home

Rezko A Media Issue; If There Is A Clinton Involved

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:38:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This site is on record in believing that the Rezko matter is a nonissue -- that Barack Obama did nothing wrong. It seemed that the Media largely agreed with our assessment, there has been virtually no coverage of the issue.

But find a picture, undated and unsourced, of the Clintons with Rezko, then lo and behold, the Media sees an issue. Let's ignore the fact that Presidents and First Ladies take pictures with a multitude of people. Let's ignore the fact that Rezko was NOT a Clinton contributor. If we can unfairly bash the Clintons let's do so.

But if it IS an issue, then it is time to cover Obama's close relationship with Rezko. I think it is a nonissue, but if the Media really believes it IS an issue, then Obama's close relationship with Rezko demands coverage that it has not recieved. What a joke the Media is and always has been.

< Classic Joe Klein On FISA:Misleading And Wrong | Trippi on Edwards as Kingmaker and Feb. 5 Strategy >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rezko A Media Issue; If There Is A Clinton Involved | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It seems to me that despite (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    Talk Left's proclamation, Obama's relationship with Rezko has been a media issue, at least to the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, and, recently, the Los Angeles Times.  

    Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    Is going to be a subject for Obama no matter what the Clintons do or don't do.  His trial is Feb. 25th.  It's the perfect media storm for the Chicago media - crooked mover and shaker and presidential candidate.  Whether there's anything there or not, they aren't going to be able to resist.  He's not that much of a media darling.

    It's never good for a politician to be "candidate A" in an indictment, I don't care what the facts of the case are.  It's terrible optics.  Not as bad as being Bob Ney, of course, but it still looks bad even if it's not.

    At least he's not an allegedly unindiccted (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    coconspirator.

    Parent
    Neither is Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    Come on.

    Parent
    I was kidding, of course, but (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    I was referring to Obama.  I'd rather be "Candidate A."

    Parent
    Lots of free publicity (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    that's for sure.  Could test the old adage that any coverage is good coverage and "I don't care what you say about me...just spell my name right."

    Not good for Obama.

    Parent

    I used to think (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    that I was being a bit paranoid that the corporately controlled media was deliberately slanting their "news" to deliberately "push" the weaker candidate so that the republicans can maintain control...I no longer feel paranoid....It is deliberate and scary....I hope if we get the white house back and majorities in the house and senate, we pass a "fair media" act to stop this mess....can anyone spell fascism??

    Pres. Bill Clinton signed the (none / 0) (#27)
    by byteb on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 that was especially helpful in consolidation of major media companies..this was one among other corporate, big business friendly provisions contained in the act. I wouldn't expect any help from a Clinton White House in overhauling the very thing, Bill have to put into law.

    Parent
    "helped" not "have" (none / 0) (#29)
    by byteb on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST


    Parent
    picture appeared (none / 0) (#3)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    because clinton attacked him on his rezko ties.  They would also show obama if he were shopping in wal-mart for example.  

    Or making money by selling his book (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM EST
    at Wal-Mart?

    Parent
    Walmart (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    sends Obama plenty of money from selling his books.  As does Sam's Club.  Respectively, two of the largest book retailers in the country.

    To be fair, Clinton gets royalties, too (both of them); however, they are not the ones vilifying Walmart.

    Parent

    Did not know the Media (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    was officially a part of the Obama campaign now.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Parent

    They are not part of. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    the Obama campaign.

    They are part of the death to Hillary campaign.  If they manage to do Clinton in, Obama will be next.

    Parent

    Surrogates for the "Media Darling." (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:18:43 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST


    Parent
    it shows (none / 0) (#14)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    hypocrisy - it's newsworthy.  Just like the points people on here are making about Obama selling his book at wal-mart are noteworthy.  But I don't   think that he sells his book at a retailer is newsworthy.

    Parent
    I missed that TV segment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    on Obama making money selling books at Wal-Mart.

    Do you have a link?

    Do you have a clue?

    Parent

    i dont get your joke (none / 0) (#61)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    all his books are available at Walmart.com and while any book selling deal would be in the hands of the publishing company, it does make his a tad hypocritical for slamming Hillary for her relationship.

    Parent
    if you feel strongly enough (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    you can ask your publisher not to sell your books through a certain outlet.  That would require taking a stand, as Al Gore did.

    Parent
    Obama has actual ties though (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:02:56 AM EST
    not a photo taken while people stood in line.  This will hurt Obama now, when previously it had been a nonissue.  It was a largely ignored attack.  The majority of Americans will not see Obama's ties as a nonissue and what the media has done will only ensure that both candidate's ties are fully scrutinized in public under the microscope.  Clintons win this one.  The MSM stinks!

    Parent
    Only a story b/c it helps end Rezko attack (none / 0) (#31)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    by Clinton.

    The picture as proof though is ridiculous, as the President is probably only second to Santa Claus in posed photos.

    I knew a Repub in law school who donated $ in the $250 range and waited in long line for a photo with GHWB.  Wooohooo!

    Parent

    I am afraid (none / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    I disagree that this will help end any attacks by Clinton.  The public attacks might lessen but there will be probably be a lot of behind the scenes contact by the Clinton campaign to work the press.  And the Obama camp is doing the same since it's the nature of modern day campaigns.  

    I would take this report in the New York Observer with a grain of salt but it does show there are probably people working this Rezko angle in different ways.  

    I do agree that photo is proof of nothing.  

    Parent

    Yes, I Can See Where Having Your Picture Taken (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    with a person is equal in weight with having a long term relationship, receiving campaign contributions and  socializing and meeting for dinner with that person.
     Link

    The two men and their wives used to socialize, meeting for dinner, Obama has said.


    Parent
    Or release TreeHouse (none / 0) (#89)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    Board minutes where Michelle approves of TreeHouse's relation with Walmart?

    Parent
    Reminds me of... (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    ... the picture of President Bush and Jack Abramoff.

    You mean (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    Abramoff who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush?

    Ridiculous comment.

    Parent

    Very disappointing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
     

    Uncharacteristically cryptic, MT. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Shocking when I have few words huh? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    It's exhausting trying to party during the primaries this election cycle, it's exhausting trying to keep up with the players.  I'm going to go play in clay for the rest of the day and fooey on all this ;)

    Parent
    The Clintons often appear (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    at fundraisers for OTHER DEMOCRATS. Whether they ever even see the guest list in advance is something I don't know, but I don't think the money goes to this.

    This seems a case of attacking the Clintons for being team players.

    I think the media (none / 0) (#21)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    wants another fight by brining up some garbage - they cant do the dirty on Obama so they bring up nonsense on the Clintons so they can then bring up slum lords and Obama.  

    This will hirt Obama - any connection to "slum lords" is what will be remembered at the end of the day...the other details are meaningless.

    Parent

    I think it just killed the Rezko issue... (none / 0) (#15)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    ...for Obama, while opening up some old cans of worms for the Clintons.  If you're the Clintons(or a supporter), and you bring up Tony Rezko, congratulations!

    You've just re-opened the door to Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, the McDougals, and a dozen other shady characters who have given you money over the years.  All your old baggage is now relevant again!

    All in the effort to paint Obama as just another politician.  No wonder they blinked first and pulled their ad in South Carolina.

    Hzu also bundled for Obama. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:16:59 AM EST


    Parent
    haha (none / 0) (#18)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    now we have Dems bringing up old GOP-driven garbage. great.

    Parent
    I doubt it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    Believe me, it might make Rezko an issue.

    And the Clintons will use it if necessary.

    In the end, like the Bradley effect, and the Harpootlian and Jackson, Jr comments, this is BAD for Obama.

    Parent

    It would be hilarious (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:21:03 AM EST
    if the photo ends up having been taken at an Obama event.  IIRC, the Clintons worked to help him get elected to the Senate.

    Parent
    That is an old picture (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    My guess? 1994. Probably at an event for some Chicago pol.

    Durbin would be funny though.

    Parent

    Or Carol Moseley Braun (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    Mebbe.

    Parent
    Whichever one got $10k+ from Rezko (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:40:38 AM EST
    Something like that.

    I remember a Dinkins fundraiser in 93 where Clinton was the honored guest and took pictures with all the high rollers.

    Hillary was not there though.

    Parent

    They usually appear separately AFAIK (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    It depends on what kind of race you're running, but they can raise more that way, mostly because of campaign finance laws.

    I think usually what happens is that the big check gets sent to the DSCC and is earmarked for the candidate.

    Parent

    Rezko has contributed to Braun (none / 0) (#83)
    by dannyinla on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    so it would be a good guess.

    REZKO, ANTOIN S
    CHICAGO, IL 60610
    PANDA EXPRESS

    BRAUN, CAROL MOSELEY (D)
    Senate - IL

    CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN FOR US SENATE 1998 INC

    $1,000

    primary 04/03/97

    Parent

    is it just me (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:49:21 AM EST
    Or has Rezko not changed much in the last 20 or so years?  He looks exactly the same.  I'm sure there will be folks screaming "photoshop!"

    Man, Bill and Hillary look so young.  I guess being in the political spotlight like that ages you.

    Meanwhile,  I have a pic of me and Bill Clinton.  I wonder if I am going to be indicted soon on the Rezko trial?

    Parent

    i agree with you above, BTD (none / 0) (#24)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM EST


    Parent
    not necessarily good for the Clintons, though (none / 0) (#28)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    ...because the obvious counterattack is to catalog the list of shady characters they've dealt with over the years.  And the media would be only too happy to pick up that ball and run with it.  
    It's very dangerous for the Clintons to try this tactic, for that very reason.  Sure, they may win the battle with Obama, but it makes it more likely they'll lose the war for the presidency in November.

    Parent
    Is McCain that squeaky clean? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    Wasn't he connected to the S & L story?

    Parent
    don't forget, though... (none / 0) (#38)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    IOKIYAR
    It's OK If You're A Republican

    (unless you really think the media will make an issue of McCain's cheating on his first wife, and will dredge up the Keating 5 again)

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    Yes because Whitewater is very potent today.

    You gotta be kidding me.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#39)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    and Dem bringing up that Gop -driven garbage will only hurt themselves.

    Parent
    The GOP didn't tell the Clintons... (none / 0) (#45)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    ...to associate themselves with shady characters, take money from and/or do favors for them.  
    It's lovely that they have staunch defenders, but let's not pretend they're pure as the driven snow.

    Parent
    oh please (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    I live in 2008 and want to elect a Demmocrat.

    Parent
    From my viewpoint, Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    is portraying himself as above the fray, no money from national lobbyists, etc.  That is the only reason his relationahip with Rezko seems pertinent to me. HRC doesn't purport have no association with lobbyists.  

    Parent
    Using The Same Logic, It Could Be Said (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    The GOP did not tell Obama to associate with Rezko.

    Parent
    Marc Rich's pardon... (none / 0) (#44)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    ...happened in early 2001, didn't it?

    Norman Hsu?   Wasn't that fairly recent?

    I assume the possibility exists that there are others as well.

    Should we just ignore all the baggage the Clintons have, and just assume none of it will matter in the general election?  
    A casual read of the topics here for the last month would suggest the answer is "yes".  


    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    that Marc Rich story is VERY fresh.

    As for Hsu, you gotta be kidding.

    Obama is neck deep in that too.

    Parent

    all I remember from 2001 (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    was chokiing on smoke so I am at a "fresh" disadvantage.

    Parent
    oh please (none / 0) (#50)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    you are doing the GOP's work for them.  You give credence to their cr*p and then put your hands up and say "ooooh, not ME".  It doesnt play well.

    Parent
    hypocrisy on display (none / 0) (#63)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    ...bringing up Clinton's baggage is "doing the GOP's work for them", while bringing up Obama's baggage is "vetting our candidates properly".

    That doesn't play well either.

    Parent

    nice try (none / 0) (#65)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM EST
    you fail.  You are bringing up old cr*p - not me.

    Parent
    Just because (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    it is old doesn't mean it won't be brought back up.  The rules of the Dem primary, about not addressing any of the 90s scandals, will not be followed by republicans.  The question about weather they will work has nothing to do if they are old or not, it is did the Clinton's prove to be innocent.  

    Parent
    If this (none / 0) (#70)
    by standingup on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    does resurrect any discussion of the Clinton's past we will have an opportunity to see how well prepared her campaign is to handle it.  

    I am still amazed that the Obama campaign appeared to be unprepared to deal with the Rezko story.  They have had over a year since from the time the Chicago press reported on the real estate transaction to work on a strategy to put this to rest.  I don't know if they thought this would not come up again?  

    Parent

    Eh, Clinton was the one who made (none / 0) (#33)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    Rezko a media issue at the debate.

    And there was a flurry of (oppo-driven?) stories about Rezko in the following 48 hours.

    You get one guess as to who provided that photo.

    Do I? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    I guess Robert Gibbs.

    Do you like this story for Obama Geek?

    Parent

    Incorrect. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    The answer is "Tony Rezko."

    And, no, I don't think talking about Rezko helps Obama's campaign, which is why I highly doubt they were behind this.

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    Rezko giving it to them would have given it a date.

    Gibbs is the correct answer.

    Gibbs is stupid you know.

    Parent

    Why would Rezko giving it to them (none / 0) (#58)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    give it a date?  

    Parent
    Because NBC (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    would not use it uless he told them the provenance and since he is in the picture, he would know.

    Come one, this is easy stuff.

    Gibbs gives it and says "I do not know."

    Hey, did you know Obama is tryoing to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters?

    Parent

    Before Drudge (none / 0) (#59)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    the only copy of that photo was in a plastic frame in a box in Rezko's basement.  How would anyone else have that photo besides Rezko?

    Parent
    that is silly (none / 0) (#62)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    how do you know that was the only copy.  

    Parent
    how the photos with Clinton work now is... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    You go to a website a week or so after the event and order pics.  I don't know how it worked 20 years ago.  Probably you had to order right then and there and hope you weren't blinking your eyes.  I agree that it was probably in someone's basement.  The only other person who would have the photos is the photographer and whatever company he is working for.  To go back and scan through photos from that era (I am assuming they looked for all the Chicago ones) would have taken a while, I imagine.

    If it was Obama's camp, then it proves they can do their research.  Why is the question, because it's so obviously a non-issue if they can't match it up against a donation--which records are publicly available.

    Parent

    sorry - (none / 0) (#76)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    nothing you have said convinces me that was the only copy.  Who took the picture?  

    Parent
    a designated (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    and approved professional event photographer with security clearance to be that close to the president would have taken the pic.  They do not allow you to bring your own camera or even a purse when you go into the room with them.  

    Way back then, who else but Rezko would have wanted that picture of him and Clinton?  I'm just spouting opinions here, but it seems to me that someone must have gotten in touch with that photographer on a hunch and looked through the pics.  Unless it came from Rezko or a Rezko associate.  Which might make sense, because he is Obama's friend and might be trying to help him.

    Parent

    Rezko had the photo (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    gave it to Obama people, they gave it to Drudge.  Not rocket science, Chicago politics.  

    Parent
    who'd want that photo before now? (none / 0) (#75)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    It's a K-Mart pose with 100 other good Democrats waiting in line behind him.

    Parent
    nto a question of wanting it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    whoever took the pciture could have the negatives or handed the negatives over to someone long ago and kept in a file.  Photographers keep all that stuff esp with important people.  I expect pictures of Marilyn Monroe to keep "surfacing" every few years for the next century.

    This is not to say I think you are worng, but to say you cannot prove you are right.

    Parent

    "you cannot prove you are right" (none / 0) (#82)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    Story of my life......

    Parent
    yeah I can (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    any reporter with access to a database.  And, as has been replied to you many times when you have made this claim - Rezco was mentioned after your hero raised Walmart - and oh boy is he going to regret it if this goes further.

    People in glass houses.

    Parent

    The Wal-Mart shot was mild. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    Marc Rich, New Square, Web Hubbell--now those are some serious stones.

    And get used to every Republican talking about what Bill would do in the White House with too much free time on his hands.

    Parent

    I should get used to it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    because YOU bring it up.

    I dont listen to the GOP buddy, they are not MY PARTY.  Get it?

    Parent

    You post on a blog... (none / 0) (#66)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    ...that attacks one of the two major Democratic candidates at least 2 to 3 times a day.  How is that not providing aid and comfort to the GOP, when there is a serious chance that candidate will either be our nominee this time, or perhaps in the near future?

    Parent
    whine whine whine (none / 0) (#72)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    do not!
    do so!
    do not!
    do so!

    Arent I nice?  I just saved us an hour.

    Parent

    That was sweet of you... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    ...and I hope you're starting to realize this campaign may not be over on Feb. 6th, and this kind of blood in the trenches stuff won't help the eventual nominee at all, whoever it may be. :)

    Parent
    then I suggest (none / 0) (#80)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    you take your own advice and knock off the nonsense.  

    Parent
    then I suggest (none / 0) (#81)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    you take your own advice and knock off the nonsense.  

    Parent
    The Chicago papers and L.A. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    Times published articles about Obama's relationship with Rezko before the debate.

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#53)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    but dont let the facts get in the way of an accusation!

    Parent
    ya know, some of the (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    Obama supporters are starting to sound like republicans with their talking points...lets please remember our ultimate goal, or at least I hope our ultimate goal, is to win the white house back and not to aid the GOP....Please don't destroy whomever the choice is for nominee, just because it isnt a person of your choosing....

    My conclusion on Rezko (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    The legal stuff, probably he covered his tracks well.  The real estate deal I call a mini Duke Cunningham, I don't know why Josh misses this point.  But for me it comes down to an attitude about the "community" in this case low income African American, community he served and how he uses that community.  

    The Sun Times asked him a series of questions, this was the answer that I found painfully disturbing.  In all my years in community work, I have never heard a public official or community person say this about affordable housing.  I have only heard this from NIMBYs and yes, racists.  

    Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord?

    A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article

    Pay attention that after everyone knew this developer missmanaged and milked the buildings, Obama blames the tenants.  That to me is truly disgusting, unforgivable and an indication of a character flaw that I find scary.  

    re "Senator Obama (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    was not otherwise aware"

    Wonder what that means?

    Parent

    Rezko's contributions (none / 0) (#90)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    appear to favor Obama alot and a bit to the Bush-Cheney campaign and Kerry....I dont see anything to the Clintons.....Link

    OMG (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    What does this say about TPM and Josh Marshall

    What I have said about Josh and TPM (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    This is not new to you I hope.

    Look at how they are covering the NBC stunt?

    They are basically shills for Obama now.

    Parent

    I honestly never realized (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    to what extent I guess until this article outlines it all....Now I am really regretting my donation to them last year...Won't ever happen again tho....thanks for being here TL as I have really had to redo my favorite sites lately....

    Parent
    Just read (none / 0) (#96)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    that Obama campaign complaining about Bill letting people take publicity photos with him...This is really getting stupid...

    Heh (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    Let's ignore the fact that Presidents and First Ladies take pictures with a multitude of people.

    Now, who was that guy Bush had his picture with???

    Double standard, thy name is Demo.

    Right PPJ (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    Spin away, Bush never even heard of Abramoff, no story there. But the Clintons and Rezko, now that should be on the front page.

    I am sure that it is on the front page of the kind of garbage you link to here.

    ahhahahhaah

    Parent

    Rezko A Media Issue; If There Is A Clinton Involved | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment