home

Rezko and Obama: Nothing Here Folks

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I was hoping to avoid writing about the Barack Obama-Tony Rezko connection as I believe Obama did nothing wrong. Big Tent Democrat agrees it's a non-issue. Unfortunately, the AP is highlighting it today.

That said, perhaps if Obama hadn't attacked Hillary last night as a "corporate lawyer sitting on the board of WalMart", she wouldn't have responded calling Rezko a slumlord and it wouldn't be in the AP today. From the transcript (More...)

OBAMA: What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

...HILLARY: CLINTON: Now, wait a minute. Wolf, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Just a minute....Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko,
in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

< Tim Masters Freed | MLK III Urges Edwards To Fight On >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rezko and Obama: Nothing Here Folks | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    They are (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    both non issues and she had every right to bring it up, in response to his cooperate attorney cheap shot.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton has raised her years of working on behalf of women, children and the poor. I'll grant her that.

    But, did she do it when she was a corporate lawyer for Savings and Loans?

    Did she do it when she sat on the board of one of the largest coporations on earth as well as one that has a history of treating its employees not as well as one should?

    Did she work for the poor when she supported welfare reform?

    Did she work for minorities during her husband's "Mend it, don't end it" work on affirmative action?

    Did she stand up and fight for gays during Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act?

    She gave up the fight for universal health care after one year during an eight year term. Why? If she was so concerned wouldn't she have continued the fight?

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

    Sen. Obama made a mistake that doesn't have much of an effect on anyone, admitted it, and moved on...

    Parent

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    It had the effect of wasting public resources and loss of affordable housing units.  It is not trivial.  It verges on negligence in community organizing world.  

    Parent
    I'm not excusing it (none / 0) (#52)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    I'm not excusing it, however Wal-Mart is just a tad larger.

    How many poor children were hurt by the welfare reform act?

    How many poor children as well as families aren't treated fairly by Wal-Mart?

    By the way, can you name a few things Sen. Clinton has personally done over the years to help women and children? Speeches don't count because, as she put it so well, you need politicians to enact the legislation...

    Parent

    She didn't approve of Walmart's policies (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    ---in fact, that's why she left the board.
    We NEED people like Hillary Clinton on the boards of major corporations, actually.

    Parent
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#61)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    All those years in Arkansas, in the White House, and what has she done to curb the abuses of Wal-Mart? She didn't have any problems cashing their checks (political and personal) did she?

    She quit? Why not use her influence and power to change things?

    I'm tired of speeches and finger pointing. Do something!

    Parent

    Yes. . . (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    she was working on children's and poverty issues at the same time she sat on a number of corporate boards and engaged in other activities.

    The policy issues you cite are either distortions (for instance, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the retribution taken by the military for the Clinton's (sadly) ahead-of-it's-time attempt to wipe out anti-gay discrimination in the military), attempts to ameliorate the policies of the Republican majority in Congress, or genuine failures in which the Clintons tried to do something right and simply lost.

    Parent

    Point is (none / 0) (#51)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    Pres. Clinton could have but didn't do anything about gays in the military.

    You conveniently left out the part of his signing the Defense of Marriage Act in the middle of the night...

    When faced with taking a stand and doing the right thing, or choosing his own (and her) political needs, the needs got met...

    Parent

    Completely Wrong About History (none / 0) (#53)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    Pres. Clinton could have but didn't do anything about gays in the military.

    He did try.  In fact, it was one of the first things he tried to do after he was inaugurated.  And he was blocked by the military leadership and Congress, including Democrats like Sam Nunn.  

    The DOMA signing was not one of his finer moments, but I do think that that decision was informed by the complete backlash he had faced over gays in the military.  Still, not good.

    One of the things that is remarkable to me is how so many of the failures of the 1990s are not painted as the Clintons failures instead of Democratic failures.  So now, despite the fact that Democratic Congressman kneecapped him on gays in the military, DADT is CLINTON'S fault.  Just as Congressional Democrats did a terrible job handling their Republican colleagues, but universal healthcare's failure is all HILLARY'S fault, when in fact it was primarily Republican opposition that killed universal healthcare.  To the extent the Clintons and other Democrats are to blame, it's for failing to have a plan to overcome the oppostion.  Part of that is certainly the Clintons' fault, but part of it is Democratic congress members.

    Parent

    Now Not Not (none / 0) (#54)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    It should be:

    ...are noW painted as the Clintons' failures...

    Parent

    You say (none / 0) (#62)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    That the DOMA was not one of his finer moments? Using the pen to sign a piece of legislation that is discriminatory is abhorent!

    Point is this! He didn't have to do (and she was right next to him, so we're told) these things. He could have fought them.

    Look at it this way - What did he fight harder, impeachment or health care, discrimination, etc...?

    He (and she) could have but did not. It doesn't matter the reason. They either lacked the backbone, or didn't want to ruin their grasp on power.

    Parent

    Don't Ask Don't Tell (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    I am sorry, but considering the anti-gay climate (remember, Reagan did not once acknowledge the AIDS epidemic and actually joked about men dying) I, and many friends in the military who were being scrutinized, found DADT a positive step toward ending discrimination.  I think we all forget how bad it was during the time of Reagan, and how repressive his regime was toward gays.  Having lost many, many good friends to the disease, I can never forgive the man for his unwillingness to act, and I cannot thank Clinton enough for making it possible--at least for a while--for GLBT soldiers to serve their country.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, since BTD is a "tepid" (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    Obama supporter, it makes sense that he would stry to steer interest away from Obama's association with Rezko.  But why you?  The Chicago Sun-Times articles support the conclusion Obama's judgment in continuing his association with Rezko was poor.  

    Obama shills we are today (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    You giving Obama a pass on Rezko.

    Me critcizing Bill Clinton.

    What is this blog coming to?

    Heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST


    Parent
    And now shilling for Edwards (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Shameless, really. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST


    Parent
    What are you (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    some kind of democrat?
    You never shill for Rudy, or Huckabee, or McCain!

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#55)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    Why not those three?  They could really use the help!

    Parent
    Not nothing. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    Obama has conceded his poor judgement in engaging in a real estate transaction that might allow Rezko, or anyone else, to believe that Rezko had done him a favor.

    As it stands now, it's not a very big issue, but it's still an issue.  Rezko is not some anonymous internet donor but rather an old friend and political sponsor.  No quid pro quo, even on the real estate deal.  But certainly an association that Obama wishes he hadn't had.

    At the very least, Obama's admission of poor judgement is a fair retort for the other candidates to make when he claims that only he has the necessary "good judgement" to be President.

    I think Obama's continued association with (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    Rezko detracts from Obama's meme he has worked hard to help poor people in Chicago.  Rezko, with the assistance of the law firm for which Obama worked, got city grant money to fix up housing for poor people; then Rezko's firm was the property manager for the buildings; didn'tsupply heat; did supply campaign donations; many buildings went into foreclosure.

    Parent
    Several levels of innuendo here. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    Obama's association with Rezko is not continuing, it's over.  The "assistance of a the law firm for which Obama worked" is not the same as participation by Obama.  "Didn't supply head; did supply campaign donations" suggests a connection between the two facts where no actual evidence is supplied.

    Parent
    I base my opinion on information contained (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    in the numerous Chicago Sun-Times articles about Rezko's business, and he and his wife's relationship with Obama.  What I do not know is whether Obama was always an associate in the law firm or, at some point, became a partner.  He was with the firm long enough to become a partner.  He continued working as a lawyer for the firm while an IL. state senator, the firm continued to represent Rezko's business, and Obama continued accepting donations from Rezko.  

    Parent
    Of council (none / 0) (#23)
    by ogo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    Obama is still of council at the firm.  Thats different then partner (which he never was). Would he have any say in who they do or do not take on as clients?

    Parent
    Don't know. But this is interesting (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    [snippet from bio you linked to; the quote is regarding his work with the law firm]:

    [H]elped to structure and finance efforts to construct mixed-income housing to replace public housing in and around Cabrini Green.


    Parent
    Law Firm (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    Well, in the new privatized housing world, the deals are so complex.  The way that money goes to housing is mostly through Low Income Housing Tax Credits.  What happens is that a non profit, gets a joint venture with a community based non profit, they create a limited partnership.  These deals are complex and require lots of real estate and tax work from legal firms.  Usually, developers have intimate relationships over years with developers.  
    The Cabrini project was part of the Hope VI which basically restructures the low income housing into mixed income housing.  The Feds get out of subsidizing the housing for very very low income people, the neighborhoods get a new mixed income development.  On an aside, this is what they are doing in New Orleans.  


    Parent
    It was a very large favor (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    worth at least $700,000 over two transactions.
    Considering that these deals are what let Obama buy his home, I have to say this makes Obama's judgment look extremely poor---and that's in the best case.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#64)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    It really stinks when you see the blogsphere continues to mention the one fundraiser Murdoch had for Hillary Clinton, even though everyone should know how much he tried to hit and undermine them with fox news.  Well, you don't have to be very bright to know that he hedged his bets (even then, he is not a huge bundler, or anything else).  How many articles on MSM and diaries on blogsphere I read about Hsu, when she had no way of knowing he was a fugitive, and she immediately returned all the money that came through him to the original donors?

    Hillary gets intense scrutiny partly out of the misogeny in press and blogsphere (they need excuses to justify their hatred of her), partly b/c press and  blogsphere never liked Clintons (a whole essay is there, but I won't go there), and well, because she is Hillary and she creates a lot of interest.

    Meanwhile, the Obama buying his house was at the very least a boneheaded mistake.  A big mistake, I might add.  He couldn't afford to buy the house and the lot, so he gets a campaign donor, someone who is constantly doing business with the State, someone who has housing in Obama's district itself, to buy the lot at the asking price?? Sorry, it smells very much like Rezko was doing him a favor (or thought he was).  Why did Rezko do with the remaining lot, anyhow?? Did he develop it? or Did he just left it there? Add to that the fact that the transactions were made on the same day, so this was not a coincidence.  

    Look, senators and congressmen have gotten in trouble for far less than this.  Obama's ethics reform, which he mentions at each opportunity, prevents lobbyists from buying lunch for members of the congress.  So they can't buy you a hamburger, but can buy a whole lot for over $600k, so you could afford your home next door?  Does that make sense to anyone??

    Parent

    Rezko's wife bought the empty lot; (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    then the Obamas purchased 1/6 of that lot at 1/6 the price she bought the whole lot for.  Not sure who owns the remainder of the vacant lot now, although  my brother says he's read the entire lot is fenced and the only gate connects with the Obama backyard.  

    Parent
    Poor judgement? (none / 0) (#71)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    That is good.  Except that he has been substituting or highlighting his "good judgement" in the Iraq issue as the equal of all of Hillary's experience.  I think that John Edwards did all of us a favor by pointing out that Obama accuses others of what he himself does from time to time.

    Parent
    Big problem (none / 0) (#79)
    by jen on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    Here's a YouTube video that points out how many times Obama has changed his story on this. Not good and it will be a huge issue if he wins the nomination.

    Only 3 min 42 sec.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s

    Parent

    "Big Problem? (none / 0) (#107)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    Is this a bigger problem than the $82,000 cattle futures.

    Parent
    The issue (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    The issue is not the donation.  The issue is that a community orgainizer, who walked the streets did not know the state of these buildings.  He was a community organizer taking 160,000 from a developer.  It's not the legal work, it's how did he not know what was going on?  Did he not pay attention? Did he not listen?  This is the burning question to me and I cannot find a timeline anywhere.  

    Yes, the obvious is candidate takes money from bad guy, disavows any knowledge of bad guy or his work.  But Obama was in the community as an organizer, went to law school, got a job offer from this developer but took the job with law firm that did developers work.  

    They foreclosed on 30 of this guys buildings.  By the time cities get to this point there was a lot of stuff that anyone with an ear in the community would know.  There is something that just does not make sense, it's too nuanced for a general scandal, but it speaks to his character as a "manager".  My god, if you drown in the politics of the neighborhood, what will happen on a national level.  

    asdf (none / 0) (#65)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    some of those buildings were apparently in his own district.  

    Did people complain?  How did he and his office handle those complaints?

    Parent

    Obama probably did not do anything improper or (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    unethical with his Rezko deals.  And Hillary probably did not participate in any oppressive or improper policies of Walmart either.  But Obama should have known better about "throwing the first personal punch" by bringing up Clinton's short stint in the Walmart board, intimating something unsavory on the part of Hillary.  And Hillary just threw his punch back at him.

    It's politics.  And both of them are using whatever they have in their "arsenal" of information on each other.  "What's good for the goose goes for the gander too."

    professionally attorney and others (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    such as doctors ect are taught not to give the appearance of impropriety. personally i think obama may not be guilty of anything but there is an appearance problem. obama throws it out there but doesn't want it thrown back. it is called politics.

    Parent
    I will end with this. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    Why I got all worked up about this.  

    First it's not a "scandal".  It's an example of how I feel about Obama.  He uses his years in the community as a red badge of courage, but I think that it was self serving.  He did a sloppy job as a community organizer.  The Rezk thing is community organizing 101, you don't go to bed with developers that are questionable cause inevitably the community gets screwed.

    Second, I am tired of the adulation and the Obama supporters who think he is not a politician and that somehow he is above all "that stuff".  I am tired of them accusing everyone else of lying and being viscious, when I think that the minute you get into politics, you do politics.  It's your job.  In another blog, TPM actually, this person said he is not a politician, he is an agent of change.  

    Finally, this story will go nowhere cause the Dems don't want him damaged.  The Republicans will play with it at a General Election.  In the end, he is a politician, not a saint.  So, his followers need to see his flaws.   On a personal level, I have seen way to many "over achievers" do an internship in the community, then parlez that into some other career.  In the end, they never had their heart in the community.  

    So I will stop, cause it's getting obsessive and I don't like obsessive.  

    stellaaa, i used to be chairman of (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:22:54 PM EST
    a nonprofit board and we obtained and dispensed grants for home purchase assistance. i certainly don't have your background, but i agree with you about the housing issues. i have seen times when others just refused to see what was right in front of them because it wasn't convenient. now i am not applying that comment to obama but it is a problem.

    Parent
    Grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    I think you make a very good point.  For all of this talk about electability, there is also the fact that on a blog I (very sadly) no longer read it was reported that the swiftboaters have a war chest of around 250 million bucks ready and waiting.  No matter who we put up, they are going to open with all guns.  I am obviously a Clinton supporter, so take this with a grain of salt: I think what she says is true.  She has been battling this for sixteen years.  She knows how to fight back.  She's not going to set up a "hotline" to catalogue offenses, she is going to meet them toe to toe on their turf and give it right back.  Is that change and unity and vision?  Well, tell me how you are going to make Fred Phelps pro-choice, pro-woman and pro-gay with your unity and I will give you my vote right now. (though, again, I will vote for ANY dem who gets the nom)

    Sexism (none / 0) (#77)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    I think that sexism is rampant in the anti-Hillary crowd....I see no reason for them to be so rabid about their hatred otherwise....Makes no sense to me....

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    And sadly, many of them pose as progressives.   Note that the DNC and big guys have remained silent in the face of rampant misogeny in media.  

    Parent
    Obama harms Democrats with his false narratives (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by lily15 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    No, this does not harm Clinton.  It harms Obama.  It takes the glow off, as Oprah called him, "The One."
    And Obama started the mud slinging...Obama created the narrative of a new type of politics.  So we should know what type of politics. Chicago politics?
    Illinois politics?  The same Illinois type of politics that encourages "present" votes as strategy?  The same type of politics that praises Republican ideas and a transformational (as opposed to an  Alzheimers Reagan)Reagan?  I'm sorry...this does not benefit the Democratic party.  Obama is the divisive one who is doing tremendous damage to Democratic principles....under the ruse of unity.

    I can't imagine a worse thing for (none / 0) (#89)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    "Democratic principles" than unity.

    Get him now before it's too late.

    Parent

    Obama is the divider (none / 0) (#93)
    by lily15 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    which makes his claim that he is a unifier false.  Obama bandies the word unity around yet acts in a divisive way.  Unity is good in principle...but clearly Obama is practicing the opposite. Obama brought up the race issue with the MLK/LBJ distortion, claiming through surrogates that the remarks were racist.  

    Parent
    misogeny (none / 0) (#96)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    that is what will defeat Hillary ultimately not Obama....I have been appalled at how much of it is out there....Even amongst the Obama supporters....it is strong and down dirty....they are willing to destroy the only successful two term president we have had in decades in order to destroy Hillary....That is pitiful...

    Parent
    If he could just get that triangulation thing down (none / 0) (#102)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:51:56 PM EST
    and a Sister Souljah moment or two..

    That would be the soup

    Parent

    Tough issue here. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    I support Hillary Clinton, but I don't dislike Obama or Edwards. I want her to win because of her strengths, not because unseemly things come to light about Obama. On the other hand, any whiff of impropriety will be magnified a thousandfold by the Republicans, so it's important to know the truth now.

    What I can see is this. (All this from articles in the Chicago Sun-Times.) Obama and Rezko knew each other for a very long time (17 years). Their relationship lasted at least until 2005, when Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent lots on the same day.

    During that time, Rezko and his associates donated about $168,000 to Obama's political campaigns.

    In 1998, in his role as state senator, Obama wrote at least two letters in support of a development that Rezko and his partner wanted to build. At that time, he was also a lawyer in a private firm which represented some other companies owned by Rezko. There was also something about an internship, but that seems like small potatoes.

    So there's a certain amount of circumstantial evidence here. What's safe to conclude?

    1. Obama's description of his work for Rezko (five hours of legal work) last night in the debate was understated to the point of being deceptive.

    2. There's enough kindling here for the Republicans to start a fire. At the very least Obama accepted significant contributions from Rezko, took political actions that benefited Rezko (he may have genuinely believed these to be the right actions in any case), and as recently as 2005, had some personal financial interaction with Rezko.

    I'm not sure why Jeralyn and BTD are so certain that there's nothing wrong here. I'm not saying there is, but it's certainly worrisome.

    Mixed Feelings (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    On the one hand, I think the Rezko stuff does show bad judgement and I think Obama's explanation of his relationship with Rezko was less than forthcoming last night.

    On the other hand, I'm not sure there's any there there in terms of corruption and having seen all the wasted resources on Whitewater, I'm not exactly excited about the idea of going through that again with another potential Democratic nominee.  Where the press manufactures a "corruption" scandal where there is none.  

    On the third hand, heh, if the press is going to do that, I'd rather they do it now so we can see how it's going to go than in October 2008.

    As for the debate, my guess is the Obama folks are unhappy this morning.  Furious at Clinton for bringing up Rezko.  And, if they have even an ounce of selfawareness, angry at themselves for having given her the opening and permitting her to mirror Obama's language on Walmart.  Because of the way she used Rezko, it's difficult to bash her for it.

    And let me say that if that's how Clinton will fight against Republicans in a debate - that will be awesome.  Although to be fair, one of the things that struck me last night was that any one of these three candidates wipes the floor with the Republicans.  I still worry about Obama's ability to play defense, but he's much improved overall from the beginning of the campaign, IMO (although I know others feel he had a terrible night).

    Obama and Wallmart (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Sorry for posting here as well, but there is an interesting Znet article about Obama and Wall-Mart:
    Znet Article

    I really want people to find local community folks to tell us about this.  This is not simple.  

    Link doesn't work (none / 0) (#94)
    by jen on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    Is this the article?

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13635

    Parent

    yes.. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM EST
    this is the article

    Parent
    non-issue versus issue (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    Being a corporate lawyer who sits on the board of Walmart says something about a person.   Maybe it is a good thing, maybe it isn't.  It's very different from Hillary's claim that Obama was somehow bad for "practicing law and representing Rezko".  Lawyers have all kinds of sleazy clients, as criminal defense lawyers know, without it reflecting on them (or Jeralyn).  
    Maybe Hillary should give a constructive defense of how being on Walmart's board was a good thing to do and qualifies her to be president.  Unless she did it then but is now sorry she did it (which is a familiar refrain coming from her campaign).  
    Not just the 5 hours (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    Obama had a longer term relationship with Rezko, beyond the five hours.  That is what needs to come out.  He spun it.  

    Parent
    What does it say? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    Curious what you think it says.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    I think it gives Hillarys side of the argument...Am I wrong??

    Parent
    My query was for (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    diogenes.

    I hate innuendo.

    Parent

    "Innuendo" (none / 0) (#76)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM EST
    Someone who chooses to serve on a board of directors for any length of time and doesn't quickly rabble-rouse or resign in protest is supporting the board's consensus.
    I myself as a free-trader believe that many poor people in my town (elderly, people on welfare or social security disability) are helped by cheap prices am proud of Walmart.  A handful of workers earn less than they would have at Sears or K Mart.  I send patients to Walmart because Walmart pioneered four dollar prescriptions.
    Hillary can define for herself whether or not it was a good thing to be on the board of directors of Walmart.  If it was a good thing then that would have been the best response at the debate.
    Otherwise, "I did it then, but I won't defend having done it now".  Just like the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq bill vote.

    Parent
    She did good where she could (none / 0) (#98)
    by jen on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:22:14 PM EST
    She advocated for women and for environmental issues while on the board.

    ...Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart's only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart's vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.

    ~ snip ~

    "Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign.

    "But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."

    ~ snip ~

    Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company's board.

    When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign -- Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.

    Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.

    Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental "eco-store" in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

    ~ snip ~

    "She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one," Mr. Tate said. "It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position."...

    NYTimes



    Parent
    Here is a fact (none / 0) (#18)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    Link that should help...it is Hillarys link

    Parent
    HRC on Walmart's Board (none / 0) (#58)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    Based on what I've read, which is admittedly hardly definitive, she pushed Walmart to promote more women and I think I read they were not very happy about this and it caused tension (although if they had listened to her, perhaps they wouldn't be facing class action lawsuits).  I don't believe she was all that vocal about their general labor practices.  However, she also apparently pushed them to be more environmentally friendly or to conserve.

    Now, we can argue if she did enough, but - again, based on my limited reading - she did apparently try to do some positive things - from a progressive view - while on the Walmart Board.  Walmart, of course, is an incredibly important business in Arkansas.  Frankly, I'm kind of surprised she did anything.  But I'm cynical that way.

    I'd love to know if anyone else has a better handle on what she did at Walmart.

    Parent

    Ugh (none / 0) (#17)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:45:02 PM EST
    I agree there is nothing to support that Obama has done anything wrong.  But when is he going to learn how to drive a point home or put an issue to rest?  

    Obama just invited more attention to his relationship with Rezko with his attempt to downplay it in the debate last night.  He made a similar mistake in his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal.  You can't leave the door open during a campaign and expect people won't walk through.    

    Here (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    Try This

    Rezko connection not clarified (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    Obama was organizer for three years.  What did he know and how did he know Rezko in this stage?  
    Goes to law school.
    Gets job offer from Rezko, takes job with law firm.
    Obama gets 160,000 in political donations, plus real estate deal with house.  
    The fiver hours are nothing in this equation, just what is documented.  
    So, what is missing: What did he know about Rezko when he was an organizer, what he neglected to find out, how did her serve the community?  I hate people who step on neighborhoods to get connections and bona fides to talk about helping the community.  

    um (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    Gets job offer from Rezko, takes job with law firm.

    I'm going to use my fav BTD quote.

    What in blazes are you talking about?  Obama's job at the law firm had nothing to do with Rezko.

    Parent

    Rezko's firm was represented by the law firm. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    Doesn't mean that's why Obama went to that firm or that he knew that before he went there.  

    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    Obama was organizer for three years.  What did he know and how did he know Rezko in this stage?  

    Ohh innuendo


    Parent

    Well, he had at least heard of Rezko then (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    because Rezko offered Obama a job while Obama was still in law school at Harvard.

    Parent
    So what (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    does that have to do with anything?
    Find me the evidence he did something wrong and we can  have a discussion.

    I've at least heard of a lot of bad people, what does that say about me? not a thing.

    Parent

    I haven't read anything (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    indicating Obama did anything "wrong."  I have read quite alot that convinces me his judgment was faulty.  

    Parent
    Specifics? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    any instances in particular?

    Parent
    See articles in the Chicago Sun-Times (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    re relationship between Rezko and Obama.

    Parent
    There really isn't (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    much there I have read them.  Politicians have supporters that end up being corrupt, there is no evidence Obama did any favors for him.

    Parent
    If that is your sole criteria, I agree. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST


    Parent
    How long did Obama know Rezko (none / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    Obama worked in that community as the organizer before going to law school.  Did he know of Rezko while working in the community before law school?  

    Neighborhoods are small.  Some developer does not amass 30 projects over night and then they all go into foreclosure.  

    Parent

    Innuendo (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    I have worked in community development and organizing for 30 years.  There is no way if you are an organizer that you would not know about the dealings of a developer of that caliber.  That you would not want to find out, or that you would not hear of things.  

    Parent
    Jeralyn, you need to consider the house (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    It's  not clear to me you are addressing that issue.
    Do you really think there's no problem for Obama on that score?

    I would be more comfortable with the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    "move on" advice from both BTD and Jeralyn if I were confident they had actually read all the Chicago Sun-Times articles on the relationship between Rezdo and Obama.  

    Parent
    Please be gentle (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    This is my first post here, but I've been reading for a while and cannot stand Kos anymore.  (What the heck happened over there?)  HuffPo ain't so great, either.

    Anyway, I'd like to say two things on Obama's Walmart line (while admitting I love Hillary, but also admitting I will vote for whomever gets the nom because I am a lifelong dem):

    1.  Hillary resigned from the board because she said she did not agree with their practices.  She was a long-time friend of the Waltons and was asked to join out of that friendship.  She gave back the money they gave to her campaign.

    2. --and this is important--let us not forget that Obama is a bestselling author, and that the number one paperback merchandiser in America is Walmart.  Top hardcover seller behind Costco is Sam's Club.  Has anyone checked to see if, since Senator Obama has a problem with Walmart, he has given back the money from the sale of his books?

    And in closing (I promise posts won't be so long in the future) if anyone thinks some crazy land deal that doesn't pass the land test is not relevant, then I have one word for you: Whitewater.

    Excellent post Kathy (none / 0) (#43)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    I competely agree with you

    Parent
    woops (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    screwed up already: doesn't pass the SMELL test.

    pps: I believe Rezko's later partner in the deal is the one who hired Obama at her firm...

    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST


    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    I got all of the info I posted from the Chicago Trib.  The info about Hillary and the board came from ABC news.  I am so, so sorry that I am not very adept at posting links (haha, so probably I should be treated like the other hacks!) but you can find a whole "area" on the Trib site that has pdf's of letters Obama wrote on behalf of Rezko as well as a timeline and a narrative of those involved.

    If you want a link about Walmart being the top seller, that's something I know from being in the book