Defense Begins Closing in Rezko Trial

Bump and Update: Rezko's lawyer reminded the jury in closing arguments that Rezko was a fundraiser for Barack Obama.
Before the trial ended for the day, Duffy sought to draw a difference between politics, Rezko's fundraising activities and the allegations in the case.

"Politics is different from criminal activity," said Duffy, reminding the jury that Rezko had been involved in fundraising for President Bush and Barack Obama as well.


Closing Arguments Underway in Rezko Trial

The Government is in the midst of what it said will be a 3 to 4 hour closing argument in the corruption trial of Tony Rezko. The Chicago Tribune is live-blogging. The Chicago Sun Times lists the ten key moments in the trial. [More...]

If convicted, I think Rezko is a big problem for the Illinois Governr Rod Blagojevich. I don't think the trial has affected Barack Obama. As I maintained since before the trial started, and now is the case, Obama's and Rezko's relationship was not an issue in the charges against Rezko.

Chicago Sun Times reporter Mark Brown reports that even though Obama emerged unscathed from the Rezko trial, a conviction is likely to have a negative effect on him in November if he is the nominee. Here's why:

Rezko is still every bit as much a problem for Obama as when this trial started in early March, just not more so, which seemed the stronger possibility back then.

....In the first place, Obama would have to play the renunciation game again, having failed to completely turn against Rezko the last time he was given an opportunity to do so.

Back on March 14 when Obama visited the Sun-Times' editorial board to put to rest lingering questions about their dealings, Obama was asked if he still considered Rezko a friend.

"Yes," he answered, "with the caveat that, obviously, 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." Obama even said he was "saddened" for Rezko and his family.

Brown continues with some advice for the Obama team:

At that very same interview, though, Obama was also still deferential to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and we know how quickly that changed.

Obama's advisers might want to start working up some stronger language now, unless he just wants to recycle the "outrageous . . . appalling . . . offensive . . . inexcusable" that he used when he set Wright adrift last week.

The prosecution never brought out in the trial, as it alleged in pre-trial filings, that some of the allegedly dirty money raised through Rezko ended up in Obama's campaign coffers. That's good for Obama. I also think the testimony about Obama attending a fundraiser for Auchi is a non-issue for Obama. Brown ends with the caveat:

Given the overly-secretive way that U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve runs her trials, there always exists the possibility that she has made and sealed some yet-to-be-revealed ruling that kept Obama-related testimony out of the trial. Sooner or later, that could still come out.

Brown lists the times Obama's name came out at the Rezko trial, saying he thinks he got all of them, but he did miss this one. While it's not about misconduct by Obama, it does show he's worked with lobbyists in the past to push for legislative action.

Rezko most likely will be a blip on the radar screen for Obama. But, if Rezko's convicted and if Obama is the nominee, I suspect McCain's allies, particularly 527 groups, will try to wrap up Wright and Rezko in a tidy package with a bow tie to show Obama lacks judgment and there's a pattern of it.

As I wrote here:

Obama says voters who are concerned about his judgment should view his involvement with Rezko as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest."

Obama says despite his mistakes (engaging in personal real estate deals with someone under criminal investigation who was a contributor to his multiple campaigns for public office and involved in politics -- and his failure to spot the potential conflicts of interest) voters should "also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."

I think that's a fair statement of what voters should ask themselves. For me, I see someone who is not engaged in any wrongdoing, but the trust issue gives me pause.

In other words, it's fair to ask whether whether he's too naive and whether personal loyalties might again impair his judgment on some issue.

As for me, I'm hoping for Rezko acquittal. It would be a resounding rejection of the Government's use of snitch witnesses. The Government offered Stuart Levine a sentence reduction from guidelines of life in prison down to 67 months in exchange for telling the truth (the truth according to the Government, of course)about Rezko.

From life in prison to 67 months, and all he has to do is tell the truth -- the Government's truth -- that Rezko was a crook too.

Levine sounds like a disgusting, pathetic, broken man. The Government, in propping him up to bring down Rezko, is stooping to his morally bankrupt level.

The other key witnesses against Rezko, like Ali Ata, also got sentencing breaks in exchange for their testimony against Rezko.

As to the Sun Times report that Judge may not agree to a reduction to 67 months for Levine, she can't give him more without allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial himself. The plea agreement (pdf)was under Rule 11 [c][1][c], meaning:

The plea agreement provides for a Rule 11©1© agreed-upon sentence of 67 months. (See paragraph 22 on page 53.) Should the judge not agree and want to give him more, he gets to take his plea back.

Rezko's lawyer, Joseph Duffy, will either start his closing argument mid afternoon today or tomorrow.

All of TalkLeft's Rezko coverage is available here.

< Obama to Head to Missouri Seeking Rural Support | Strong Majority Of African Americans Want Unity Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let's also remember (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    that Fitz got to use this trial to put more on Rove trying to politicize DoJ into the public domain.

    While it was a backhanded way of doing it, it was nonetheless both effective and, as far as I can tell, unrebutted.  Any Dem with sense will be able to mine this aspect of the trial for use against Republicans in the fall....

    That said, I'm also hoping for a Rezko acquittal.  And I base those hopes on both the need to reject snitch testimony and what seems an overbearing focus on so-called "public corruption" which too often seems to be "get Democrats".  

    I once litigated a case, where (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    the sequence of events went like this:
    Cellmate 1 says to Cellmate 2:  "I'm fed up with this jail.  Next time they hand out razors, I'm hiding my blade and I'm gonna slash me a guard's neck.  If I can't get out of here, I'm gonna take one with me."

    A little time passes and Cellmate 1 is out of earshot.

    Cellmate 2 to Jailer:  "I gotta talk to you guys."
    Jailer to Cellmate 2:  "What's up?"
    Cellmate 2 to Jailer:  "Cellmate 1's gonna make some trouble."

    The Jailers take Cellmate 2 off where he can make a statement.

    Cellmate 2's statement:  "Cellmate 1 said to me:  'I'm fed up with this jail.  Next time they hand out razors, I'm hiding my blade and I'm gonna slash me a guard's neck.  If I can't get out of here, I'm gonna take one with me.'
    Jailer's question:  "Why are you telling us this?"
    Cellmate 2:  "Because, if he hides the blade, even if he doesn't hurt anyone, you guys won't give us razors any more.  And I like a close shave."

    On the strength of this, Cellmate 1 was sent to the hole for 30 days, whereupon he was litigating over that (and the conditions there) and I was defending the custodial authorities.

    The Moral, which I tell this to anyone who asks:

    "A snitch will sell you out for a close shave."

    True story.


    Donald this is not the site (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    for your arguments. Read our about page. That is the worst part of the Rezko trial and one of the key beliefs of this website. Disagree if you must, but we heard you, you should now move on.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    If the system does not work without snitches well too bad. They are the lowest of the low, imo.  I rarely give 1 ratings but your comment is really disagreeable to me and the sentiment of this site.

    Are you referring to my comments? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    The things I was trying to communicate were:
    (1) a snitch will say anything, so long as it gets him something he wants.  No matter how small.  While the example of "I'll snitch so I can get a close shave" might seem extreme, it is literally true.  One cellmate ratted out another solely because it would allow the snitch to get the close shave he liked.
    (2) While I'm no big fan of prosecutors, I will make an exception for Fitz (most of the time) because (a) he's pretty good about not-overcharging, respecting defendants' and innocents' rights, (b) he's managed to put context into the cases he's brought, and (c) (Like it or not) managed to defuse the worst of the Obama-Rezko.

    Imagine, if you will, that none of the Rove-Rezko connection had come into Court.  All one would hear in the TradMed would be about Obama's alleged links to Rexko, in addition to his alleged links to Hamas and the Reverend Wright.  Fitz is going to try his case - but he also seems to be savvy enough to not let his prosecutions get used by the Rethugs for their own partisan purposes.

    I have no affinity for any of this. But, the fact is the mud and punches are going to be flung, and Dems had better recognize that they can either fling their own, or just get beaten up, filthy and scorned for nothing in return.


    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    I was reacting to Donald From Hawii. Sorry for the confusion, I agree with what you have said.

    Didn't michelle obama Benefit From Rezko's (none / 0) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    state hospital board shennanigans?  She did get a 200% bump in salary after obama became a U.S. senator.  Pretty sure I read that on a blog, and will look for that info.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    I think the Republican 527's will have a field day with Auchi, Wright, Ayers and Reszko.

    Remember, the Republicans turned a bona fide war hero into an unpatriotic liar in 2004. They push-polled voters in SC and told them John McCain had a black baby in 2000. They turned Honest Al Gore into a serial liar who was not a real man because he wore "earth tones." They manufactured scandals about Bill Clinton until they found a real one after years of digging. People still think Hillary killed Vince Foster and that Whitewater was really a corrupt land deal.

    The Republicans/KKKarl Rove don't care about the truth. It looks bad for Obama, so it is bad.

    IMHO as usual. :-)

    honest Al Gore (none / 0) (#53)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    is a multi-millionnaire now. He was not "rich" in 2000 at the end of the election, and he found his calling with carbon trading scheme. so, let us leave him out of this:)

    As to judgment (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    Rezko, Wright, Ayers...one would be almost explicable, but so many begs the question: what is going on with this guy that he can associate with such characters?  I stopped dating someone I was really into because they didn't like cats.  (I know, can you believe it?  Who doesn't like cats?)

    Rezko, as I've said before, has been a big issue for me from the beginning.  The house transaction doesn't pass the smell test for me.  It's actually why I dug a little deeper into Obama's past and ended up on the Chicago Tribune site.  These relationships are absolutely toxic and speak to very poor judgment.  They make him unelectable, to my thinking.

    All that being said, I'm just as uncomfortable as others these snitches as you are, especially considering the bought testimony that put Siegelman in prison.  Spitzer was targeted by the same people. I have made it clear that I am no fan of Obama, but there has to come a point where these republican led witch-hunting parties get investigated.

    Doesn't anyone read Evelyn Pringle's work on this? (none / 0) (#17)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    I have been reading her articles but (none / 0) (#26)
    by gabbyone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    the other shoe nevers seems to drop....bringing
    the facts to a point that will put the Obama
    part of this story on page one.  Not to long ago in the Chicago news, we were told that the judge had actually told the lawyers on both sides of the case that he wanted everyone to keep Obama's name out of this current case.

    Just Wondering Why A Judge Can Tell The (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    players in this case to keep a certain person's name out of the case.  Does that apply, even if there is relevance?  Just seems a little weird.

    Yes. I read that too. (none / 0) (#28)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    He's a frightening guy. Too many mob connections in Chicago and dirty politics in his background that no one will call him on.  Another big silence on the part of the media.  What Pringle points out is that he is totally enmeshed with people who are engaging in fraud, bribery of public officials and extortion both here and in Iraq.  Please don't tell me that Obama is "naive," as some people have done and really doesn't know what is going on, when a major player in the fraud, bribery scheme, a guy who is on trial for corruption, helped him buy his house with the assistance of another  guy who can't come into this country or France without being arrested.

    Yes. Sure.   I believe this. He got to the Senate in a state that requires pay for play by the mob -- as a total innocent, who just happened to be befriended by some unsavory characters he naively thought were just being nice for no reason.   That's why he appointed members of pension boards for Rezko that R wanted so he could bribe them.  Oh yes, and then he got Rezko a  25 million grant so he could continue the good work he was doing as a slumlord in Obama's district.  


    amen (none / 0) (#54)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    to that

    Kathy, according to Pringle, it's both (none / 0) (#29)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    parties involved in this Chicago corruption.  It's hard to wade through her stuff as it's so dense but it seems not only every Illinois politician including the democratic governor Blagojevich and the former Republican governor, Ryan (I think that's his name) are involved (the latter is in jail).  Hoffa, Daley, Rezko, Nadmhi Auchi and a whole host of characters -don't care about politics. It's all about money, including millions of dollars in crooked war contracts in Iraq.  Fitzgerald is investigating many of them. This isn't just about Rezko.  He's just one of them.  And Fitzgerald was on the list of Federal Prosecutors to get rid of when GW Bush was reelected in 2004. I don't really know how he managed not to get hit when the other prosecutors were canned.  I'd like to know the backstory on that.

    Wasn't he (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    already on the valerie plame case? It probably would have been political suicide to ax Fitzgerald? Of course, now he's bullet proof after convicting Libby.

    Well, according to Pringle, (none / 0) (#49)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    Rezko bragged that he was going to beat this rap because he had friends in high places who were going to get rid of Fitzgerald and the prosecution of his case would be over.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:11 PM EST
    I did hear that before. Did Rezko have connections in the Bush adminstration?

    the theory is (none / 0) (#55)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:40 PM EST
    he is indirectly connected to Rove; and is directly connected to obama

    Testimony (none / 0) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
    at trial (I think) indicated that a IL Republican Party leader, whose name begins with a K (forgive me, I am studying for finals & having trouble with recall of words not related to exam subjects).

    If Rezko is convicted on that bribery -related (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lorelynn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    charge, his assistance in obama's home purchase is going to look a lot like a bribe to an awful lot of Americans. What happens if Rezko is convicted and is facing prison? Even staying within facts of what transpired vis a vis his involvement in the purchase, what kind of spin can he put on the conversations he had with Obama?

    He's so predictable (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    "Yes," he answered, "with the caveat that, obviously, 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."

    Where have we heard that before? This is quite the convenient pattern with Obama. Not just in his associations with questionable people, but in his constant change of stand on policies.

    The GOP can easily turn this into the "whitewater" distraction for the Obama's. Difference is, I'm not so sure they would come up empty-handed with this one. Obama has no trouble taking things that aren't really his...that victory speech he has planned being just one example.

    We can already see that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by DJ on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    "he's not who I thought he was" is going to be used a lot this year.

    That's not a good answer.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    ...how many more of these types of answers before it becomes a matter of judgment?

    Just run an ad (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    with Wright screeching something, then show Obama's words, "He's not who I thought he was," then some Rezko headlines and, "He's not who I thought he was," then maybe slip in something about Obama's crap about as president being willing to meet personally with bad guys with no preconditions and throw in a few pix of Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and a nice kicker line about Obama's inability to judge people's intentions and character, and that's all she wrote.

    and to think (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DJ on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    someone is going to be PAID to come up with this stuff.

    If he is convicted, Obama will be disappointed (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    with him but he is still his friend after learning that Rezko's poor tenants went without heat. Something wrong with this picture to me.

    Rezko (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Pat Johnson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    It would be interesting for any Chicago reporter worth their salt to go into that district that was represented by Obama and speak to those people whose homes went without heat and refurbishing by Rezko and ask how they personally feel about their then Rep Obama.  It appears that he did not once challenge Rezko as to the whereabouts of those millions that were advocated to rehab those poor sections of Chicago.  As the rep, would not that be one of his first priorites?  And yet he remained friendly enough with this crook that he assisted him in purchasing a home.  Naive?  How about just plain opportunistic.  He was able to throw Wright overboard out of sheer political expediency and announced his candidacy to run for state senate from the porch of Ayres home.  Now he claims he barely knew him.  If these issues do not raise flags about Obama then nothing will since he has been sold and packaged to perfection.  

    I think the Republicans have done this (none / 0) (#15)
    by DJ on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    and it's in the 1000 pages.

    This is for Stellaaa: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    Mr. Obama also worked on housing redevelopment projects involving Antoin Rezko, who became one of Mr. Obama's most generous donors. Mr. Rezko is currently on trial for corruption charges unrelated to Mr. Obama.

    This is snippet from Sunday front page article on Obama in NYT.  Such in-depth reporting by the newspaper to which I subscribe.

    Ok, this is what razes me like the kids say (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    We knew all this stuff in January.  Now the NY Times finds out.  I am so stubborn.  I never thought the bribery stuff will touch Obama.  But the Housing Project failures, if no one gets Rezko, the lawyers, the accountants, the City etc, who worked on these projects, I tell you it's the most despicable aspect.  

    HUD and the IRS will haunt a Housing Authority and a non profit for minimal violations, this guy with all his connections gets away with the real blatant stuff and they chase him on the other things.  

    Again, City of Chicago should be defunded for allowing this to happen.  30 projects.  

    But then again, it was poor black people who suffered, and I guess no one cares in Chicago politics.  


    The NYT previously ran articles (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    on Obama/Rezko relationship.  Why they didn't even refer to the information here is baffling.  

    Easy (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    Because it would actually make Obama look bad.  They'll go after McCain on a whim, but with Obama, they need more than connecting the dots.

    NYT endorsed Clinton. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    But that was like, so 3 months ago....

    With All The Nasty Stuff NYT Wrote About (none / 0) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:16:22 PM EST
    Clinton, you wouldn't know they were edorsing her...looked more like they were endorsing obama.

    I wonder how often (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    potential snitches say no.  Slightly different circumstances but amounting to the same thing in effect was Ken Starr's treatment of Susan MacDougal.  She wouldn't lie and spent 18 months in prison because she wouldn't say the words he wanted her to say.

    How often does that happen?  I honestly don't know what I would do if I was faced with life in prison or a token sentence if I lied about somebody else.  I'm an honest person and I like to think I'd do the right thing, but man, that's a hell of a choice to be faced with, and it's flat-out coercion.

    I remember from the Natalee Holloway coverage that the Dutch legal system flat-out forbids plea-bargaining, and I think they said at the time that's true of most European systems.

    Am I right that American juries don't even get to know that a witness's testimony is the result of a plea-bargain?

    Susan McDougal.... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    ...I'm still amazed that she never caved.

    Absolutely amazing woman (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    Her book is a terrific read, btw.  It's about her experiences, but even more it's about the plight of women in prison.

    Never caved? (none / 0) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:03:25 PM EST
    I never saw an interview with her where she said anything other than she had nothing to cave about.

    She is someone who I think is a hero in the world of "stand for something" principles.


    If the criminal defense attorney is (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    doing his or her job, the jury has the information about the plea bargain and the conditions.  

    very rarely do they say no (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    the government has too much leverage, particularly in drug cases.

    It will be unfair, but the attack will go... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    ...something like this:

    Barack Obama's ad critizes John McCain with false, tenuous ties to John Keating, but this was the same Barack Obama whose largest state senate contributor, Tony Rezko, was convicted last summer of three felonies involving government corruption. The same Tony Rezko that helped Obama buy his first house, the same Tony Rezko that Obama represented as a lawyer, and the same Tony Rezko that bilked thousands of low-income people in Obama's Senate District out of Federal housing dollars-- which Barack Obama claims he never was aware was happening in his geographically small district.

    And.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    the tag line writes itself....

    Barack Obama - "he's not who we thought he was"


    How the AP reported this (none / 0) (#37)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    ...From Salon's wire service: "Prosecutor wraps up case in Ill. fundraiser trial By MIKE ROBINSON Associated Press Writer". They don't even mention Rezko's name until the 2nd paragraph (which means that Yahoo news rollover won't show the word "Rezko", should the article make it that far).

    Re update: was defense counsel (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    askging Court to take judicial notice of the candidates for whom Rezko raised funds?  I understood this was not part of the trial.

    There is a bigger scam going on, and here it is... (none / 0) (#39)
    by JDEUNO on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:01:17 PM EST
    This all ties to one another.  Please read this, and pass this along to your friends.  It's a quite lengthy article, but after I read the entire thing, I was stunned.  Talk about a Manchurian candidate, and the strange bedfellows that politics make.  Now I know why Hillary is staying in the race.....


    Truly stunning article (none / 0) (#47)
    by befuddled on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    and when you put it together with Pringle's
    "Curtain Time For Obama," it's an absolutely amazing web of collusion on both sides. Can't wait for Pringle's part II tomorrow.

    Why Am I Not Surprised Rezko Helped gwb & bho (none / 0) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    "Politics is different from criminal activity," said Duffy, reminding the jury that Rezko had been involved in fundraising for President Bush and Barack Obama as well.

    I have already stated that I think gwb and bho share many qualities; and here is one more degree of their six degrees of separation.  To my mind, criminal activity and politics are not that far apart in some instances.

    As for snitches...they have their place; and when relying on their testimony, you better have your ducks in a row.  

    Unity Ticket Not Happening (none / 0) (#46)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    Again, Barack Obama's primary MESSAGE, one that HRC kept changing due to poll numbers, is CHANGE.

    Clinton is not change.

    Second, what state does Clinton bring?  New York?  We are going to win NY, along with NJ and CA, IL, etc. the standard blue states.  We need a VP that can flip a state our way.

    Lastly, Bill Clinton.  IF HRC is the VP we will have 2 VPs.  What democratic nominee want to be bothered with Bill Clinton sniffing around, breating down your neck, telling his wife what to do?  And trying to tell you, the president what to do?  NO WAY.

    Enough.  They had their turn.  She had her chance this primary season and voters want CHANGE.  Period.

    Her arguments are, at this point, silly, ridiculous and for many becoming irrelevant.

    Obama won all the metrics.

    Now let's focus on bringing the party together and winning in November.  If you don't like how this has stacked up, read this.  And ask the Clinton Team which had every advantage going for them a year ago, who was  THE INEVITABLE NOMINEE, how they lost to the new kid on the block.  They ran a lousy campaign, especially post Super Tuesday, and for all practical purposes, it was over after Wisconsin.  We all know this to be true.  And the media let this drag out because of the revenue behind the "two democrats fighting."

    It is over.  Let's move on.

    obama won all the metrics (none / 0) (#57)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    ... except the electoral college in the general election. he will lose FL, OH and likely PA. how will that make him the president? Hillary can win all of the swing states that kerry lost in 2004.

    Bill C will not be "2nd VP." (none / 0) (#58)
    by LHinSeattle on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    Hillary will send him off to smooze with our allies around the world and help restore our standing.

    While she runs the show back home.    He knows she's plenty smart enough to be just fine w/o him.


    Move on? (none / 0) (#60)
    by JDEUNO on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:53:28 AM EST
    What you Obama-bots seem to have forgotten is that all of these states that he won in the caucuses - he will not carry these states in the GE.  Period.  If hell freezes over between now and the election, then chances are Obama will be the next President of the United States.

    I was trying to recall when the MCMers on TV (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    had covered this trial. And it's not much, afaik.

    Then I wondered if Rezko had been a Clinton friend, supporter, financer, etc., how much it would have been covered.d

    Wall to wall, babeeee.

    Anyone disagree?