Edwards, Hillary, Obama, And Rezko
Did Edwards tell a roomful of donors that Hillary privately told him after the last debate that there's more to come on the Obama Rezko story that has yet to be made public?
An Edwards contributor tells The New York Observer that Edwards made the claim at a private fundraiser last night. The Observer directly quotes the donor's account of what Edwards said:
He said that Hillary and Obama have true dislike for each other and that after the most recent debate Hillary mentioned to John in passing that there’s more about Obama and that “slum landlord” [Rezko] that has yet to be disclosed to the public.
The Observer notes that "the source said that Edwards gave no indication that Hillary suggested that it was her campaign that had the Rezko-dirt." And indeed it would be unlikely that Hillary would confide such a thing to an opponent even if it were true.
Interestingly, the response from the Edwards campaign to The Observer, which very generally calls the account "bungled," doesn't really deny (or confirm) that the discussion took place:
Edwards has told reporters he's not going to talk about conversations with other candidates, but based on Monday night's debate with Obama using Wal-Mart and Hillary using Rezko, anyone who thinks this is over missed Senator Clinton's statement that they're just getting warmed up.
Late Update: The Clinton campaign is denying this version of events. The Observer adds this:
UPDATE: Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson emailed to say Edwards’ remarks about Hillary Clinton's remarks, as conveyed by the attendee at the fund-raiser, are “not an accurate account of their conversation.”
Comments (254)
Whocares wrote on January 23, 2008 1:14 PM:So, will Obama bring up Whitewater and the Clinton's criminal friends? Hillary's FEC issues about Stan Lee's money?
There's enough mud to sling on everyone.
The LATimes has a rezko story today
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rezko23jan23,1,392172.story
Ties Obama to more possible stuff. 200,000 in donations from Rezko friends over 13 years.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:15 PM:Fair enough. I guess we will see what comes of this.
M.J. wrote on January 23, 2008 1:22 PM:Hillary is just turning into a shrill
political monster.
Bill needs to zip his lips,
and stop wagging his finger in our faces.
With any luck, while Hill and Barack are beating each other to a bloody pulp, the voters will wake up and realize what an adolescent fiasco it is and will switch their votes to someone who would rather bloody the Thug Party....Edwards.
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:22 PM:Has Obama been accused of anything but knowing this guy? I mean it's not like he pardoned him or anything like that. He knew the guy, payed above market price for a small parcel of land from him, and received some contributions that he returned after the indictment.
Obama And Rezko By Kevin DrumMary in S.C. wrote on January 23, 2008 1:23 PM:Jan 23, 2008
Answers.com(Political Animal) OBAMA AND REZKO....My morning LA Times features a big front-page story about Barack Obama's relationship with shady Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko that starts out by telling us that Rezko's upcoming trial "has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent," and furthermore that Rezko has "played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged."
Is that true? Maybe, but the LAT piece sure doesn't deliver the goods. Basically, it tells us that Rezko has donated money to Obama over the years and that Rezko's wife bought a parcel of land next door to Obama's house three years ago. Both of these things have been extensively reported before, and although the land deal has a slight whiff to it (Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times a year ago, "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it"), it's a political misdemeanor at most and the LAT article uncovers nothing new about it.
So, there's nothing much here. On the other hand, it's useful to read the story to get an idea of the kind of thing that Republicans will throw at Obama if he wins the nomination. It's nowhere near as bad as what they'll throw at Hillary, but they'll certainly do everything they can to make it look as slimy as possible — and next month's trial will probably give them some juicy ammo. It's best to be prepared.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/23/politics/animal/main3743431.shtml
I use to support the Clintons,
but no more.
I'm finised with their nasty politics
JimS wrote on January 23, 2008 1:24 PM:Good. Enough of the preacher already. Give me a grown up who doesn't pout when he's losing.
Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 1:26 PM:Greg:
It seems to me that this would be a ripe story to report on--separate fact from innuendo. I think the Clintons are counting on the "hint" on impropriety (where none exist) to slime Obama. From all of the media accounts, there's nothing there BUT innuendo, but that's just what's been covered by the Chicago press and now the LA Times.
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 1:27 PM:JimS. I don't think that Hillary's "moment" can be described a "pouting because she's losing". She was only choked up for a moment when asked about her appearance before pulling it together to go into a stock attack on Obama.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 1:28 PM:With any luck... the voters will wake up and... switch their votes to... Edwards.
I do not know that I have a lot of hope for that, but I do wonder if it is not possible that Edwards might yet end up with the nomination. I do not think that he will win enough primaries, but the post above touches on something that is becoming apparent - Clinton and Obama are coming to loathe each other personally. Could we arrive at a scenario where neither Clinton nor Obama have enough delegates to win outright, such that, simply in order to see that Clinton does not take the nomination, Obama releases his delegates - knowing that these folks would sooner vote for Satan than Clinton - thus putting Edwards over the top?
Janice wrote on January 23, 2008 1:28 PM:I'm a lifelong Democrat.
But I have to say I am starting to see why the Republicans became so scornfull of the Clintons.
I am just so tired of the Clinton political machine. I am physically worn
down by it.
I give up.
I will remain a Democrat but simply
cannot support the Clintons anymore.
AJ wrote on January 23, 2008 1:30 PM:There doesn't seem to be much to this, the Edwards spokesman statement seems to be more, you'll hear more about Rezko than more information. Given the news reports today, that's obviously what's happening.
R.L. wrote on January 23, 2008 1:32 PM:The Clintons are two of the most slimy
characters in the political world,
second only to George Bush.
I'm done with all three of them
Daniel wrote on January 23, 2008 1:32 PM:The numbers of Democrats requesting absentee ballots in FL is simply stunning: It's already superior than during the 2004 general election! It's going to make it very hard for the media to ignore Florida next week, which is a boost for Hillary.
Dave C wrote on January 23, 2008 1:35 PM:Let me echo Keith's sentiment. If there is dirt here, I'd like to see TPM Muckraker dig it up; if this is a bogus story, I'd love to see TPM report that as well. How about it, guys? Up for a challenge?
Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 1:37 PM:Anyone who depends on a slimeball
like Bill Clinton to do their dirty work,
will not get my vote.
Hillary is only political,
she will not be able to get a thing done.
I am surprised monsters can cry.
I won't fall for it again.
The Clintons are dirty people.
hmmm. are you guys missing the other aspect of the story.. Edwards might be exagerrating the threat to Obama to his fundraisers so they can continue giving him money with the idea that he will be the Anti-Hillary?
NOOOOO.. HILLARY IS SOOO SLIMY!
BionicWoman wrote on January 23, 2008 1:39 PM:Rezco helped Obama buy his million dollar home and has been a campaign contributor. When you take favors from a guy like this - its like making a deal with the devil. You can't be in just a little bit. Its not that the Clintons are clean - its that Obama has a phoney reputation. You can't have change when you owe favors. Obama is working for the man - not us. I would be willing to put money down that there is more to come out on Obama's relationship with Rezco.
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:40 PM:Look ObaFans, Hussein put himself on a pedestal even though he lies and glosses and panders like every successful politician.
That is what is so revolting about his holier than thou bullcrap. And now his lying appeal to "Christians".
Sadly that leaves the Obamaniacs reduced to sputtering that "yes but Hillary is worse".
I do know that any empty suit spouting as much empty crap as Hussein is a con man and every con man has a con history.
Too bad all good little Obabots get lobotimized as initiation into the Obacult.
Meantime it's way past time for Hussein to get off the cross or pass the nails.
Ditto, keith and dave c, the problem is that there is no dirt there. So, if it is determined that there is no dirt, then they can't keep repeating the same lie, well they can because they do anyway. Nobody wants to stop the clinton trailer trashing of obama it makes for "good" media and gives mr. bill a laugh. He likes to see politicians rolling around in the mud. He's a pro at mud wrestling.
grover_rover wrote on January 23, 2008 1:41 PM:I've said it again and again, it will be a big mistake for the Clintons to make this a battle of ethics and skeletons, because they are bankrupt on the former and swimming in the latter.
No matter how you look at it, if you truly know anything about the candidates, Obama is obviously the much cleaner of the bunch.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 1:42 PM:There is certainly more to the Rezko story than Obama admitted during Monday's debate (5 billed hours on a church project as an associate? C'mon!). Still, I don't see enough here to cause any truly serious doubts about him.
Just pushing this story to make Obama seem more like an ordinary politician wouldn't help the Clinton campaign very much and could hurt them. Most voters have this perspective already.
Only the cult insists on seeing Obama as some historical transformative leader and they are unwilling to let anything challenge their dream. In fact, even if Obama were truly corrupt, they would hate the Clinton campaign even more for exposing the corruption. If Obama were elected president and became a god-awful one, these people would be like the unpersuadable hard cores who still stick by Bush.
Hatch wrote on January 23, 2008 1:42 PM:How many months ago was it that the Clinton campaign first started saying they knew about "dirt" on Obama that hadn't come out yet? This is the same bullshit, I'm sorry. She probably did try that line on Edwards for all I know, but that still doesn't make it true.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:44 PM:For those here at Obama Central.....on Becks Show and Rush's Show they are pushing if you are for anyone but Obama on the Left you are a racist....I bet that plays very good here. They are the voices I see here.
ar wrote on January 23, 2008 1:45 PM:As a life ling Democrat that voted for Bill Clinton twice I will NEVER vote for them again. And to those of you supporting Hillary because she will be the first Female President...THINK AGAIN. This is, and always has been, about getting him back in the White House for a third term. And to do so they will do anything. They lie, smear, and pull every slimy trick possible. Talk about the politics of personal destruction. I'm sick of it.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 1:45 PM:"Look ObaFans, Hussein put himself.."
Ok, the first few words exposed you as a product of inbreeding. Just a thought.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 1:46 PM:Two words: Norman Hsu
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:46 PM:I know I come across as a racist and cannot put in to plain english why I don't think thats true.
Just because I do Hillary and Bills bidding does not mean nothing.
I am a beleiver in Jesus Christ and he and Hillary have spoken to me, to my heart, and thats where my politics are,
and a little bit in my head.
Geez, how slimy can you get? Well it just so happens that I've got a LOT more dirt on the Clintons. But I don't want to get into it...
You can forget ever getting this Democrat's vote, Hillary!
I am really Glen Becks alter ego,
get use to it.
norman hsu, johnny Chung,the Lippo Group,Charlie Trie, millions of nontransparent dollars from the Saudis, Marc Rich, etc. etc.
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:48 PM:Glen (sic)
Elizabeth wrote on January 23, 2008 1:49 PM:Janice wrote:
>>I will remain a Democrat but simply cannot support the Clintons anymore.
I can't even do that. If the day arrives that Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee -- or it becomes clear that she will be the nominee -- I am going to town hall to change my registration (to Independent).
I can think of no other way to show those in power in our party, especially those who have supported her, how very, very alienated I am by this way of dealing. Democrats, I'd like to think, are not like the Republicans in 2004 who (I have to assume) were willing to tolerate and accept their connection to Bush and Rove because it was a way to "win." That's obviously the Clintons' view also. It is not mine.
And I guess they were always like that but we (I, at least) just didn't see it. No wonder they wanted to impeach him on whatever grounds they could find.....
Lisa wrote on January 23, 2008 1:49 PM:Tapper
You are one sick individual.
You need to growup.
Hatch...
It wasn't the Clinton campaign who said they had the dirt on Obama. It was that nitwit Novak who said someone told him that someone told them that someone associated with the Clinton campaign had dirt. Novak since backed off the claim.
hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 1:50 PM:One thing obama doesn’t want is anybody looking at his first and most generous patron. Another thing obama doesn’t want is anybody looking at his record as a “community organizer. “
Oh and here is a pretty close look at 17 year obama patron rezko:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871
The bottom line is that Obama billed 5 hours working for this company on a basically unrelated matter.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 1:51 PM:Glad to see you've learned your journalistic lesson from the ABC fiasco, Greg.
"The Observer reported that an Edwards donor said that Edwards himself said that Hillary said to him that..."
Good Lord.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:52 PM:I guess Hillary asked Edwards to start spreading rumors when they met after the debate the other night. We'll see if it pays off for him later.
That's what Hillary supporter Wes Clark tried to do when it became obvious that he was going to lose to Kerry in 2004, push the fake sex scandal story.
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 1:54 PM:Taylor Marsh is just about the least credible person in the world at this point. She is a total Clinton hack and smear merchant of the worst sort.
Clinton's sliminess attracts all sorts of slimy supporters, like Marsh and our very own hadenough (taking a nickname from James Carville's book title should be a clue).
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:54 PM:I liked it when Bill wagged his cigar -
I mean finger in my face and said "I did not have sex with that woman"
It excited me to be lied to so confidantly (sic).
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 PM:No anonymus the problem is that Obama has a long and financially tangled relationship with a corrupt slumlord named Rezco.
Get used to that sound Obamaniacs, it's your GreatBlackOne getting cut down to size and then hoisted on his own petard.
A pox on both of their houses. Between the cowardly "leadership" in congress, and this bullshit presidential race, I've had it. I see no difference character-wise between the house of Clinton and the house of Bush. Clintons tarring of Obama may successfully kill his support, but it wont translate as an increase for Hillary. I supported neither, but was going to support the emergent democratic candidate. That no longer is true.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 PM:"Oh and here is a pretty close look at 17 year obama patron rezko:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871"
Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 PM:Good project for us to do. Develop a time-line and facts.
The interesting part is on the latest Sun-times column on this. The very last time, "For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips."
That's a very interesting charge, I think.
g.s. wrote on January 23, 2008 1:57 PM:The Clintons
Disgust me
Mary wrote on January 23, 2008 1:58 PM:Low blows. Whos record supports the facts
Obama's name has not come up in connection with any of the corruption charges swirling around Rezko. In fact, prosecutors indicate that the source of Rezko's clout was somewhere within Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.
"My relationship is he was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years, he was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with CBS' "Early Show." "Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed."
Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, according to board members. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has aggressively fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like firing union supporters and allegedly spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.
During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, according to Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/politics/19cnd-walmart.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin
Edwards is being used. HRC mentioned that to him, knowing there was a good shot it would leak out (or Edwards would jump on it against Obama). Now it's out there and she can say it didn't come from her campaign. Thought Edwards was smarter than this.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:58 PM:When is Bill Clinton releasing his foundation donors? How many Saudi and other Arab sheiks on that list? Guess we aren't getting independence from foreign oil under a Clinton II administration.
What about Bill's $20 million dollar golden parachute from one of his big donors, covered in the Wall Street Journal today?
Seriously, Greg, some sort of editorial discretion should require you to post one or both of these similar stories (I mean, one is a story and the other is a rumor).
Mary wrote on January 23, 2008 2:01 PM:This is Hillary's take on her and her husbands attacks on obama
Senator Clinton, who referred to her husband as a "tremendous asset" in the debate, defended her "vigorous campaign" as merely asking the kind of questions that the Democratic nominee will face in the general election against the Republicans.
"I think it is important to analyze the record that is all I am saying. If we don't air it in this primary process I think we are not doing our party any service," she said. "The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking any of us anything."
Daschle said the attacks on Obama from Clinton's campaign were potentially damaging for a party anxious to take back the presidency after two terms by Republican President George W. Bush.
"I think it destroys the party, it will divide us and it will have a huge effect down the road if it doesn't end soon," he said.
________
so basically Hillary is saying. Ethics doesnt matter. The fact that voters are sick of this kind of bulls**t doesnt matter. If you want to beat the Repugs you have to act like one. Hey hillary! Dont you know that American wants a CHANGE FROM THIS CRAP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDHbHcOV1N4
Hillary says Gandhi works a gas station
daCascadian wrote on January 23, 2008 2:02 PM:So where are the adults ?
"If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you" - C.J. Campbell
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 2:04 PM:How do you know an Obamaniac is really a Rethugacan?
Easy! In trying to excuse their Dark Lord they mention Whitewater, not bothering to also mention that it was a multi year multimillion dollar investigation by Rethugacan hacks that found no evidence of criminal behaviour by the Clintons.
None.
Zilch.
Nada.
Sadly we already have the GreatBlackOne's admission of a little itty bit of wrong doing with Rezco. That means there's a whole lot more!
Tick Tock Tick Tock.
There isn't anything more on the Rezko thing...for those who have been paying attention, this story is old, they went through all of it back in the summer, and this is it. The evidence doesn't point to anything more than a lapse in judgment on the part of Obama. Obama did nothing illegal, and hasn't been investigated for anything, and Rezko hasn't been investigated for anything concerning Obama. There simply isn't anything substantial here, especially if you compare it to Hsu and the rest of the Clintons' dirty laundry.
hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 2:05 PM:Oh and that would be the same ny observer that just endorsed obama.
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 2:05 PM:Honestly, did it bother any of you when Bill Clinton went on national tv and wagged his finger and said
"I did not have sex with that woman"
That is when I started to see what a pathological (sic) liar he was and is.
I am starting to come around to the I dea of supporting Obama.
I love Hillary and don't know if I can let go of her skirt,
but I am going to try my hardest, and I
will not cry,I will not cry,
I'm ascared though, Waaa, Waaa, Waaa,
Hillary come back. Nooooooo. I love you
It's slimball when it's your guys hand caught in the cookie jar....when he claims to be so holy. You think the Right don't know his hand was not in the jar. Are you all so stupid to think this would not be stated in Sept or Oct of 2008 when The Holy One would be running against Romney or McCain? Then what would you do???? Answer that one.
You guys never answer that one.
anon wrote on January 23, 2008 2:07 PM:The problem with the Rezko smear is that there is no information. Over thirteen years the the guy and people who knew the guy donated to Obama's campaign and the high end total for that is close to maybe 150,000 over 13 years and including many different people.
Rezko was giving money to just about any politican in Illinois.
This happens in politics. Look at the Clintons who raised 850,000 from Norman Hsu.
So tell me again where the story is or where Obama did anything illegal?
Anonymouse wrote on January 23, 2008 2:09 PM:Clinton means liar in arkansan.
Since Shillary claims her husband's white house experiences as her own, does she plan to ejaculate on any female white house staff?
"Jay
I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims..."
Obviously. Instead of reading articles from retarded stroke victims you might try paying attention.
Oh and here is the rezko is major a obama donor for 17 years link again:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871
I'll try not to form an opinion until there is something concrete.
wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 2:13 PM:Must be hard for Mr. Obama's supporters to read this on the same day that his Reagan comments are back in the news. But then, Mrs. Clinton did warn them about false hopes. The Times article is actually a little lenient on the property purchase. Apparently, the people who sold Mr. Obama his home would only sell it if the lot next door went at the same time. So Mrs. Rezko bought the lot so Mr. Obama could buy the house. What's $600K or so between friends? The troubling think about this is Mr. Obama hasn't figured out in this case, as in the case of his spiritual advisor, Reverend Wright, that it's not enough to disassociate yourself from these people and their actions. You have to publically rebuke them. If you don't, it's hard for the electorate to figure out who is the dog and who is the tail.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:15 PM:Hey, can we at least keep the sex comments out of here? Please. The visuals are going to make me throw up.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 2:15 PM:Oh and here is the rezko is major a obama donor for 17 years link again:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871"
Oh, and I'll just reiterate what I previously said: Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
Zorro for the Common Good wrote on January 23, 2008 2:16 PM:grover_rover -- I agree with your sentiments, but the former copy editor in me has to point out: The Clintons are "swimming" in "skeletons"? Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!
JHo wrote on January 23, 2008 2:16 PM:I'm not sure the Clintons want to get into a debate about corrupt donors and shady land deals. This may be an opening for the Obama campaign to dig up all of the 90s stuff.
Irishamerican wrote on January 23, 2008 2:17 PM:Chinatown's Dishwashers, Waiters Giving Clinton $1,000 And $2,000 Contributions...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/19/chinatowns-dishwashers_n_69094.html
Lisa wrote on January 23, 2008 2:17 PM:"Mrs" Clinton is a slimeball of a politician and the sooner those who support her realize this and grow up will be doing our country a big favor.
Need a 3rd Party wrote on January 23, 2008 2:17 PM:Look at what is going on one talks about Walmart, the other comes back with you worked for a slum lord. You see what is going on here, they are both in the wrong any way you put it. No matter what side you are on, they are both not with out fault. So get off your high hourse's and demand that this stop, and stop now. Or we need to get a 3rd party started, one that will do what we the people need, and not a party that has to fight to get our vote. This isn't about who started what because the other side responded, just like a pack of little kids. The media reminds me of the Devil trying to keep the fight going. Wake up America we are going down the drain, and Rove, Chenny, and Bush are laughing at us.
Brandon wrote on January 23, 2008 2:18 PM:So many of Obama's supporters leave comments about how mean the Clinton's are and how they participate in "dirty politics."
This is what I want. I want to know who the candidates have associated with and what types of deals they have made. In a fight for the top position in this country, we should all want the applicants to compete at the highest and most competitive level possible. Simply dismissing every single piece of criticism or complaint is arrogant.
The American people are a tough, hard working bunch. We love hope, but we also love tenacity. If Obama doesn't stop acting like he is being victimized soon, Hillary is going to win by seeming like the candidate who is most willing to fight for the nomination.
Maybe Obama should learn a lesson from Fred Thompson, if you don't act like this is a contest for the most powerful position in the world, people won't think you really want it.
Chris wrote on January 23, 2008 2:19 PM:Taylor Marsh is a cockeyed Harlot, who, when not writing disastrous hit-pieces that set journalism back 30 years - is the entertainment at strip parties where she shoots ping-pong balls out of a certain orifice, and sometimes she does double duty as a fluffer in lesbian goth porn.
blackstar wrote on January 23, 2008 2:21 PM:taylor marsh has zero credibility as a reporter, blogger, researcher, or critical thinker (according to DailyKos): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638
i don't think neither Clinton nor Obama are especially culpable in their dealings with shady fundraisers. but why the Clintons would raise this issue when their own past history with fundraisers and contributions from questionable sources is so murky and easily-targeted, i don't know.
unless she's merely banking once again on the media's inability to call her on disengenuous or logically tenuous claims she makes.
R.S. wrote on January 23, 2008 2:22 PM:The Clinton machine will never have the support of the country -
not after this
I have come to see the Clintons for what they really are
political monsters
James Quincy Andrews wrote on January 23, 2008 2:23 PM:Who saw Obama's speech in Atl on Sunday?
That's worth talking about. No more Clintonian running of the debate with their shill. From the man himself: We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing each other down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.
Amen.
BernieO wrote on January 23, 2008 2:25 PM:Obama brought up Norman Hsum against Hillary even though he has gotten help from Hsu. Hsu helped hold a fundraiser for Obama. Pot and kettle?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090703047.html
That being said I have seen no evidence that either Hillary or Barak were closely involved with Hsu. That Rezko helped Obama buy a house and that Obama seemed to have gotten a sweet deal from him is evidence of a close personal tie and, at best, bad judgement. Obama bought the house after there was a lot of publicity about Rezko' probable corruption. Obama seems to think he is above scrutiny and gets quite testy when anyone holds him to the same standards as other candidates. He can complain all he wants, but if he is the nominee, the Republican Swiftboat crowd won't care one bit. Obama will learn just how feasible his "different kind of politics" is. Gore and Kerry tried the above the fray stand already to disastrous results.
Why does no one seem to remember that the Clintons are the only Dems that the right wing slime machine has not been able to defeat, even after throwing everything up to and including false charges of murder at them? They learned quickly to respond to criticism. If obama thinks the criticism he is getting from the Clintons is harsh he is definitely not ready for prime time.
blackstar....but on this story...Kos and she agree.
Independent wrote on January 23, 2008 2:26 PM:It is unbelievable how sometimes people can allow others to influence their opinions without working things through for themselves.
All three candidates are eligible to be president in my opinion. But lately I am beginning to notice some things. Sen. Obama has almost as many advisers from the Clinton camp as Sen. Clinton does.
When he lost Nevada, he refused to give a concession speech which made him appear to be a sore loser. During the debate on Monday night, it was he who insulted Sen. Clinton about Walmart and she responded.
All the candidates send their spouses to different sates and cities to campaign for them. It is not her fault that her husband is a former president. Sen. Obama has Oprah.
As Sen. Obama rightly stated none of them on stage have clean hands. If Sen. Obama wants to win the primary, he needs to stop complaining about the Clintons and stay on message.
Personally, I think his advisers are allowing him to make some rookie mistakes. Politics is a rough business and if he, Sen. Clinton or Mr. Edwards can't handle a Democratic primary then they will be demolished when they have to face the Republicans.
Whoever wins the nomination I am comfortable with.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 2:27 PM:The main Rezko problem Obama is going to have is his misleading answer in the debate the other night:
I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to
May be true as far as it goes to answer her specific slumlord jab, but far from the truth about his relationship with Rezko. This in the same debate where I lost count of the times he called himself honest.
Other than that, sure the guy was Obama's political supporter, contributor, and someone he went to for help with real-estate questions and purchases. Obama gave the money back and publicly regretted being involved with him. I'm sure he'll have fun explaining that over and over for the next six months, along with why he misled people about it during the debate.
portialeigh wrote on January 23, 2008 2:27 PM:I live in Chicago and it is an old story that has not been investigated. The only difference between Obama and other politican, is the media loves him. Peter was in DC handeling the Libby case when this broke and just now getting his feet wet in the details. Before you carry him off on a cloud, look into dirty Tony's relationships. Look into the guy that committed sucide last October over his dealings with dirty Tony. Look at the buildings in Englewood that are boarded
up. Obama talks about Hillary's judgement, what about him getting involved with that creep?
BernieO,
i'm not sure there was a single demonstrable fact in 2 paragraphs. is that a new record for a Clinton supporter?
you're right... probably not.
Sue wrote on January 23, 2008 2:28 PM:I use to support Hillary.
No more.
kyleXY wrote on January 23, 2008 2:28 PM:Glad Obama is getting vetted on Rezko. He is really turning into a slimy character who is not this holy God he tries to portray himself as.
Better we know this now than when the Republicans swiftboat him.
I'd vote for Bloomberg before Barack. H. Obama.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 2:29 PM:"Obama brought up Norman Hsum against Hillary even though he has gotten help from Hsu. Hsu helped hold a fundraiser for Obama. Pot and kettle?"
One event vs. Years of service? Pot meet "swing and miss"
hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 2:29 PM:"Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 2:15 PM:
Oh, and I'll just reiterate what I previously said"
You can reiterate whatever you want facts are stubborn things.
Oh and here is the rezko is major a obama donor for 17 years link yet again:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871
"You can reiterate whatever you want facts are stubborn things."
That's why they keep ignoring anything Taylor Marsh writes. Like I said: Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
JHo wrote on January 23, 2008 2:32 PM:Clintons' have a new surrogate - Mr. Edwards has no soul.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 2:32 PM:"You can reiterate whatever you want facts are stubborn things."
That's why they keep ignoring anything Taylor Marsh writes. Like I said: Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:32 PM:Oh, and taylor marsh has no credibility and is a clinton shill. Can clinton get any more people to lie for her, she has mr. bill and taylor marsh. How about paula jones or monica lewinsky? Will they lie for her?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638
Isn't Taylor Marsh one of the chicks featured in the "2 Girls 1 Cup" video?
franklyn wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:Early on in the primary season the one question in the back of my mind was, just how nasty will this race for the nomination get? Early on i didnt think it would get nasty at all...I felt as if the Dem candidates just behaved themselves it wouldnt matter who the Rep nominee was...Now i am beginning to rethink that...
After the Clintons suffered the Iowa loss, they probably assumed that it was a fluke and they would automaticlly get NH, but early on in the NH primary things were looking bad and they knew they had to do someting or they would loose...
they decided to go a little negative and the level of slime increased in Nevada. they know that the only way to win the nomination is to make Obama look like them, a devil in a business suit..
The level of these slime attacks reveals just how much of a dog fight the Clintons believe they are in.
I am beginning to believe that this will rift the Dem party in two factions that will take years to repair...God knows its already being torn along racial lines now..
If this keeps up, and one faction plus the independents decides not to show up at the polls or vote for Macain, the Dems will loose the WH, and upon reflection the blame will lay right at the feet of the Clintons for splitting the party over race nd slime attacks.
Come GE time, the Republicans will not have to do much because all the work would have already been done for them....
Gosh, this is as bad as Daily Kos. The Clintons are evil, slimy people for having been implicated in scandals by right wing partisans that never came to anything. The Clintons are evil for playing to win.
Obama is playing to win, too, folks. The flap about Clinton's MLK/LBJ statement was at least as silly, if not more, than the flap about Obama's Reagan comment. Politicians take each other's statements out of context. That's what they do. It's up to the original speaker to correct the other guy.
But the most offensive comment in this thread is this:
Get used to that sound Obamaniacs, it's your GreatBlackOne getting cut down to size and then hoisted on his own petard.
Yes, Obama is an ordinary mortal, albeit a gifted, unusually charismatic one. He's a politician, not a saint. But "GreatBlackOne"? Being "hoisted"? Really? Can we keep that kind of thing out of here, please?
What you Obamaniacs don't get is that the GreatBlackOne is hoisted on his own petard.
No use blaming HRC, Hussein made his own bed.
He's the one selling himself as some warmed over Christ, a neo Heaven's Gate for you Obabots to service and emulate, all the way down to the guys' auto castration since Obama obviously hasn't grown a pair.
And so when his credibility is attacked and he has no rational defense he is reduced to going on the attack with his lies and distortions.
So much for his "new" politics.
And then we learn what a carny con Obama really is and worse, a roaring hypocrite.
Tick Tock Tick Tock.
I am starting to realize the Clintons
will not be able to govern.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:39 PM:Greg, yep. It will be 4 more years of stagnation and gridlock in dc. The republican minority or maybe majority in the senate will block their every move if by blind luck she wins the general.
HumanityCritic wrote on January 23, 2008 2:39 PM:"Hussein made his own bed"
When Karl Rove isn't killing puppies, or vigorously masturbating to Mein Kampf - he can be found commenting on tmpelectioncentral.
Georgia P wrote on January 23, 2008 2:40 PM:Tapper,
Have you ever lied or misrepresented the truth? We all have. But that does not mean we are dishonest people. The Clintons are dishonest people at their core. Why? Because they have and will comprise anything including their marriage for personal gain. Is Obama dishonest? At moments, like all of us. But he still holds his integrity and values close. Lets see how this election proceeds, if Obama starts makeing false accusations of the Clintons, that will tell us a lot about his integrity and character.
blackstar wrote on January 23, 2008 2:40 PM:I am starting to realize the Clintons
will not be able to govern.
----------------
i hate to be crude, but...
no shit Sherlock.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:41 PM:Come on what is with all the gd sex talk on this thread. Please, please, please clean it up. I don't recall seeing this much. It's really disgusting and in poor taste. Thank you.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 2:41 PM:isisinny, I agree with your point, but can we keep the expression "hoisted on his own petard" out of it please? It is in no way a racial lynching reference, and the perfect description of what may be happening to Obama on this issue.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/hoistbyoneso.html
I assume this last post was not from the "real Greg."
Edwards' utilization of an unprovable piece in the media is perfectly reasonable. In fact, I don't think it even comes close to the downright nastiness we have seen out of HRC.
Ugh, this is a nasty fight. The candidates are nasty with each other, and the shills on both sides are even worse.
No wonder the bad guys out there make fun of us. They might actually have some points in their favor, as a matter of fact.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 2:42 PM:Hey Independent,
Nice Realpolitik style words about the realities of politicians and political campaigns - something we don't read enough of here.
Dawn,
You are absolutely correct. Obama's incredibly misleading explanation of the Rezko association is what may come back to bite him. Not only is he being dishonest, he is displaying a cowardly disloyalty. He wasn't even willing to say that he had known Rezko for many years and Rezko had been a supporter but he had not done anything improper for the man.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 2:42 PM:Pathological: Bush & Co. Lied 935 Times In Run Up To War
Can we begin to compile the Bill & Hill Lists!
Yes; Yes; Yes! Timing is not always everything
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 2:43 PM:Hillary Backers: You have eyes and ears. You see, hear and KNOW what's going on. You know what the Clintons do, what they're about. As a Democrat, you were once idealistic and principled, weren't you? You know they're ethically murky, you rationalize it, you think the ends justify the means. Take a look at yourselves; were you always like this, or have you drifted over time, compromising here and there until you occupy another place than you once did? Are you being true to your real selves, or have you changed so much that you're not the same person?
pjsauter wrote on January 23, 2008 2:44 PM:I think Clinton and Obama both need sit in a corner of the Senate Office Building, and take an eight-year timeout. Let them go and help Chris Dodd fight against retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. Or at least not be conveniently out of town when the vote comes around.
anon wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 PM:Wow, people stop peddling falshoods. Check your facts first.
In 2005, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, bid $1.65 million for a house on the south side of Chicago. According to newspaper reports, the owner was also trying to sell an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the property Obama was buying, and he wanted the sales of the two to close on the same day. Obama has said that he mentioned he was buying the house to a longtime political patron, Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a developer. Rezko’s wife wound up buying the lot adjacent to Obama’s. At the request of the Obamas, who were seeking a bit more space for their yard, she later sold them a 10-foot wide strip, or about one-sixth, of her land. The Obamas paid $104,500 for it, or about one-sixth of what Mrs. Rezko had paid for the entire property.
Obama doesn’t appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 2:51 PM:True Blue wrote:
"As a Democrat, you were once idealistic and principled, weren't you?"
Yeah, but I got over those handicaps. I've seen too many good people suffer for their idealism and principles and I've seen too many not-so-good people carry away the gullible by pretending to be idealistic and principled. One obvious example of the latter is George W. Bush.
The last thing I want is a candidate backed by a dreamy movement with stars in their eyes. With Hillary, no one suffers from any illusions and we'll all be watching and skeptical.
N.B. wrote on January 23, 2008 2:56 PM:lombard
The only "illusion" is that you think the Clintons will be able to govern
with all the garbage they carry on their shoulders.
lombard: "Yeah, but I got over those handicaps."
Excuse me, when you describe the 2000 George W. Bush, aren't you describing what has become of Hillary in 2008? I'm not dreamy and I'm clear-eyed. It's just that I keep in mind the difference between right and wrong.
Incidentally, Hillary is drawing the majority of her support from women over 50 and working class people who apparently ARE "suffering from illusions" about Hillary. I guess a $100 million advertising campaign can make just about anyone palatable.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:00 PM:I am confident there is as much to the Rezco story as there was to Whitewater and Hillary's tremendous success speculating in cattle futures. Or the pardoning of Marc Rich. Or . . . well, does Hillary really want to make corruption allegations part of her campaign? Accusatory is not a good look for her.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:01 PM:TrueBlue,
"As a Democrat, you were once idealistic and principled, weren't you?"
About politics? Maybe, but then I turned 13....and spent a summer watching the Senate Watergate Hearings. I learned what real election sleaze was, and nothing the Clintons have ever done comes even close, even Bill, shockingly, lying about his own damn sex life. I suggest a few of you people do your homework.
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 3:03 PM:Dawn: just listen to yourself. Pathetic. You deserve what you're going to end up with.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 3:05 PM:N.B.,
Apparently you have amnesia.
Bill Clinton was able to govern effectively while carrying some "garbage on his shoulders." Hillary has been an effective senator and well thought of by a number of GOP colleagues on the Armed Services committee despite her baggage.
I also remember how the GOP took a naive and inexperienced Bill Clinton to school during his first term. I know they'll work just as hard to do the same with Obama.
colonpowwow wrote on January 23, 2008 3:08 PM:Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:41 PM:
"Come on what is with all the gd sex talk on this thread. Please, please, please clean it up. I don't recall seeing this much. It's really disgusting and in poor taste. Thank you."
Hahaha! You're killing me.
Sure thing, Michael A. You mean like you referencing Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky in your earlier post here slamming Hillary Clinton? What's your "joke" in reference to then, anyway?
No "gd sex talk" to see there. Move along Mr. Starr.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 3:10 PM:True Blue wrote:
"Excuse me, when you describe the 2000 George W. Bush, aren't you describing what has become of Hillary in 2008?"
No. Hillary is not like GWB. She is Richard Nixon in a pants suit. Nixon was a nasty campaigner but a moderate leader. Please keep your unfavorable GOP comparisons straight.
jose wrote on January 23, 2008 3:12 PM:Rezko is NOT even in the same ballpark as Whitewater. If we're talkinf about shady land deals, let's start there. Oh, and who killed Vince Foster???
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:12 PM:True Blue, according to most of the people here I'm going to end up with Obama as president, because everyone hates Hillary and she can't possibly win.
I don't mind that, although I do not think it is the best thing for the country.
timbnyc wrote on January 23, 2008 3:12 PM:What about Jeffrey Epstein, and Bill's personal and business relationship with him?
Anon wrote on January 23, 2008 3:13 PM:Greg: The Edwards' campaign statement about all this is much stronger than the except you posted. Here it is in it's entirety as posted in the Observer article:
UPDATE: Response just in from Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz:"This is a bungled version of what Edwards said, like a bad game of telephone. As John Edwards has said many times, Democrats would be crazy to nominate the wrong person against John McCain. People will think about whose finger they want on the button and question whether Senator Obama's experience may or may not cut it. Edwards has told reporters he's not going to talk about conversations with other candidates, but based on Monday night's debate with Obama using Wal-Mart and Hillary using Rezko, anyone who thinks this is over missed Senator Clinton's statement that they're just getting warmed up."
Since the reports of what was allegedly said have come to us third hand, and since reports of what somebody else said are notoriously innaccurate anyway, the accuracy of the Edwards' quote is questionable.
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 3:13 PM:Dawn: when I was 13 I began the process of becoming a Quaker with the expectation that I would file for conscientious objector status in protest of the Vietnam draft. Then, at 14, I stuffed envelopes for Eugene McCarthy. I was gassed outside the Justice Department protesting the war. In 1972, I interviewed reporters and editors for the Washington Post about why Watergate wasn't a big enough story to affect the 1972 elections. Some of us have worked through the phase of becoming hardened and ultra-cynical, and can't settle for lying, war-enabling garbage like the Clintons.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 3:14 PM:Dawn, you are the best!
TrueBlue,
"As a Democrat, you were once idealistic and principled, weren't you?"
"About politics? Maybe, but then I turned 13...."
Wish I had thought of that!
The Clintons were never found guilty of anything in that whole Whitewater investigation, which cost us taxpayers about eighty million dollars.
As a matter of record, they LOST money on their Whitewater real estate investment.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:17 PM:TrueBlue, that is all very admirable and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as am I. but I don't need lectures about my "real self" from anyone.
Georgia P wrote on January 23, 2008 3:17 PM:True Blue,
Perfect. Well said. You have explained 90% of clinton supporters that I know.
l'observateur wrote on January 23, 2008 3:18 PM:DOES ANYONE IN THIS BOARD REMEMBER THAT THE WHOLE REZKO SLAM WAS ONLY BROUGHT UP AFTER OBAMA'S WAL-MART JIBE? I MEAN, IT'S REALLY PATHETIC HOW PEOPLE MAKE IT OUT AS IF HILLARY SET OUT TO SMEAR OBAMA IN THE DEBATE WHEN THE OPPOSSITE HOLDS TRUE. SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS VENOM HERE. SURE, SHE'S NOT A SAINT BUT HELL, PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO RETALIATE WHEN ATTACKED. WOULDN'T YOU? OBAMA WAS THE FIRST ONE WHO GOT PERSONAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DRAGGED HILLARY DOWN WITH HIM. IT'S ALMOST OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE'S COMMON SENSE HOW PEOPLE HAVE PUT OBAMA IN SUCH HIGH A PEDESTAL THINKING HE'S THE ANTI-THESIS OF THE TRADITIONAL POLITICIAN. HE GOT TO WHERE HE IS BY PLAYING THE SAME GAME ALL THE OTHERS DID. HOW CAN U EXPECT ONE TREE TO PRODUCE TWO DIFFERENT FRUITS? BOTH HILLARY AND OBAMA, LIKE MOST POLITICIANS, HAVE SKELETONS IN THEIR CLOSETS. NOW IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF WHO COULD DO A BETTER JOB AS PRESIDENT DESPITE THOSE SKELETONS. HILLARY HANDLES HER SKELETONS BETTER THAN OBAMA DOES WHO, BY THE WAY, ADMITS TO NONE. SHE GETS MY VOTE!
Glad I gave you a laugh colonpowwow and what was graphic or "sex talk" in my post? Oh, that's right just distort, its the clinton way. I forgot that you were a clinton lover.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:21 PM:Thanks lombard...I can tell you also love getting lectured to on a personal level by people who don't know you at all.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:21 PM:Oh!TrueBlue, so true!
Yes, experience does count, the good & bad!
I would not say garbage but I would not argue against it either. Watergate, Iran-Contra Gate,Savings & Loan Crap, The Southern Strategy and Clinton whatever you want to call it, ENOUGH ALREADY!
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 3:23 PM:TrueBlue wrote:
"Some of us have worked through the phase of becoming hardened and ultra-cynical, and can't settle for lying, war-enabling garbage like the Clintons."
War enabling garbage, TrueBlue? My my, doesn't sound like Mother Teresa to me.
Well, then, you should consider a good number of Democratic politicians, including Obama to a degree, as war enabling garbage, too.
The authorization vote was typical by historical standards of bi-partisan deference to the president in foreign policy matters. I blame Bush and the neo-cons, not the people who voted for the authorization for exploiting the situation. If I couldn't get pass the authorization vote, my acceptable candidate pool would be too small.
By the way, we don't know how Obama would have voted on the authorization vote. Maybe "Present"
Elizabeth wrote on January 23, 2008 3:24 PM:Sen. Clinton's charge was that at a certain point in time Obama worked for a law firm representing Rezko in his "slumlord" activities. The honest answer to that was that at one point, he worked for a law firm that represented a church group involved in a project with Rezko and he performed about 5 hours work on that project. ------------ She wasn't **accusing** him of anything other than having represented R while working for the law firm, so (to my knowledge) his answer was perfectly accurate.
And do you really think that, in the middle of a very heated debate, he should have added "Now, of course I had other non-work-related contacts with him.. Let's see, I met him back in ___, and then the following years .........." ?????
And the only thing that Obama has been tagged with re: Rezco that is 'arguably' questionable is the house deal .. and Obama (being unlike Hillary) has admitted that because it could appear inappropriate was a 'dumb' thing to do.
And .... Hillary never volunteerd to explain her role in WalMart, did she?
To condone (or even tolerate) dishonest campaign tactics is the same thing as asking for a dishonest president. And we've had quite enough of those in recent years, in my opinion!!
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:25 PM:Clinton whatever you want to call it
Maybe some day people will spell out exactly what they are talking about with the so-called Clinton sleaze. Then I could answer real arguments instead of references to my lack of idealism.
G Davis wrote on January 23, 2008 3:26 PM:Wow...
The Clintons want to raise the question of shady deals? Bad people donating?
Let 'em...it just gives everyone permission to dive into all their mess.
Good grief. This nation so needs a new politics.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Try and fool yourself all you want but go back and remember his face when she said Resko. He shut right up. He knows. There is more. This is hardball. He brought this on himself. This is the Dems problem, lying to us. Selling this guy to us, not vetting him properly, not doing the work of background checking. Now the Clintons are using it and the right wingers will use it. This is the Dems and Obamas peoples doing it. Don't blame the Clintons, they are doing what anyone would do to win in politics. Blame the DNC.
dbh wrote on January 23, 2008 3:28 PM:Billary is doing Obama a favor, sanitizing this issue before the general election. While, of course, this has been well known in wonk circles for months, if Billary says it on stage in a gotcha retort, then it opens the 'misdemeanor' to a new audience, conveniently the week of an important primary. It takes a few weeks for the scandal to fade, especially one so innocuous, so I'm surprised Billary didn't save it for around Feb 2. Maybe she's thinking she can upset Obama in SC, and seal up the nomination early. It could backfire as the charge of dirty politics will linger a bit longer than the scandal when it is revealed. But a Rovian calculation if I ever saw one.
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 3:29 PM:Bill Clinton did more than any Democrat other than perhaps his old friend Joe Lieberman to enable the war. Look it up. He was shockingly supportive of Bush leading up to the invasion and well beyond. Oh, and his wife wanted to maintain presidential viability and authorized force. They have blood on their hands and have the nerve to swiftboat the guy who got it right at the outset.
cathe wrote on January 23, 2008 3:29 PM:Whitewater is over and done. Eight years with republicans in the majority and with Republican president tons and tons of investigations, tons and tons of bad publicity with no result.
With Rezco? Wow this is new and big. Lets put everything on the table. We can tell Obama is fresh and with good ability to make changes? How many years has he been a politician? And yet, he was able to collect contributions from
this guy. Maybe there's more to it than meets the eye. I will just wait and see.
Don't start a fight with Hillary. She probably has a venom in her mouth... but don't forget, it is there FOR A PURPOSE.
I am for Hillary---FOR A BETTER CHANGE.
Ass I said Elizabeth, prepare to repeat that mantra for the next six months as Obama is asked about Rezko in every press conference. That would have happened whether or not Hillary brought it up, since it was all over the Chicago Sun-Times last weekend.
And good for Hillary that she did not try to make a 30 second off-the-cuff misleading response to the Wal-Mart "charge". Hillary's role in Wal-Mart was that she sat on the board in the late '80's, when it was still run by Sam Walton, and was not the same company it is today. It was a huge employer in Arkansas, where she lived at the time. If you or Obama have some sleazy story about it that I have not heard, do tell.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 3:30 PM:Elizabeth wrote:
"And .... Hillary never volunteerd to explain her role in WalMart, did she?"
What's to explain? She was on the board of directors, a perfectly appropriate position for a corporate lawyer who also happened to be the first lady of Arkansas.
We're talking WalMart, not Enron. If she were on the board of the latter during the critical days, one might have to question whether or not she is guilty of any negligence.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 3:32 PM:Try and fool yourself all you want but go back and remember his face when she said Resko. He shut right up.
Huh? What debate were you watching? He shook his head slowly, in the way you do when you are listening to someone whom you know to be lying. Nothing about his demenor suggested that he felt scared or guilty when Sen Clinton was speaking.
Meanwhile, NPR addressed both the issue of Sen Obama's involvement with Mr Rezko and Sen Clinton's involvement with Wal-Mart yesterday. It is well worth listening on both counts.
wglad wrote on January 23, 2008 3:35 PM:Mrs. Clinton will be able to govern, Greg. You're mistaking your blog for the real world.
Kefa wrote on January 23, 2008 3:37 PM:How about his Today interview on single payer flip flop....maybe it was missed in here today.
http://wonkette.com/348003/barry-wants-to-spread-healthcare-somehow-or-not-whatever
The CLINTONS engage in sleazy political hanky-panky with key contributor. From yesterday's Boston Globe:
On Nov. 1, 2006, three weeks after the Norman Hsu indictment, the newpaper reported that Hsu was involved in the Clinton family's purchase of a red-brick home on a quiet South Side street near the University of Chicago, where Bill Clinton has taught law and wife Hillary is a vice president.
The Clintons closed on the house on June 15, 2006, for $1.65 million. The same day, Hsu's wife, Rita, bought a lot next door from the same sellers for $625,000. Clinton later told the Sun-Times that the sellers had required that both of the lots be sold simultaneously.
The Hsus later sold the lot, and also sold the Clintons a 10-foot-wide strip of land from the property for $104,500.
Clinton called that a "boneheaded" mistake.
"It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," Clinton said in a written statement. "For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."
Uh, I just reread this, and I may have gotten some of the names mixed up. But whoever they all were, this sure seems like an interesting "coincidence" - if not actually awfully sleazy on the surface - doesn't it?
If Obama thinks Hillary is bad, what does he think the GOP will do to him?
Toughen up son, it only gets worse.
JewishAmerican wrote on January 23, 2008 3:41 PM:I live in New York. So Obama got an endorsement for the New York Observer. Guess what? I never heard of it. I went to a newstand and found it. HaHaHa! Its a skinny little local paper. I'm not even sure its a daily. HaHaHa! Next Obama will be bragging about an endorsement from CraigsList! HaHaHa!
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 3:42 PM:"How about his Today interview on single payer flip flop....maybe it was missed in here today."
..any post where the author refers to Obama as "Barry" is not to be trusted, and if it came in newspaper form I'd suggest literally wiping your backside with it.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 3:44 PM:Mrs. Clinton will be able to govern, Greg. You're mistaking your blog for the real world.
I am pretty sure that the "Greg" to whom you are responding is not Mr Sargent. That said, your response brings up an issue - I had asked that Greg, when first he appeared on this blog, please to use some other name so as not to create confusion. Evidently he was not much impressed by my request (as is understandable; few people would be). As such, perhaps Mr Sargent might do us the favor of signing his responses "Greg S" or some such, so as to minimize confusion?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 3:45 PM:Oh! Dawn!
A "lack of idealism" is not the issue; the issue is time, experience, and character. The current day sport of the narrative or meme is a pretense for knowledge filled with trite rhetorical devices. Trueblue spoke of matters that are similar to the Clinton's recent actions except for not noting that their acts have been essentially child like. Simply, the order of turd blossoms is too strong for me and I suspect many others. As was stated: Clinton whatever you want to call it!
l'observateur wrote on January 23, 2008 3:47 PM:As president, what is Obama going to do when he is faced with controversial issues and he can no longer say PRESENT? I know, perhaps he can say YES or NO and if his position doesn't fly, maybe he can say "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT, YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION". But then again, he's going to be too worried about the next election to actually take any position so he's just going to have to let the Congress and Senate duke it out. That way he doesn't have to take the fall for anything. "They did it!"
Shine wrote on January 23, 2008 3:48 PM:Just wait about how Bill's current relationship with Ron Burhkle and the $20 million dollar payout he might soon receive from his interest in Yucaipa Cos comes out.
You know, Ron Burhkle, billionaire playboy who likes to jet around with BFF Bill, who wants California law changed so the records of his ugly and sleazy divorce are not made public.
Obama is in a bind because he promised a relatively clean campaign. For him to go aggressively negative can only hurt him. After all, one year ago most American outside of Chicago were saying "Barack Who?" In one short year he's pushed the wife of a one-time popular President (in approval ratings throughout his last six years in office) and the Democratic establishment to the wall, and he's extended the nomination process to a point we haven't seen since the 70's, all on a more or less positive message. I'd say he's done alright so far, even if he eventually loses.
However, Republicans promise no such restraint. Everything from Webb Hubbell to Ron Burkhle to giving Scientologist religion status for IRS purposes to Hillary's current channeling of Tracy Flick will be fair game. Obama has shown that there are a sizable number of voters who crave a "post-partisan" realignment. You can't win a general election appealing primarily to self-identified Democratic women over 45 y.o who make less than $50K per year. If McCain gets the nomination, he blunts Hillary on immigration issues, he takes men and independents and more than enough women. Hillary is road kill.
Angus Man wrote on January 23, 2008 3:48 PM:I too am a life long democrat who will stay home on election day if HRC is the nominee. I dispise her and at this point am not real fond of Bill either. No way she wins the general against anybody.
John McCutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 3:49 PM:Welcome to Denver 2008
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/21/national/21daley.xlarge1.jpg
Phidda wrote on January 23, 2008 3:50 PM:
So Bill gets 20 million for liquidating his interest in Ron Burkle's company and we are talking about a $1400 fence between landholders?
Wow.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:51 PM:No, Anonymous, TrueBlue specifically asked if I ever had any idealism. He/she made it the issue, not me.
Liam wrote on January 23, 2008 3:51 PM:
Why has Hillary not been asked to fully explain her brothers getting hundreds of thousands from convicted drug criminals in order to try and buy presidential pardons from her husband? Why is that story never fleshed out?
If you want to actually know what the Tony Rezko case is all about, here are some links:
"Sun-Times Exclusive: Obama surfaces in Rezko's federal corruption case"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article
RELATED STORIES
Obama donates more money from contributors linked to Rezko -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749966,oside_012008.article
Q&A: With Obama Presidential Campaign -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article#qa
Special Section: Barack Obama -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/index.html
FROM THE SUN-TIMES ARCHIVE
"Barack Obama and his slumlord patron" -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
"Why didn't City Hall stop him?" –
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/355099,cst-nws-rez24a.article
"Obama's letters for Rezko" –
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article
"Rezko cash triple what Obama says" -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article
"Obama: I didn't know about Rezko problems" -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/355098,CST-NWS-obama24.article
"Obama ducks the questions" –
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/356207,CST-EDT-carol25.article
"City should have cut off Rezko: aldermen" -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/358965,CST-NWS-rezko26.article
i just sent my comment about 20minutes ago. I wonder why was it not printed. Answer to my question is needed.
Thanks---cathe
Say no more, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more....
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 3:57 PM:The Clintons do get people talking and thinking..........about mud. They have seized the microphone; after all, they paid for it.
hello_world wrote on January 23, 2008 3:57 PM:I have no comment on this thread other than to say I love the multiple personality Tapper posts. Keep it up Tapper(s).
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:58 PM:Once again, I said that Obama did nothing wrong in his dealings with Rezko. All I am saying about that is that he was misleading in the debate the other night, pretending to barely know the guy.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 23, 2008 4:01 PM:Okay. So here is a politician (Senator Clinton) whose chief supporter is a disbarred lawyer who lied under oath, serially sexually harassed female employees and who hangs with very questionable fellows and she is calling Obama a bad fellow. Hillary has suckled at the breast of Karl Rove and imbibed every poisonous strain in the netherworld of politics.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 4:02 PM:Liam,
The Hugh Rodham story is fleshed out on wikipedia, for one place. I'm sure you can find more.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:03 PM:
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 3:51 PM:
No, Anonymous, TrueBlue specifically asked if I ever had any idealism. He/she made it the issue, not me.
What you missed: "a pretense for knowledge filled with trite rhetorical devices"
ENOUGH SAID!!!!
BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 4:10 PM:I'm loving it. She's taking him apart limb-by-limb. About time. He's toast.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 4:12 PM:"I'm loving it. She's taking him apart limb-by-limb. About time. He's toast."
Actually I'm loving it, Hillary desperation is really an extremely tasty dish.
DancingBear wrote on January 23, 2008 4:13 PM:Dawn wrote: "All I am saying about that is that he was misleading in the debate the other night, pretending to barely know the guy."
No, it was a direct answer to a direct accusation. Senator Clinton said he was doing legal work for Rezko. Obama said the only thing he did was 5 hours of work for this church-related project.
He wasn't misleading. Surely it's not your position that Obama should have volunteered a further discussion about his relationship with Rezko.
A great suggestion from Digby, regarding the impending FISA bill:
The next president of the United States is very likely to be one of two sitting senators who are, at the moment, the two most powerful people in the Democratic Party. Either one of them could bring their star power and future institutional clout to bear on this debate if they wanted to. Will they? I don't know. Maybe all you supporters out there should stop arguing amongst yourselves about trivia for a couple of minutes and ask them. You can go here to send a message: http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08
Point taken.
Wordie wrote on January 23, 2008 4:14 PM:Is anyone a else just a little bit suspicious of the Observer story, given that the paper's endorsement of Obama came out just today too?
http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama
Greg: The Edwards' campaign statement about all this is much stronger than the except you posted. Here it is in it's entirety as posted in the Observer article:
UPDATE: Response just in from Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz:"This is a bungled version of what Edwards said, like a bad game of telephone. As John Edwards has said many times, Democrats would be crazy to nominate the wrong person against John McCain. People will think about whose finger they want on the button and question whether Senator Obama's experience may or may not cut it. Edwards has told reporters he's not going to talk about conversations with other candidates, but based on Monday night's debate with Obama using Wal-Mart and Hillary using Rezko, anyone who thinks this is over missed Senator Clinton's statement that they're just getting warmed up."
Since the reports of what was allegedly said have come to us third hand, and since reports of what somebody else said are notoriously innaccurate anyway, the accuracy of the Edwards' quote is questionable.
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 4:24 PM:All right, cross posted with Dancing Bear so I will respond to his question, and then I'm taking my rhetorical devices and going home.
He wasn't misleading. Surely it's not your position that Obama should have volunteered a further discussion about his relationship with Rezko.
No,of course not. He could have said "My relationship with Tony Rezko has been thoroughly examined and exonerated." and moved on, even called Clinton out on nasty politics for bringing it up at all. As for his answer being misleading, read what he said again, and pretend you knew nothing about it already, as is the case with most people watching that debate. Wouldn't you come away with the opinion that he barely knew Rezko, or even had never met him personally at all? He wouldn't even say his name!
Does Hillary really want to start any discussion about reviewing how many hours Obama worked on Rezko matters? If 60 hours over 15 months working on Whitewater matters is de minimus, how many hours would Obama have to have worked on Rezko matters for it to count?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html
Liam wrote on January 23, 2008 4:40 PM:Did you folks catch the bit during the debate where Hillary had the nerve to challenge Senator Obama about a bill that he sponsored in Illinois to clamp down on Sexual Predators. What was Hillary thinking. Isn't she married to one of the most infamous sexual predators around. Was she afraid that Senator Obama's law might get her Philandering Willie locked up in Illinois!
BluePuppy wrote on January 23, 2008 4:42 PM:You Hillary-Haters have gone over the deep end. Josh Marshall or Greg Sargent should shut the comments section down.
wait wrote on January 23, 2008 4:54 PM:Just what is it about you Senator Obama supporters that makes you act exactly opposite of what your "inclusion" candidate preaches?
"Incidentally, Hillary is drawing the majority of her support from women over 50 and working class people who apparently ARE "suffering from illusions" about Hillary."
WatermelonGrower wrote on January 23, 2008 4:56 PM:Has anyone from the Illinois journalistic community scrutinized Barack Obama's years as a community organizer? He talks about it in his book, but what do others say NOW? I would like to know whether he played hardball for structural reforms or softball for crumbs from the big table.
hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 1:50 PM:
One thing obama doesn’t want is anybody looking at his first and most generous patron. Another thing obama doesn’t want is anybody looking at his record as a “community organizer. “
Hey BluePuppy, I support constructive discourse but to be fair the Clinton supporters are giving as much as they are taking. However they are consuming all the air in the room for Mr. Edwards. Personally I would like it we focused on issues, but TPM covers the media and unfortunately the media really enjoys roadside accidents and poor behavior. Seriously most Americans love bathing in the waters that is the spectacle, I find mostly abominable but people are free to choose for themselves even when its not in their best interest.
Gotta go, Stay Solid!
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 5:15 PM:John Edwards is an unprincipled whore. This whole thing is about innuendo. They're trying to worry voters about Obama's electability by suggesting that there's a huge scandal in his past. There's no scandal, and Edwards is a moron if he thinks he can help Hillary drive Obama out of the race.
There IS more than one huge scandal in the Clintons' past, by the way. Let's talk about Whitewater. Let's talk about sticking cigars up high school girls. Shall we, Bill? Let's talk about honesty. Let's talk about how you "did not have sexual relations with that woman" that you had sex with.
Let's ask Hillary if she's planning to return the furniture she stole from the White House if she's elected.
Any respect I had for Bill Clinton is long gone. And I've never had even a tiny amount of respect for Hillary.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 5:25 PM:"You Hillary-Haters have gone over the deep end. Josh Marshall or Greg Sargent should shut the comments section down."
Nope, keep them going...
cromacho wrote on January 23, 2008 5:42 PM:rezko is don corleone to barack's johnny fontane. gave him seed money as an upstart, helped him with the house, bailed out losing campaign to rush -- always there when he needed him. then barack dodges by saying the association was limited to 5 hours of legal work. talk about fairy tales. i'll take the clintons' shenanigans any time -- i so miss the $80 -million not-one-person-indicted whitewater probe, hillary's $1,000 cattle futures bet (vs. cheney's $30-M-and-counting halliburton parachute), the subpoena over their christmas card mailing list, capped by the blowjob impeachment. yeah, plus the clintons murdered ron brown and vince foster, they ran a world-class drug smuggling operation out of little rock, bill is a serial rapist, they murdered people around washington d.c....well just refer to richard mellon scaife's objective research and ask muqtada limbaugh for corroboration, as some posters here have obviously done. boy, clinton's misdeeds even came with the best u.s. economic performance in a century. paradise lost compared to $10 Billion cold cash in a bubble-wrapped pallet that disappears in thin air in iraq and $5-B in no-bid contracts to blackwater. the clintons may not be a likable pair, but my goodness, if people want to pile on, get over the kool aid hangover first and soberly look at the facts.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 5:50 PM:Mark F,
You need to get a grip on your emotions. You sound like a raving, paranoid lunatic.
I'll tell you what Clinton should do. She should distribute some of these comments in campaign flyers as illustration of the mentality of her opponent's supporters.
I'm sure it would never happen, but pulling a Sister Souljah moment on the loony left may actually enhance her credibility with the rest of the nation.
Metaphor wrote on January 23, 2008 5:50 PM:I would have never thought I could be so sickened by a President I defended in the face of an unjustifiable impeachment, and a woman who I proudly supported for Senator.
What a depressing reality check they've given us. I wasn't supporting Hillary because of her war vote. But the ugliness of their Rovian campaign tactics have left me stunned, and ashamed to call myself a democrat.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 5:55 PM:Metaphor wrote:
"I wasn't supporting Hillary because of her war vote. But the ugliness of their Rovian campaign tactics have left me stunned, and ashamed to call myself a democrat."
Maybe your pride will return when Obama gets the nomination and that same GOP political machine beats him like a drum.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 5:57 PM:lombard said
"You sound like a raving, paranoid lunatic."
You couldn't be more right. The Hillary-Haters are going off the deep end. They better be careful what they say or men in dark suits with mirrored glasses will be knocking on their door soon.
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 6:07 PM:Shine wrote:
"You can't win a general election appealing primarily to self-identified Democratic women over 45 y.o who make less than $50K per year."
That's funny! Not the actual statement which is, technically, true. The funny implication is that her voting base is very small and narrow while his is very large and diverse. In fact, judging by exit polls in the two most recent primary contests, his is much narrower than hers. Go to the Nevada exit poll and you'll see that he only had big margins in two demographic groups (the young and African Americans). The latter group are very loyal Democratic voters responding to a historic opportunity. The former group is notoriously unreliable. If my choice is appealing to women over 40 or kids, I don't have much trouble making that choice.
dcshungu wrote on January 23, 2008 6:10 PM:Obama and Antonin Rezko:
SC Debate
OBAMA: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.
For Obama to refer to his "Godfather" as this individual is the biggest fairy tale of them all...to date. The press and his "amen" crowd can give him a pass on his dissembling about one the chief architects of his political career, but the GOP smear machine won't have any qualms about wrapping the disgraced slumlord around Obama's neck. By the day, Obama is becoming more and more a roll of the dice for the Dems. He is so vulnerable on so many fronts now that he might well have a target drawn on him that says "hit me here!". Unless he comes clean now, the GOP smear machine would record a bull's eye with the "Tony" Rezko fiasco that is sure to knock Mr. Clean off his pedestal for yet another Dem GE loss.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:14 PM:"For Obama to refer to his "Godfather" as this individual is the biggest fairy tale of them all...to date. "
Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
cromacho wrote on January 23, 2008 6:14 PM:lombard said:
"Maybe your pride will return when Obama gets the nomination and that same GOP political machine beats him like a drum."
couldn't agree more. i don't think he'll get the nomination. but if he does "Kilroy was here" will be pasted over with "B. Hussein Obama" all over the 50 states and the rush-hannity-laura-savage-et.al. echo machine will be repeating that name incessantly. may not click on the coasts, but will do enough damage in the heartland. by summer of '09 barack will be the new julian bond. if he plays his cards right, he could be vice president to president clinton.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:18 PM:Bill Clinton says we don't want to roll the dice, but that is what she did when she handed George Bush his war. She threw the dice and decided it was politically advantageous to her politcal career. No courage...and oh, didn't you know in N.H., Bill Clinton said he was always against the war. That's the whopper of all whoppers. People have died. It's only the tip of the iceburg in the dirty tricks they've pulled in their quest for the W.H. Sorry, I don't see that much difference anymore between the Clintons and the GOP. Same stuff.
dcshungu wrote on January 23, 2008 6:22 PM:Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:14 PM:Taylor Marsh is a known hack, a paid operative for the Clinton Campaign - who's services including being a lemming-like shill and smearing Obama with hamfisted, semi-coherent diatribes. I've read more fluid articles from retarded stroke victims, you have got to try harder.
In that case, I guess the Clinton camp has also retained the services of the Chicago Sun-Times, which has been the only media outlet to go after this Senator Clean's latest "fairy tale."
lombard wrote on January 23, 2008 6:27 PM:Cromacho,
"Kilroy was here!" Love it.
I agree with you that his nomination is unlikely because enough Democrats appear to be taking the hard headed instead of romantic approach in this election.
His supporters want us to nominate another McGovern or, more appropriately, an Adlai Stevenson with soul. We've never won that way and the GOP is much meaner now than it was in the good old days.
dcshungu wrote on January 23, 2008 6:43 PM: Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:18 PM:Bill Clinton says we don't want to roll the dice, but that is what she did when she handed George Bush his war.
Totally mindless, that. The only thing that you got right was the part about this being Bush's War. Hillary could have voted "nay" or maybe just have imitated Obama by ducking the vote or voting "present", and the AUMF bill would have passed. The Village Idiot was going to get his war, one way or another, so please stop obsessing with it! The people do not care about that vote, and after Bill exposed the "fairy tale" that is Obama's purported Principled "Opposition" to the Iraq War (TM), I bet you that the issue has now become radioactive in his camp. Your candidate had better figure out how to deal with Antonin Rezko because I feel that this will be a huge headache for him, either now or down the road.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:51 PM:"In that case, I guess the Clinton camp has also retained the services of the Chicago Sun-Times, which has been the only media outlet to go after this Senator Clean's latest "fairy tale."
As long as you contrast that with the countless articles on Norman Hsu Whitewater, johnny Chung,the Lippo Group,Charlie Trie, millions of nontransparent dollars from the Saudis, Marc Rich, etc. Rezko who? Oh yeah, Taylor Marsh is still a complete hack.
Obama/Rezko-all part of the "vetting process". If he's clean then he's clean-if not, then what? Don't you wnat to know or continue to just go along believing that Obama is pure. Remember. These are politicians. The Internet/Blogs are making it possible for us to know so much more and almost immediately. I think it's great and a great value to us voters.
p.s. If you find and "honest one" let me know.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:57 PM:Yeah, that sticky wicket war vote. Says it all. I guess I'm being too harsh. Afterall what's a few thousand dead innocents when Bush was going to get his war anyway. Afterall, she was going to run for President, and it was the politically right vote, uhm, at the time.
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:58 PM:"The Village Idiot was going to get his war, one way or another, so please stop obsessing with it!"
But that just exposes a bigger point, Hillary always blabs on and on about how she didn't think that Bush was actually going to war - that he vote was for letting the inspectors do their job. Well, everyone knew that he was going to war - so that means that she's either a bold face liar or a person with an I.Q south of Britney Spears.
"The people do not care about that vote, and after Bill exposed the "fairy tale" that is Obama's purported Principled "Opposition" to the Iraq War (TM)"
Bill exposed himself to be a liar, since Obama has been against the war from the start - cherry picking parts of a speech works with the dopes, but not with people the rest of us.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 7:05 PM:lombard:
"... enough Democrats appear to be taking the hard headed instead of romantic approach in this election."
on that i'm not so sure, although i hope you're right. judging from the obama posters here, i'm not ready to agree with you that we can finally out-rove karl rove.
everybody's so "inspired" that they are ignoring the fact that a large democratic constituency -- larger than the black vote -- is in an unprecedented state of agitation but will spurn obama for complex reasons. latinos view blacks as frontliners in immigration-bashing. blacks view latinos as unfair competition for jobs. as we get closer to CA, TX, NY, FL, these fault lines will begin to be more obvious.
we got a glimpse of this in NV. why do you think obama skedaddled out of there without as much as a concession speech? they didn't know what hit them. the largest union, predominantly latino, endorsed him, but latinos voted for hillary by almost 3-to-1. so much for union leadership, huh, inspite of the big bucks spanish-language ad calling hillary "shameless."
just imagine feeling like the entire neighborhood is talking about how ugly and messy your house is? thanks to the republican debate reducing a complex issue to macho sound bites about who is toughest and how high the fence should be. remember the battleground states that literally turned on a thousand or so votes? NM. NV, AZ, even CO -- these states won't go to obama with a poor latino turnout. they may not vote republican, but they won't go for obama either. if obama is the nominee, he gets at least 30 electoral votes less than kerry did.
clinton-haters, deal with it. hillary is our only winning chance. or else resign yourself to bush part 3 under mccain.
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 7:08 PM:I'm guessing people who live outside IL/Chicago don't know much about the Rezko thing (who is connected to many Dems and Repubs around the country). But the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and others have gone after him for years now and to think that somehow the Clintons have info they don't is ludicrous.
Jon wrote on January 23, 2008 7:11 PM:dcshungu,
I would assume that it is mindless to go on repeating those things (like taking a swipe at "present" votes) that have been thoroughly debunked. If you dont have half a brain to educate yourself on the finer details of issues before you mouth off, I will not attempt to help you.
Billary supporters are now like the Republican drones who ran around repeating every Rove distortion and miscaracterzation of '02 and '04.
And by the way we have no way of knowing if the "villiage idiot" would have gotten his war if the Ds would have resisted, because the Democratic Establishment rolled over for him . . . and geuss what?, geuss what machine is the effective leader of the Democratic Establishment (the effective government in waiting), thats right its Billary!
And as far as Rezko, ummm you Billary supporters best not throw stones in your glass house . . . all of us Democrats have been defending the Clinton's moral slipperiness for far too long!
The Right has used their moral failings as a foil over and over again to frustrate the progressive agenda.
Enough! Clean house! Their willingness to distort, manipulate, and lie has been exposed to us: Democrats wake up, and vote Edwards or Obama, I dont care which.
PS. "Maybe your pride will return when Obama gets the nomination and that same GOP political machine beats him like a drum."
If Obama can survive the Clintons, anything and I mean anything the Repbulcans throw at him will look like a walk in the park!
dcshungu wrote on January 23, 2008 7:14 PM:ay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:51 PM:As long as you contrast that with the countless articles on Norman Hsu Whitewater, johnny Chung,the Lippo Group,Charlie Trie, millions of nontransparent dollars from the Saudis, Marc Rich, etc.
LOL. It is precisely why Obama is vulnerable and will be done in by this latest "fairy tale"! He is running for sainthood and Hillary is not. Everyone who supports Hillary knows that she is a "flawed" candidate, Norman Hsu, Whitewater, Marc Rich and all... On the other hand, those who have drunk the kool-aid and have gone gaga over the "messiah" believe him to be totally clean, just because he said so. But now enters Antonin, aka slumlord, to challenge that fairy tale. Can his supporters bear the shock of finding out that their "messiah", too, is just another flawed, albeit highly charismatic "articulate", pol?
cromacho wrote on January 23, 2008 7:18 PM:dcshungu,
you hit it out of the ballpark. you should run for prez. the "messiah" -- love it!
Obama haters, deal with it. The only thing that can unite the Republican party right now is Billary.
Billary has gone nuclear on their opponent and it is tearing the party apart.
But the dont care, they are counting on everyone falling back into line come general, but guess what, didn't happen when Kennedy went after Carter, and look what happened to us then.
Billary could make their case without the