbol of a DONKEY, is quite apt. Stubborn, willful and my apologies to donkeys, DUMB.

    that is like calling the party of the ass (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    asinine, just with more words.

    BO's claim is that (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    this race isn't about experience, but about judgment.  Well, when will the MSM connect the dots?
    Seriously, it seems they ignore everything just to make McCain a shoe-in.  I wouldn't but it past them....

    The American media will ignore this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    and continue to protect Obama- until they turn on him in September or so. "president mccain"-it hurts my mouth.

    And the MSM hasn't even (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:20:16 PM EST
    touched the Ayers connection--don't tell me the GOP/527s wont use that one.  

    Stop being mean to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    I'm wondering how many of you are noticing what I noticed a few days ago concerning Mr. Obama.
    That is that he's quite the drama queen who is always portraying himself as a victim. Life just isn't fair to poor Obama. He just can't get an honest shake from anybody.
    He actually had the gall to say this today about Hillary after his campaign launched a major character assassination attack:

     "She's Just Trying to Tear Me Down, and That's Not the Kind of Politics We've Been About"


    Nope... (none / 0) (#63)
    by tsteels2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    Hadn't notice.  Don't see the drama queen.  Don't see the poor me.  Don't see it.

    What I've seen recently is "Attack of the Angry Surrogate" and Senator Obama addressing it the best he can.

    'Nuff said.


    well he did hand an "Angry Surrogate" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    the mic just yesterday. How is that addressing it?

    It's about judgment! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    It doesn't make a difference if there's no wrong doing.  BO said this race is about judgment and it seems he has chosen some shady mentors.  Why isn't that relevant?  

    Judgement: Penn, Carville, Ferraro..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    That's just a start for Hillary Clinton. What do those people, hired or closely associated with the campaign, say about her judgment?

    But but.. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    Obama was the one who claimed sainthood...

    No one has claimed SaintHood he's asked (none / 0) (#38)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    us as people to raise ourselves up out of this political machine that puts more interest on petty issues.  And that answer is NO we can't seem to raise ourselves above these non issues to attack what's important to Americans like the war in Iraq, healthcare, economy and education.

    This is just my perception, (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by kayla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    but, you know, whenever I hear Obama speak it's about one non-issue or another and rarely about his policies.  The few times I do hear him talking policy, he's basically just minimizing his opponent's capabilities in judgment as opposed to building up his own plans and ideas for the country.

    So it always comes across as odd when he or one of his supporters goes, "Let's talk about the issues!", because that's all I ever hear out of Hillary.  We are talking about the issues.  I'm still waiting for Barack.


    Well if your saying all (none / 0) (#52)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    you have heard from Clinton is "lets talk about the issues" then you have been watching a different campaign then I have.  If we are talking about perceptions then I would say mine is exactly the opposite.  I was in an euphoria during the debates from the Reagan debate and before.  We had two candidates being civil and talking about their positions and not attacking each other.  Since that point I've felt again this is perception that Clinton took the race into the mud.  And Obama to actually my distain has only recently attempted to play hardball with her.  I thought he tried to take the high ground for too long before OH and TX and that cost him dearly in keeping the race tighter in OH.  I guess it's just the bias we all feel towards our candidate.  I strongly feel the media has a bias towards Clinton especially after the SNL and commentary by Clinton.  I fell like Obama is attacked by Clinton and the GOP on relative non issues and then people get upset if he fights back or when he has to respond to these claims.  Just to be follow up with "this is not the campaign of hope".  My perception is a doublestandard is in place.  Then again it's just my perception.

    I would need to go back and recheck the debate (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:34:50 PM EST
    but iirc, he started the mudslinging in that one. he came prepared and just let the cat out of the bag. Don't think slumlord would have come up if he hadn't thrown down WalMart . . .

    The dude's been playin' old politics all along. No big deal, except for his claiming to be above it. I fear his ardent supporters that don't see it may become disillusioned and it won't be good . . .


    No, I wasn't clear. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by kayla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:00:47 AM EST
    I meant all I hear from Hillary is the issues.  Listening to her speak, I actually learn a lot about the way the country works and what we can do to make it better.  I think that's what her appeal is for me.  I can't help but learn something substantive from her.  With Barack, it's all about how lame the his opponents are.  "Hillary has poor judgment and voted for the war.  McCain misspoke himself yesterday and wants a 100 year war."  This type of talk from him over and over and over again is very disheartening for me.  I want more from him.  That's all I'm saying.

    your name was too long (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST
    and skewing the site, so I changed it from stopcompaining and do something to stopcomplainingandact.

    What...what? (none / 0) (#96)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:22:55 AM EST

    Since that point I've felt again this is perception that Clinton took the race into the mud.  And Obama to actually my distain has only recently attempted to play hardball with her.  I thought he tried to take the high ground for too long before OH and TX and that cost him dearly in keeping the race tighter in OH.  I guess it's just the bias we all feel towards our candidate.  I strongly feel the media has a bias towards Clinton especially after the SNL and commentary by Clinton.

    Yeah, we've definitely been watching different media.  Either that, or you're the ONE person whose perception is "correct" and the rest of us here on TL are wrong.


    Also (none / 0) (#104)
    by kayla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:42 AM EST
    Do you remember that debate, I really don't remember which one, but there was a debate months ago where Barack and Edwards were ganging up on Hillary.  A lot of the pundit speculation after that was that Obama and Edwards were planning on running a joint ticket, and even in the next debate Edwards was extremely quiet, as if he was trying to make up for his rudeness in the previous debate.

    Hillary's response to all of this was something like, "I can handle the boys!".  So she started being a little tougher.  A lot of the talking heads thought it awful that she would play the gender card!  Why didn't they take on the "Oh my goodness!  Obama is forcing her to get down in the gutter!" storyline that they took so easily with Barack?  


    Right... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    and why is that?

    He should start leading us by example. (none / 0) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    Any of them under indictment? (none / 0) (#39)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    except maybe in your dreams?

    Sandy Berger was already convicted (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:29:08 AM EST
    Or does he not count?

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#131)
    by delandjim on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    Is or was he involved in any way with HER campaign??

    there are many excellent comments in this thread (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:33:36 AM EST
    someone else stated that it is now fairly clear that obama was unable to bring about the kind of "change" he promises as president as an illinois legislator.  it doesn't necessarily make him a bad person.  based upon the record of his period in chicago, however, it is clear that he is more adept at consensus building, opportunism, and elbow rubbing than with meaningful, socially progressive legislation.  in fact, if "change" means improving the lives of working and poor americans, clinton's record as first lady of arkansas and of the u.s. is much stronger than obama's as a state legislator.  in fact, i just laughed out loud thinking about it.  

    I'm glad someone else found this article. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by andrelee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:16:57 AM EST
    One has to wonder if the folks who already voted for OB and felt uncomfortable about the Wright episode feel that they would take their votes back if they could. That's got to be going through the minds of the voters in the upcoming elections and creating some hesitation among voters who were leaning towards him of late and making them aware that it may be important to watch him a little more closely than they have been . I also think that the vociferousness of OB's support early on was the thought that he truly was as he was presenting himself, a new kind of politician that even freepers, and young republicans could dig. Since one of his key drawing points and electability strengths was his appeal to independents and wavering republicans, I don't see the Wright episode or anything for that matter that renders OB as more of a 'black' politician as opposed to a politician who is black, helping him among those folks.  Claire McCaskill said as much when she was 'praising' him as a 'non-victim black leader'. My  white friends (I'm black) tell me that they don't like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton because they make them feel bad, guilty, responsible for the racism against blacks in the U.S. even though they don't consider themselves racist(nor do I) or commit any racist acts. The article says as much about his efforts to not seem like one of 'those' politicians. Again, my point isn't about the 'black-ness' issue but more-so that the more people see about his past associations, efforts, activites-his actual self and not just his presention, the more folks might feel mislead and  that could be compounded by them also suspecting that there is more unpleasant things to be known. The article was way back in Feb. but is only now being seen and discussed by more folks. It's too bad I've seen it only on this blog. It'd be great to get it out there enough where it's something that he'd have to address, which is what he needs to be good at. Though not always with prepared remarks in a speech. Personally, that's where I have my doubts about him. I don't see this story being considered by the MSM because of it's lack of pyrotechnics, so far. It's the sort of story that, if dug properly, might be more revealing than any of the Wright stuff. No pun intended. That 'he hasn't been vetted yet' theme certainly gains more teeth the more he actually is.  Why his supporters dismiss it and don't take it seriously as just another part of this process, I don't know. I do know it matters in the end and it's much better to do it earlier than later.

    the willful suppression of voting rights (none / 0) (#114)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    for citizens of two major swing states tells me that the answer to your question is YES.  Now that the shine is off he definitely doesn't see Hillary win FL by a wider margin than she already has.  And his blunders with NAFTA in OH coupled with all the other recent negatives would mean a strong victory for Hillary in MI instead of a close victory.  But I guarantee that states like KS and UT would love to have a do over after the Wright fiasco.(IMO)

    Feingold declined to run. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:48:27 PM EST

    More from Murdoch (none / 0) (#6)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary Clinton's attempts to cozy up to Rupert Murdoch paid off.

    Does the Times of London have less of a stench of being the Pravda of the right than do other Murdoch properties like Fox News?

    True or not? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    Which part of it is not true?  I mean, that's the question at hand.  And it's legitimate.  Besides, it's not exactly as if the Times of London has been "pro-Clinton."  

    The Article Is A Tissue-Thin Smear By Association (none / 0) (#25)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:36:44 PM EST
    The primary thing that the article says is that Emil  Jones has held up ethics legislation, and it makes the claim that Jones has become "embroiled in ethical controversies concerning his wife's job and his stepson's business."

    The article does not explain the ethics bill in question, or what disputes led to the delay. It also doesn't explain what the supposed ethics controversies are surrounding Jones' wife and stepson. Nor does the article provide sources where these claims can be explored or verified.

    Perhaps predictably, the only article I could find on the stepson and wife controversies is from the Chicago Sun-Times when it was still controlled by right-winger Conrad Black (prior to Conrad Black's Hollinger firm owning it, the Sun-Times had been owned by Murdoch).

    The Times of London article says that Obama is not linked to any of the ethics problems alleged against Jones.

    Another smear by association.


    Did you read the Chicago Tribune editorial (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    I linked to? The ethics flap is well documented. I did a Lexis search and no articles I read contradicted what is in the Timesonline -- Most of it is corroborated.

    Ethics law irony (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    What is amazing to me is that Obama holds the ethics law as the centerpiece of his Illinois bipartisan legislation.  Funny, how the Federal charges against Rezko, etc, were all about ethics.  I guess the law did not catch on in Illinois.  

    Rezko (none / 0) (#85)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    wasn't a legislator...he's more of what someone would call a bundler, facilitator, or a lobbyist.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    but, he was involved with politicians.  

    he got people appointed to boards (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:10:15 AM EST
    that's more than a contributor

    Only in the US... (none / 0) (#11)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:05:29 PM EST
    ... where most people don't know that it's owned by the same guy who owns Fox News.  

    That's why so many Obama smears have first been published there.


    ho-hum (none / 0) (#21)
    by dannyinla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    The same outrage is being peddled over at NoQuarter... the sort of outrage where a candidate is responsible for every single person they have ever encountered in the past.

    It's the sort of impossible litmus test that is created to destroy either Dem candidate. And seemingly smart people like Jeralyn fall for it.

    tsk tsk

    For almost a year Jones has used his position as leader of the state senate to block anticorruption legislation passed unanimously by the state's lower house. He has also become embroiled in ethical controversies concerning his wife's job and his stepson's business.

    None of them is linked to Obama, but the Democratic contender can ill afford another scandal related to his former Chicago allies.

    Jeralyn, you really need to read that last para over and over again.

    No connection... but Obama can ill-afford another scandal.  

    Come on now.

    Obama "encountered" Emil Jones? (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    Uh, sounds like more than an "encounter," Danno.  Jones was his mentor in the state senate and engineered his rise to the U.S. Senate.

    Close Encounters of the Chicago Kind. . . .


    after the misleading crap (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:04:57 AM EST
    that Kos posts, and allows to be posted, (and you agree with and support) on your site of choice do you really think that you have the right to go to someone else's site and judge them?

    Obama gets to own his Pastor and his other dirty laundry because he has to, clever trying to say that he can't "disown" the Pastor because in reality the media wouldn't have let it happen anyway.  Since he has to own his dirty laundry he can start answering for that dirty laundry just as you and the others have so repeatedly called for Hillary to own and answer for her mistakes.  If you have a problem with that, to darn bad.  For six months it was Hillary is this, Hillary is that...the moment someone actually thinks to look into Obama's past all the blind-faith types start screaming, "not fair, not fair...what you see isn't what is there...pay no attention to the men (Rezco, Jones, and Wright) who hide behind the curtain.  Well, I want to know what is behind the curtain.  For the last 16 years I've heard about what horrible people the Clintons are, but when it sorts itself out...none of it seems to hold water...ever!  I will vote for Hillary 10 out of 10 times versus Obama, whom I know only as a quality speaker...now that shoes are dropping I like him less and less precisely for the fact that he has played himself as being "better".  


    Yeah... I have the right (none / 0) (#128)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Unless I missed something, this is an open forum that encourages civil discourse... something that is sorely lacking at Kos.

    If you re-read my post you'll see that I support an end to both campaign's impossible litmus test of associations that do one thing and one thing only... help McCain.

    You can make this about Obama v Clinton all you like.  That is exacly not the point of my post.


    This association will bite ya in the arse! (none / 0) (#66)
    by tsteels2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:51 PM EST
    If you think Senator Clinton can't lose to Senator McCain because she's been vetted, YOUR WRONG.  The Right will do "guilt by association" with her as well.  Both Clinton and Obama are in the same boat concerning that.  A white woman and a black man, both historic, are going to be attacked mercilessly in fair and unfair ways by the Right.

    The difference is that Hillary can take it. (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    How so? (none / 0) (#109)
    by tsteels2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:18:12 AM EST
    I hear that more often than not.

    There's a reason you hear it so often. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    It's because it's true.

    NO ONE, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton (who has redeemed himself with his post-presidential foundation work) has been more thoroughly vetted and investigated by the RW, the press, and biographers. Her entire life is an open book.

    They have found nothing serious to pin on her.

    She has the entire media against her and she's still  virtually tied in this campaign.

    Sure, they can make stuff up about her - they've done it before, and Obama does it now - but it won't stick. She'll fight back. Eventually people stop paying attention to the desperate smears. We've known her now for over 16 years. There are no surprises left.

    And she doesn't throw hissy fits like Obama does, she does not invent insults to be outraged over. She is not a delicate flower.

    So there you go. She can take it.


    How long (none / 0) (#111)
    by magisterludi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:42:45 AM EST
    have you actually been following American politics?

    lol, excellent question. n/t (none / 0) (#113)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    I don't think this is particularly relevant (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    unless it turns out Jones worked some funny business for Obama and Obama knew.  Obama is not my favorite but I don't see how this has anything to do with him, really.

    It is very relevant (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:45:23 PM EST
    since his raison d'etre as a presidential candiadte was that he was "not the usual politician"; that he was better, cleaner, that he would be the one that would bring change to Washington...
    "a different kind of politics".

    Ahem... question is: would that be Chicago politics?

    Seem that what he was selling ain't so...


    The usual politician angle is OVER! (none / 0) (#67)
    by tsteels2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:56:14 PM EST
    Senator Obama was criticized for being "soft" now he's dumping that label and will get criticized too (already started).  I knew it (HOPE AND CHANGE message) wouldn't last.

    Now it's just a fight between two regular ol' Democrats.  Albeit a black one and a white one.


    race is not relevant (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:00:19 PM EST
    to this discussion. Please refrain from injecting it into everything. It's also between a male and female candidate, but that's not the issue here either.

    I apologize. (none / 0) (#110)
    by tsteels2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:19:05 AM EST
    Got a little excited there.

    how could he not know? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:13:32 AM EST
    Perhaps you guys (none / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST
    could email Emmit Tyrell and see if he can give you some pointers on smearing by association.  

    More of the same (none / 0) (#26)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    Obama is in politics, politics is full of individuals who have unsavery reputations.  If you hold someone under a microscope to a greater extent and expectation then others in the campaign they will fall short of your expectations.  Stop trying to hold him acountable for others actions.  Hold him accountable for his actions.  

    Obama's actions were to ask (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    this guy to get him to the U.S. Senate.  So yeh, I hold Obama accountable for who he asks for actions that help him get where he is -- and wants to be.

    What I don't get is why you don't hold Obama accountable for his actions, who he asks to act for him.  Please explain your definition of personal responsibility.


    so before dirt on Obama started (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:12:04 AM EST
    falling from the woodwork Obama was the ONE because he was "new, better, different".  Now that the dirt is out and he has become just another soiled politician...being a soiled run of the mill politician is OK?  

    You chose Obama because of the "hope and change" meme.  Admit that that candidate is gone, that you screwed up, that you were duped by his personality and speeches that said "look at who stands before you now" and pointedly stayed away from anything that would raise questions about his past.  Now that you see him as an average, flawed politician your mind should be asking those questions, "did I make a mistake? Is he smoke and mirrors?"  But nope, you just change the rules by which he should be judged because rationalizing is easier than facing the truth.


    Proud of the American Voters (none / 0) (#27)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:38:10 PM EST
    We are all proud that for the first time a Woman President or a first African American.

    If Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton does not become a president, it would be because their own short comings ... not because of the voters being racist or sexist.

    PS: The media bias still exist but hopefully in future we will reach a point that we can overcome that also !!!

    Does anyone (none / 0) (#29)
    by kayla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:39:18 PM EST
    have a link to an article detailing Obama's time as an Illinois senator or community organizer in a positive light?  I've heard bits and pieces about him helping pass a bill that requires video cameras during interrogation, but otherwise I haven't heard much about his pre-US senate career being very productive.

    It's starting to worry me.

    I've been trying to be less partisan toward Hillary, since I'm starting to feel that Barack could be our nominee, but it's kind of hard when there's so much shady stuff coming out of Barack's past involving his leadership and judgment.  This is so unbelievably annoying.

    Actually, this Chicago Tribune (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    article is more substantial on the issue of his background as an organizer.

    Community Organizer (5.00 / 10) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:46:46 PM EST
    Remember, this self described community organizer, did not know that 11 Rezko buildings in his district were in default and consequently the affordable units lost.  The defaults started in 1997.  No, legitimate community organizer would be so out of touch that they would not know about this.  I don't buy the community organizing creds.  Once you work in a community as an organizer, you know the people, the buildings, the stories, the politics.  Obama, claimed over and over that he did not know about Rezko's defaults on 30 affordable housing projects in Chicago.  This is not chopped liver, this is 30 projects.  Obama did not know as he did not hear the sermons.  

    guilty... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10:14 AM EST
    I have identified my issue by virtue of This American Life (NPR)...

    I am guilty of informing people against their will.

    So in honor of that identification, we should nominate BHO with 'guilty of willfully not knowing'

    This guy is gonna get creamed in the general election...

    Tonight on CNN, they're giving extended coverage to 'Black Liberation Theology' - the term apparently given to the type of religion practiced by UCC/Jeremiah Wright and now his successor.

    They played an extended clip of Jeremiah Wright and they aren't going to let this pass.


    will be bad if they pursue that line (none / 0) (#97)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:27:08 AM EST
    and include Wright's mentor. Apparently that guy is even wackier than Wright. Of course that would be completely unfair as that shouldn't be used against Obama. But then there's a ton of stuff against Hillary that's not fair. It's all about the vetting. Vet early, vet often...

    two jabs and right cross to the kisser (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:04 AM EST
    well done Stellaa.

    His "community organizing" (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    seems to have amounted to getting people registered to vote and to vote for him. The rest of what a community organizer does apparently doesn't get him more votes, so he didn't do it. But getting those people registered and voting was good for him, too bad he didn't return the favor and do something good for them.

    In fairness... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM EST
    ...I believe that Obama was a "community organizer" (whatever that means) in the late 80s, well befote 1997.

    No term limits (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    When you get connected to a community, there are no terms limits.  If you are an Alinsky organizer your heart  and your eyes and ears are  always with the community.

    Larissa MacFarquhar's 2007 profile of Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    gives quite a bit of history about Obama's background.

    eep! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    "Valerie, you're not a guy but let me explain it to you in sport terms."

    Uh, ya gotta be a guy to understand sports terms?!
    So, Senator Obama, would you like to explain my first place finish in Fantasy Football? I assure you this gal's not a fluke. . . .


    The guy has major power (none / 0) (#36)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:48:25 PM EST
    he negotiated with him to get support to further his cause of improving America. Yes he can deal with the people in this world who do not represent the best of the beliefs we hold so true to get results.  Sounds like the President I want in the Whitehouse.

    Ah, thank you! (none / 0) (#37)
    by kayla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    It is about judgement (none / 0) (#31)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:41:18 PM EST
    Judgement on key issues that matter to Americans. The war, healthcare, economy education all of which I would say yes he does have great judgement.  Sorry to interrupt your thread on bashing Obama with some commone sense.

    Y'know (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:59:18 PM EST
    most of this I find not especially important, other than it just continues to demonstrate that Obama and any kind of "new politics" have yet to be formally introduced.

    What concerns me is that I think he's shown now evidence (beyond one speech) of actually trying to do anything to end the war, his judgment on health care is something I find lacking, his ideas on the economy - particulary technology ("not enough scientists for NASA projects") - and choice of advisors like Goolsbee and Cutler range from ill-informed to unappealing, but I haven't looked at his education positions. Maybe I'd like those.


    I only find Emil Jones (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    relevant in determining how much, or, in actuality, how little, Obama accomplished in the Illinois State Legislature. The article Jeralyn posted by Todd Spivak makes it clear that most of Obama's legislative "achievements" happened in one year, 2003, when Emil Jones became the new Senate leader following the 2002 election which gave the Democrats control of the Illinois Senate. Jones decided to shuttle all Democratic bills through Obama, as their new "sponsor". This took bills that had been sponsored year after year by other Democrats, and instantly made them Obama's babies, once the change in Senate control made them likely to be passed.

     The bill on videotaping interrogations was one such bill. All the work had been done by Senator Ricky Herndon, but Obama got the credit for its passage, even though by the time he became the bill's sponsor there was a broad consensus that it was necessary, given the recent scandal surrounding the Corethian Bell videotaped confession. Bell, after two days of interrogation, confessed to sexually assaulting and killing his own mother. DNA later proved that he was innocent, and the real killer was found.

    Jones is relevant to whether Obama has ever practiced this new, transformational politics, which he hasn't, but some people just want to believe.


    Badger... (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by Rainsong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10:26 AM EST
    What concerns me is that I think he's shown now evidence (beyond one speech) of actually trying to do anything to end the war, his judgment on health care is something I find lacking, his ideas on the economy - particulary technology ("not enough scientists for NASA projects") - and choice of advisors like Goolsbee and Cutler range from ill-informed to unappealing..

    Badger, you have listed most of what I also distrust about Obama:

    - no deeds, just words on the Iraq war, and those words were a long time ago, with little in-between. Also, one of his biggest campaign lies to date.

    Additionally, no firm position on Iran,  Afghanistan etc, and no major military endorsements.

    He has also made some silly gaffes on foreign policy, eg NATO and NAFTA.

    • healthcare. No industry regulation or accountability, and substantially different to that proposed by Edwards and Clinton and others.
    • economy. Goolsbee, Cutler etc. Says it all.
    • The Exelon connections amongst others - his next biggest lie about not engaging with lobbyist interests.
    • His very paper-thin record in Illinois and the US Senate. Just caves in, a lot, way too much for my taste. Or doesn't show up. He may have judgement of a sort, but he doesn't have courage. He consistently backs down and rolls over to the right-wing, when push comes to shove.  When the going gets tough, he just crumbles under the pressure and ends up "seeing both points of view". He has indicated he would 'delegate' most governance and administrative functions, but to who?  Wall Street? the Republicans?

    • His lack of public support for Democratic Party principles, history, achievements etc in his campaign to date. Won't even use the logo in speeches or advertising or voter registration drives, and there doesn't appear to be much follow-through to downticket Dems either. He's been running his campaign as an Independent. Slamming the Clinton administration, with slurs of racism and McCarthyism etc is just bizarre.

    and lastly, I just don't like the guy - but if he had reasonable Democrat policies and platforms, I could get over that. I don't like his arrogant smirk, I don't like his lies and tactics, and he comes over condescending and patronising. And I dont like the type of people he attracts, especially the mysogynist thugs on and off the MSM.

    "He has indicated he would 'delegate'" (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:37:18 AM EST
    That was a huge red flag for me. I've worked with extremely smart/talented people that used that approach. They also lacked the seasoning to lead and make it work. And it can be worse than on the job training, sometimes they never really get a solid grasp because they feel it's under control.

    Between his past/current relationships and a couple of 'gaffs' by his current advisers, I don't see that red flag lowering. He certainly hasn't said anything solid/deep enough on issues either, for me. And he is also so willing to cross the aisle that it almost seems he's forgotten there's a Dem party behind him.


    position admirable.  If you have reviewed his positions and found them wanting then it's a fair position.  

    Okay... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kayla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:01:39 PM EST
    ...that's fine.

    Judgment that he never had to excercise (none / 0) (#46)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:08:38 PM EST
    or skipped like vote on Iran .. and other stuff in IL senate.

    being abscent to votes or voting present the Clinton and McCain are both officially off the ticket.

    No I am holding people accountable for the votes (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    they are trying to get credit for .. when in essence they did not vote for the same bills (either because they were not in the senate.. or they skipped) but they have the judgment to question other people's votes on the very same bills!!!

    Stop your chatter, do your research (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:40:04 PM EST
    as it is incontrovertible that Obama missed almost 40% of the votes in the U.S. Senate in a single year alone, the same year that other candidates from Congress running for president -- including Clinton and McCain -- had far better records of attendance.

    At least this one of your comments was somewhat relevant to the question asked.


    I have to agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    with all the Obamamanians here...there's no apparent story here.

    yes, the bills went out with listing his name as sponsor unfairly perhaps most of the time

    yes, Chicago politics are not the type that we should hold up as a model for the way things should be done

    but no...nothing here that substantively weighs on Obama - at least at this point.

    he's campaigning listing them (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST
    as his achievements -- it's more than his name being on them.

    political rhetoric (none / 0) (#70)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    nothing new here...move on

    We agree that he has few if any achievements.

    The problem is that 'experience' hasn't been the moving issue for this election cycle.

    The moving issue has been change and is now morphing into the economy.

    WJC finally figured it out in 1992...It's the Economy Stupid

    Obama gamed the system early by being the change candidate because he could sell it...he is black, he stated arguments against the Iraq war and he had no real votes that hung him in the Senate.

    I could list a hundred reasons why I prefer HRC over BHO but the issue of Emil Jones just isn't one of them...sorry


    So you think it's ok for him to claim (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM EST
    credit for other peoples' work? I don't. If he didn't work on the legislation, if he didn't have a hand in writing it, if he was only put on as a sponsor for political reasons, he should admit it. No wonder he "can't find" his Ill. Senate records. And please, stop saying he served "years". The Ill. legislature only meets four months a year, Jan-May. That's to May..not through May. It is amazing that he wrote, sponsored and got all those bills through in four months, it really is. So why not share the details with the rest of us? Unless it is all a sham and he didn't do the work, just took the credit. If it is a sham, he is a cheat. And he screwed his fellow Senators who had worked for years to get these bills through, took their work and claimed it. I wonder if they voted for him.

    do you know what bothers me more than... (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    the charade of his accomplishments in the Illinois Senate?

    He abstained on the vote to censor MoveOn.org after their General BetrayUs ad (Hillary voted NO and MoveOn.org ended up endorsing him anyway).

    He was nowhere to be found when the vote for Kyl/Lieberman (Iran) was held.

    His objection to the revote in MI..."Too complicated"

    This is a leader?


    I went and read the whole article (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18:40 AM EST
    and what got me the maddest was his lack of involvement in improving the quality of life for his Chicago constituents. His "community organizing" involved registering voters and getting them to vote for him. He had many chances to get involved and show leadership in the community in things that would have improved life for a lot of people. He didn't do it because he didn't want to be perceived as a "black" politician by being associated with what some might label "black causes". He didn't want to get stuck in state politics. He turned his back on the people who voted for him and trusted him to help them. For his own ambition. That is sickening. And it is why some of the old time black leaders, the ones who came up in the civil rights movement, don't like him much. He uses black people to get where he wants to go, but he doesn't help any of them up the ladder behind him.

    Coat tails? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:23:12 AM EST
    Maybe not so much.

    i can't agree with that. what we have is a (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    series of red flags that are coming out and continue to do so. one by themselves, no big problem. but the resulting grouping of bad decisons and questionable friends leaves me with a great big question mark. and i don't want any more question marks in the wh.

    Todd Spivak story-last link. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    I find it very troubling. Did anyone else here read it?

    Read it a while and agree -- (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    it's a story that keeps coming back like a bad meal.  I wish the reporter had edited out a lot of himself in the story, which makes it too long -- but that also somehow lends it a memorable credibility as something the reporter has been wanting to tell us for a long time.  It has such a ring of truth, of what he witnessed "close up and personal."

    Yes, this as well as the other stories on how Obama engineered his unopposed elections from the start -- all have had a lot of impact on how I see Obama.


    Yeah, when I read about the (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    nominating petitions and the trouble that Obama went to to make sure he was unopposed in the election, I thought, oh, that explains MI and FL and his supporters' calls for Hillary to quit. He doesn't like competition. And here's a question, slightly OT but not much. If Hillary is decried for saying it's "her turn" why is it wonderful that Obama says it's "his turn"?? Hasn't Hillary been in the trenches longer than Obama? If anyone running has EARNED the shot at the nomination, it's Hillary, not Obama. He seems to have gotten ahead on other people's work and political favors. No one ever did Hillary any favors, she has had an uphill battle the whole way, and has fought well. Obama, on the other hand, whines like a four year old anytime someone says something unfavorable about him. I want a fighter in the White House, not a whiner.

    The reporter's me me me focus (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    I have a fairly inactive 'blog' that I use mainly for reference, unusual articles.  Re this article, I linked any other reader to page 2, since page 1 was full of self-centered writings about the reporter's own less-happy experiences trying to get ahead (which makes the article seem based on envy and resentment at times).

      But from what we read in that article, Repub Swiftboaters will probably video up some state senators whose legislative bills were given to Obama for 'sponsorship' or credit after the others had done 99% of the work or years.


    Making sure he had no opposition (none / 0) (#129)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    Right.  The Alice Palmer story, which shows how he challenged the others who got on the state ballot, including the progressive Palmer who had the job for years, used a more recent database from which names were deleted and was able to get the competition all invalidated so he could run unopposed.  Sounds very much like the way he and his supporters spend 2/3rds of their days trying to get Hillary to quit.

      Later on, two U.S. senate opponents both happened to have their sex lives revealed and suddenly opted to step out.  I remember reading at least one of them had a footprint from his staff.  Old politics can be useful.

      My Obama reference set is a bunch of earlier (and some recent articles) about his background.


    Really? (none / 0) (#71)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:02:06 PM EST
    "I've answered like eight questions."

    'I'm going to call Lorne Michael and Tina Fey...'

    Just to name two examples.  Sorry, but he does seem to be thin-skinned for a politician.  And that's not good considering the vetting has just started--what does he think the GE will look like?  As a Dem I have the right to be concerned how he does under pressure.    

    I'm sorry -- but where's the beef? (none / 0) (#73)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    I usually find BTD and Jeralyn's posts informative, but this one is not that interesting. Even at this stage of the campaign, it is clear that Obama's clever use of his color, disciplined campaign staff, silver tongue and the support he has won from activists (always a dangerous crowd in Democratic primaries) will cause the MSM to shill for him -- rather than dig into such stories and ask hard questions. It is too late to be making the "he's just a politician" argument, but maybe if SNL does a skit on this, or if someone was wearing a hidden camera during one of their meetings -- and has some juicy videos to share, I don't see how this will amount to much. Is there anything more here -- that will play in Oregon or Indiana?

    The MSM is laying a trap for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    they are wholly corporate and the corporations support the GOP policies. They want Obama to be the nominee because he will be so easy to take down in the GE against McCain. Hillary won't be easy. The stuff they "have on her" is old stuff, same old same old, that people are used to hearing and don't care about anymore. Obama is fresh meat, totally vulnerable on numerous issues, and has associations in his background, and lack of actual WORK that will make him easy pickings for the media in the GE. If anyone thinks the MSM adoration will continue past the nomination, I have a very nice bridge in NYC to sell them. Cheap. Obama is being set up by the media, and he and his supporters are too starry-eyed over their hopes and dreams theme to see it. They think it's real, poor fools.

    well, i hate to break it to everyone (none / 0) (#92)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:25:09 AM EST
    but i caught some of hannity's radio show last week and he was going on and on about an obama superdelegate and illinois state senator by the name of meeks.  i believe it is james meeks.  

    from what i recall, hannity was associating meeks with wright and also malik shabbaz (sp?) and the new black panther party.  so regrettably, it looks like this party about obama's circle of associates in chicago is just getting started, and the republicans will play on white racial fears in ways that should embarrass obama supporters who even thought for a second that the clintons were racists.  

    that being said, if obama takes the lumps now and has all the dirty laundry aired to the point of damaging his candidacy in this primary, he will potentially reap the benefit of being inoculated against the same charges in eight years when he would be the obvious successor to clinton, i.e. in the same position then as clinton is today.  call it a variation on "that which does not kill me can only make me stronger".  

    Agree to a point (none / 0) (#101)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:46:34 AM EST
    Obama won't face anything in the general against McCain so forocious as what he has faced against Clinton and her supporters. McCain is, by and large, a decent guy and I don't believe that republicans will so openly race bait as the dems have.

    I can't even argue that comment (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:27:21 AM EST
    everything about it is so incredibly wrong yet I know you will defend those positions to your dying breath.  So the only thing I can say is you draw your conclusions and assumptions off of information of which I am completely unaware.  Because in the reality I live in rational logical thought triumphs over blind following of rhetorical talking pts.  In the reality I live in the GOP does not "play nice"...they play dirty and they play to win.   If you believe that some in the Clinton campaign are race-baiters...what the hell are you going to call Republicans when they run out commercial after commercial of Wright saying "God damn America", Obama saying "I didn't ever hear Wright say ..." followed by "Did I ever hear right say...sure, of course I did."  It doesn't matter if Wright is taken out of context because in Obama's speech he said that Wright thinks racism is endemic to Caucausians.  You package all those comments together and the GOP base that hates McCain is going to rally behind him...if they haven't already.

    Hey, I guess I could argue the pts you raise, bravo me.  Though I'm sure you'll still tell me I'm crazy that McCain is a super duper honorable guy...only thing..McCain doesn't control the GOP, he doesn't control 527's, he doesn't control the stories FOX and Rush etc decide to run with.


    Is this (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by magisterludi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
    your first rodeo?

    Race isn't the only thing they can (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    use against Obama. They can use the fact that he didn't actually have anything to do with that legislation he is touting as "his" in the Ill. Senate. It wasn't his, the Speaker just stuck his name on it as a sponsor, he didn't do any of the actual work. Then there is his lack of policy preparation. I bet McCain has a policy on everything. Obama seems not to have anything but oratory. If Obama gets the nomination, be ready to say "President McCain" for the next four years. The GOP WANTS him as the nominee. He is so much easier to discredit than Hillary. And the race card has been played by Obama from the start. So he shouldn't complain if it comes back to bite him in the ass.

    the point of my comment (none / 0) (#117)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM EST
    was to say that hannity is doing it (race baiting obama's past associations with meeks and malik shabbaz) now.  right now.  today.  turn on your radio and find hannity.  i will bet a dollar that he is continuing this line of attack this week:  tying obama to wright, meeks, shabbaz, and farrakhan.  funny that you would wax poetic about mccain's niceness and his lack of interest in using race against obama in the general when it is in fact happening now.  but continue to ignore it if you choose.  

    McCain will (none / 0) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:51:47 AM EST
    definitely "take the high road," "be a nice guy," etc. etc.  He'll let his minions do the dirty work.

    Then when Obama is soiled and damaged, McCain will win in a landslide because he's such a "nice guy".


    No doubt. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    Bush was a nice guy.
    Reagan was a nice guy.

    For some people, that's enough.  Unfortunately.


    Remember this Article? (none / 0) (#119)
    by stevenb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    I don't know who many read this article in the recent past, but it puts Obama and Emil into a tighter relationship...so if Emil is sleazy, then Obama at least took on some of the stink:


    Obama's campaign keeps the toxics flowing (none / 0) (#121)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    Politco's Ben On Obama's Campaign manager:

    Campaign Manager David Plouffe essentially dismissed whatever polices Senator Clinton will propose in 15 minutes ... Senator Clinton has not shown a propensity to support reform in Washington .. We just think this is a fundamental divide for voter and one we'll continue to stress," he continued, trying to cast doubt on Clinton's reform credentials

    Toxic? (none / 0) (#134)
    by wwinfrey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    What is toxic about this comment? Hillary is a very big fan of status quo. The Clintons made triangulation a household term. Most people would not associate Hillary with reform and big change.

    Rezko is now a "mentor" ? (none / 0) (#133)
    by wwinfrey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    Will you just say anything, Jeralyn? A more accurate headline would have been "Guilt by association tactic finds potential third figure to smear Obama with".

    Calling Rezko a mentor is ridiculous. It's something Limbaugh would say.

    Fifth Toxic Mentor: Ice Cube! (none / 0) (#135)
    by wwinfrey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    We can play this game all day long.