Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Answering More Questions About Rezko

Updated 11:07 p.m.
By Peter Slevin
CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama, seeking to put to rest lingering questions about his relationship with indicted fundraiser and developer Antoin Rezko, met for roughly three hours Friday with investigative reporters and editorial board members of Chicago's two biggest newspapers.

Few details appeared new. Obama revised upward his estimate of the money that Rezko raised for his early campaigns, and he reiterated his mea culpa about coordinating the purchase of his Chicago home with Rezko and buying a piece of an adjoining property from Rezko and his wife.

Obama, who has made ethics a centerpiece of his career, told the Chicago Tribune that he made a mistake "in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." He said Rezko asked for no favors. He also said that, when Rezko was asked about news reports of his questionable dealings, he told Obama that they had no merit.

"My instinct was to believe him," Obama said, according to a report on the Tribune's web site.

Rezko is on trial in Chicago federal court, accused of using political influence to extort money from firms hoping to business with the Illinois government. Obama has no connection to the case.

Obama told the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times that Rezko, a significant contributor and fundraiser since early in his political career, may have gathered as much as $260,000 $250,000 for his six races before he launched his presidential bid.

In the past, the Obama campaign had cited roughly $160,000 in contributions linked to Rezko during Obama's winning 2004 Senate campaign. Those funds, later donated to charity, came from Rezko, his relatives and employees, and guests at a fundraiser at his home.

Reporters on both papers had been complaining that Obama was unwilling to address their questions about his relationship with Rezko and the real estate deal. The Obama campaign said Friday's twin sessions were an attempt to do so.

Late Friday night, the Obama campaign published records about the real estate deal on its Web site.

By Post Editor  |  March 14, 2008; 9:15 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: ActBlue Reports Raising $21 Million
Next: Clinton Gets Her Irish Up

Comments

So now Obama has answered lots of questions concerning his dealings with Rezko and the real estate advice he might have gotten from him. Nothing really earth-shattering and the money that Rezko might have given Obama are really a drop in the Ocean compared to what he got from ordinary people. But, hey, you never know what you get until you ask.

But since we are on the topic of shady fund-raisers and their dubious affairs, I was shocked to watch the videos on YouTube and read the bloggs dealing with Clinton's ties to Peter Paul back in the day when Clinton was running for NY Senate. They are the rave now on YouTube and bloggosphere but unfortunately it is a one sided conversation. I would like to see the same candor about the topic coming from the Clinton camp.

Here are the videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

Posted by: stoian_b2000 | March 15, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Barry's got the press eating out of his hand.

The guy who wrote this article bought his stuff hook, line and sinker.

Its a shame the press is gullible and falls for him so easily.

Its too bad Mike Wallace isn't on the case.

He'd see right through him.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

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

I wonder if anyone else watching this video of Reverend Wright noticed the man at the end of the video. It looks to me like this is Barrack Obama.

I would like anyone else's view on whether or not it is. You can only see it on the very last frame and have to stop and start it to actually get a still image to look at. Anyway, I would love to know what others think.

Posted by: chersplace | March 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I've begun to realize, that the Clintons rely so much on speculation, innuendo, and guilt by association, because that's all they have.

We don't need to guess at the Clintons ghosts. They are many and well-known.

Posted by: wolfi101 | March 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama should not be President, period. He can run when has some experience to discuss.

My very wise grandmother is 86 this year and she made damn sure she was at the polls on March 4th to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Texas primary.

With the current state of our economy putting our future at stake right now, we need the smartest most capable person running for office to clean up GW's nightmare of a mess.

I'm voting for Hillary R. Clinton to get us out of this looming great depression of a quagmire and this crazy war - not the man who crumbles after a few hard questions get asked of him.

Barack overspent on his own frickin' mansion and risked his political career to do so; is that the dude you want helping you raise your FICO credit score? We need to get our country out of debt, not hire someone who performs shady (oh, I mean naive) deals to prove he can keep up with the Jones's.

The question isn't whether favors were expected in this deal or who said what to whose wife or when - on how to carry this all out; this is about Barack Obama buying a place he couldn't afford.

But Barack had that immediate supporter willing to jump in at a moment's notice to buy the swath of land next door 'that was mandatory in the sale of the house' so the deal could go through.

Can you imagine selecting 'the perfect house you can't afford' and allowing 'a friend' to get his wife to 'help out' so you can suddenly close the deal? Who would do that when they are in a high profile career headed for the Presidency some day and the 'friend' who bankrolled the favor was undergoing grand jury investigations on serious matters at the time?

This is judgment I'd rather leave back at the Chicago Obama-Rezko mansion (with extra lawn) on the crisp blue nights when the red lighted phone rings 650 miles away over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to see how America is doing.

Portland, Oregon

Posted by: quantumgrrl | March 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

It is unfortunate that Obama has chosen to address the press about this issue so late in the game, and then has changed his story -- yet again.

Given his 20-year affiliations with Rezko and the enlightened views of his Pastor, I believe Obama has definitely put his position of "ethics in Washington" in jeopardy.

What is even more unfortunate is that this whole Democratic campaign has completely lost FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

All of the coverage of the "race" factor, the Pastor factor, the Clinton-Ferraro debacle, and the urge to defame the Clintons because they haven't presented their tax returns yet --- only continues to perpetuate the non-issues that shouldn't be part of this campaign.

I would encourage the media to focus on the FACTS as well, and share with the American public DETAILS about each candidate's platform as well as the TRUE experience they bring to the table.

I end with this - lets get EVERYONE to focus on what is critical to this Presidential race, and leave the petty squabbling coverage to the tabloids.

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Kevinlarmee wrote:

"Barack Obama defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes by 70% to 27%. The 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election. "

That is true, but he was running against an ultra conservative candidate, Alan Keyes, a Marylander who took up the campaign, and had to establish residency in the state to do so, less than three months before the general election after the original Republican nominee, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race because of sexual misconduct allegations from his wife.

I could have been elected US Senator by more than a two-to-one in that election.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY, THE DEMOCRATIC SUICIDE BOMBER

"When I hear Hillary Rodham Clinton say "We'll all be united in November", I realize how delusional the woman is."

untrue!

She will unite ALL Republicans, ALL independents, and ALL pissed-off Obama supporters to vote for McCain!


That's why her only major endorsement, of recent, has been from Rush Limbaugh.

Hillary is the Democratic Suicide Bomber who will take down country and party to keep running the race that she's already lost.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Well I am actually from Chicago, and re: the above post:

"no one (from Chicago)....believed the things that Obama claimes .."

is patently untrue!!

The people of Illinois are neither dumb, nor immoral...we vote as we see it. And re: Obama:


The people of Chicago love Obama

(and for good reason: he's intelligent, honest, and decent)

Posted by: kevinlarmee |

_______________

You really Really REALLY NEED TO WORK on reading comprehensin skills. Try a remedial reading class.

I stated that no onei Chicago would beleive the kinds of things Obama claimed to believe and referenced the Chicago Trib article containing his comments.

GO READ IT - he blathers on to the Trib about being so cluelessly about how Chicago politics work that it just never occurred to him that the powerbrokers might one day expect something in return.

And that is what no one in Chicago who has the slightest idea of things work there would ever believe.

Honestly, the Obama cultists work overitime at excuses and spin.

As far as his elections go:

(1) Senate race - he was running against opponents who were the political equivalent of dead men. Until his 2 opponents self-destructed in scandals, he was DEAD LAST. Keyes was a warm body to fill the republican ticket at the last minute and didn't even really live in Illinois before that.

Most unimpressive.

(2) Primary? Yawn. A dead man could win his home state's primary as a favorite son vote.


Posted by: eabpmn | March 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, let me guess, Ralph Nader?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain is just about crazy. Look at this week's New Yorker. Shheeesh. I think we all know why the D partisans are so ferocious. This primary is the election.+

McCain is going to implode. And then the is the money the Ds will raise and the D turnout in the general election will overwhelm the Rs no matter who they run.

The economy will be in deep recession by then and McCain will own it. Look at Bush's speech yesterday in New York (see Gail Collins column about it too).

We will have the Clintons or the Obamas living in the White House next year.

Both couples sure do have some issues. But the Clintons' personal and business related corruption makes the Obamas look like pikers. Barak has one moron for a minister and had a shady friend/colleague.

Bill and Hillary? Too many to disgusting relations to count. For example, the instant millions made by the corrupt, neophyte Canadian uranium magnate in Kazakhstan on his junket with Bill makes anything Rezko has ever done look silly.

www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

After all, do you think we have more to fear from a dictatorship in Asia selling uranium to crooks...or an incompetent real estate crook in Chicago? Thanks a lot Bill Clinton! Isn't there any better way you could think of to make some quick cash for your campaign? You and Cheney have a lot in common.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

LABC:

So you think I do support Hillary or Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | March 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I am. Their signature of their posts are unmistakable. It's the same people who blogged for Iraq war, and it's the same people who blog for a war against Iran. (and, by the by, it's the same people blogging a hate-campaign against Muslims)

If your suggesting that Arkansas is where people know Hillary the best...then, I guess, you mean as a first lady (and not as a Senator).

In New York...(where she has a job, i.e. being Senator) she won only 57% of the votes, compared to Obama winning 40%. (and these are the "unofficial" results...i.e. the results that showed Obama winning 0 votes in many places...like Harlem)..(which, if you believe that it's possible to win 0 votes...you'll believe anything.)

By contrast...Barack won 65% of the votes in Illinois...(compared to Hillary's 33%)..and again, that for the whole state, which includes many Republican areas.

When you look at these numbers...it's obvious that the people of Illinois love Obama..(much more than the people of NY love Hillary)

And for good reason:
He's decent, honest, and intelligent...(something almost unheard of in American politics) (and thus the smear campaign)

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Kevinlarmee, wrote "WHO'S POSTING ANTI-OBAMA SMEARS?
The real purpose is to promote WAR"

I see you sre still peddling Conspiracy Theory II


Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

kevinlarmee wrote, " meant to say in the Senatorial race he won MORE than 2 to 1 against his Republican rival.
and, it's not just Chicago...in the latest Illinois Primary, Obama beat Hillary: 65% to 33% (again, one point shy of being 2 to 1)Those who know him best, those voters in Illinois (and Chicago) love and respect Obama'

Since Arkansaw voted Hillary 70% 217,313 versus Obama 26% 80,774 (over 2 to 1)where people know Hillary best the point is!

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Trust my judgment" Obama previously said he made a bone-headed mistake in letting Rezko help him buy his home; now there are "repeated lapses of judgment", i.e., boneheaded mistakes.

"Honest Abe" Obama has repeatedly said Rezko only gave him 40,000, which he sanctimoniously turned over to charity when challenged. Trust his judgment during his Illinois senate experience then, but the $250,000 Rezko gave him then was NOT relevant.

Everyone in Chicago knew and knows who and what Rezko is. A crook, a shakedown artist, and an influence peddler. Please do not feign shock Obama, and watch out while your falling off that pedestal.

As to his groupies, grow up. Obama is nothing new. We've got hundreds more like him here in Chicago. Take your pick.

Superdelegates, do your job.

Posted by: Chicago1 | March 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

When I hear Hillary Rodham Clinton say "We'll all be united in November", I realize how delusional the woman is. If she's the nominee, there may not be riots but there will be Democrats who will stay home in droves. The woman cannot win after the campaign that she has run.

Posted by: Lilly1 | March 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama, who has made ethics a centerpiece of his career, told the Chicago Tribune that he made a MISTAKE "in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." He said Obama said that, "Rezko asked for no favors and when Rezko was asked about news reports of his questionable dealings, he told Obama that they had no merit.
"My INSTINCT was to believe him," Obama said.

Obama failed to see the conflicts with calling a hate mongering Pastor his inspiration, mentor, and Uncle.

Obama is a smart man. He knew prior to aligning himself with them the political ramifications. He really belives the American people are naive and will overlook his POOR JUDGEMENT because he gives a great speech and has a nice smile. What kind of backroom deals will he make with North Korea, Iran, Palistine.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

So now we see the Clintons' fat cats threatening the DNC with pulling their support if they don't let the Clintons stay in the delegate hunt. How pathetic Clinton people are. So obvious now, if it can't be us, we'll try to help McCain win.

The laughable part is the amount of money at stake. Obama can raise more than they are talking about in one morning, just by asking. Can you even imagine Obama threatening the DNC if they let the Clintons extort more delegates? He just is not that kind of person, but the Clintons? No one is surprised they are doing this. We have see how craven they are in so many ways that we have all gotten used to it.

Obama does make mistakes; the Clintons never do, this just happens to be who they are.

Let her spoiled fat cats pull their money from the DNC. It is pocket change compared to what Obama will raise when the general election comes.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has the air of a compulsive gambler, throwing good money after bad. Sadly, she's mortgaged the future of the democratic party. As McCain creeps in the polls, we have hillary to thank.

Posted by: maq1 | March 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

It seems Obama troops are in the fallback mode. They would say, "Rezko? Oh it's just one minor mistake, the rest of Obama is still pristine clean," followed next by, "Jeremiah Wright? Oh, it's just a second mistake; Hillary has a lot more," and finally, "So what's wrong with a bunch of errors of judgment, they can't possibly be worse than Hillary's." Well, if those political naivetes got their way, it would end with Obama and his diehard supporters in a Berlin bunker singing a tune from Wagner's Gotterdammerung while McCain and his Republican troops administer the coup de grace.

Posted by: GeorgePS | March 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania-we have a problem. Rezco donated 250 grand in donations not the previously states 150 grand.
He also never once in twenty years heard his pastor Wright express any of the hateful anti-American bigotry we have seen on tape?
It is Ok however for Obama to lambaste Ferraro and Bill Clinton. Talk about hypocrisy. This guy has been given a free pass from the media for entirely too long. If I had voted for him, I would be having serious buyers remorse.

Posted by: thejaner | March 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

A very, very interesting summary from an Obama supporter. He/she sounds truly shaken. Here's the link if you wanna sound-off:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-judgment-wright-or-wron.php

Posted by: Umbria | March 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

this is like the simpsons when Burns ran for Gov? I must say I like irony.

Blinky the fish. Just like checkers. (any way the plot starts with a 3 eyed fish near the plant very funny and real to life)

Gen X rules. Obamabi Gen tools.

HRC thanks for not giving up.

MSNBC does pale imitation of FOX last night but even those tools could not spine this one.

Posted by: mul | March 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama sold him self on the Big Lie.

No exp. needed
We are one America (we are getting closer)
Just be nice
I am pure
I never say bad things (save calling all our democratic peeps racist Bill, Garry, Uncle Tom black pol. who don't support me)
I am black (lived in the Pacific and Kansas with whites and Asians until he was 18)

It seems like his whole Pres. message was the reverse of the Preacher Man.

Anyway Obama can't win. Rezco just shows he can be corrupt for a state legislator.

Why did he not wait 8 years and run on a proven record? One more bad judgment from Obama.

Posted by: mul | March 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Drip...Drip...Drip!!! Here it comes a little at a time. Senator Obama has done this to himself. He knew all this anti-American and Rezco stuff and hoped it would not surface. Is that what he means by the "Audacity of Hope"??? I am particularly sorry that he is misleading our youth. They trusted him and he has let them down.

Posted by: xseagull | March 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Barack reminds me of Yesterday's Fish.

In the Garbage Can! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 15, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

yugi81891:

I am not African-American -- I will also not attend any riot -- if you read some more of my posts, perhaps you will see that I am so well-educated that I don't support either Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Hillary DIANE Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | March 14, 2008 11:28 PM

**********************************
Congrats, you're both f*cking idiots...

Keep up the fantasy, JakeD, as fast as your stubby little hands can type - well-educated people are not buying your spin.

Posted by: LABC | March 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

*yawn*

Posted by: molotov | March 15, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't know Rezko that well- CNN SC Debate

But we bought house and land
On the "same day" next to each other
I bought 10 ft of Rezko's land
Now Rezko can not build his house on the land
My kids can only play in Rezko's land
But they hate Rezko too

Lier, Lier, pants on fire

Golden tongue, satanic soul, devious intentions?

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 15, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons have more than their share of questionable dealings. But the candidates own beliefs and actions are most important.

Hillary fails any test of honesty and fairness with her claim that the Michigan primary is valid and her 55% win over UNCOMMITTED should be used for the nomination.

She agreed with the other candidates and the DNC that MI wouldn't count but now she says she was smart to leave her name on the ballot.

How can any self-respecting Democrat give this lying cheater the time of day?

Posted by: jjacobs_msn | March 15, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

One more comment re: Chicago & Obama
I meant to say in the Senatorial race he won MORE than 2 to 1 against his Republican rival.

and, it's not just Chicago...in the latest Illinois Primary, Obama beat Hillary: 65% to 33% (again, one point shy of being 2 to 1)

Those who know him best, those voters in Illinois (and Chicago) love and respect Obama
(look at the numbers!...and remember..there's a lot of Republicans in Illinois....particularly down-state and in the suburbs...yet, they voted for him)

(and again, for good reason...he's decent, honest, and intelligent)

He'll make a great president.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 15, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

Well I am actually from Chicago, and re: the above post:

"no one (from Chicago)....believed the things that Obama claimes .."

is patently untrue!!

The people of Illinois are neither dumb, nor immoral...we vote as we see it. And re: Obama:

In the latest Democratic Primary, Chicago voted 69% for Obama (compared to 29% for Hillary). (that's more than 2 to 1!)

so, obviously, the people of Chicago believe in Barack Obama.

Re: Obama running for the senate:

Barack Obama defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes by 70% to 27%. The 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election. (almost 2 to 1 & that includes a lot of "Republican" areas, particularly down-state)

One only has to commute on Lake Shore Drive to see that almost every other car has a Barack Obama '08 bumper sticker.

That the (once very, very) Republican newspaper The Chicago Tribune(that TWICE endorsed George Bush) (it now has a new owner) has loonies writing commentaries...means nothing (look at some of these posts!)

The people of Chicago love Obama

(and for good reason: he's intelligent, honest, and decent)


Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 15, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

WHERE ARE THE CLINTON TAX RETURNS? THEY ARE OLD TAXES SO THE APRIL 15 DATE MENTIONED BY CLINTON IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
WHERE ARE THE CLINTON PAPERS ON THE LIST OF DONORS TO THE CLINTON LIBRARY?
WHERE ARE THE LOGS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE RELATING TO THE FIRST LADY?
WHY ARE THE CLINTONS STONEWALLING HERE?
AT LEAST OBAMA HAS BEEN OPEN ABOUT RELEASING HIS TAXES, EARMARKS, DISMISSING HIS FORMER MINISTER, AND HONEST ABOUT RESKO.
WE ARE ALL WAITING SEN. CLINTON...

Posted by: awg1967 | March 15, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and Barack both have huge amounts of support and Clinton is certainly improving or broadening hers as these charts in this report indicate;

Hillary vs. Barack-
The Google Factor:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Now the question is- will the rest of the Democrats fall in line behind the chosen nominee?

Posted by: davidmwe | March 15, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

WHO'S POSTING ANTI-OBAMA SMEARS?

you may think that it's just a couple of "loonies"....but it's not.

It's an organized campaign.

And it's the same people who campaigned for the war in Iraq (and now Iran)

(their methods, smears; their signature is unmistakable)

It's not a couple of "loonies", instead it's an organized campaign

and the purpose is not (just) to promote Hillary, or McCain...

(either of whom would be fine for them)

The real purpose is to promote WAR

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 15, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"Late Friday night, the Obama campaign published records about the real estate deal on its Web site."

What does it say that the Clinton campaign considers Hillary's taxes more toxic than Obama's real estate deal?

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 15, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

"I think it is unusually veracious for a politician to voluntarily meet with the press in order to himself raise the issue of a controversial donor."

You gotta be kidding, he's been asked about this since late 2006 and has given different answers every time. Each time the press susses out that Obama has BS'ed them, so then he has to go back to polish his story again.

So now Obama admits to getting $250,000. That is a long way from the $50,000 where he started. After Obama's first failed run, he went into dept $500,000. What will the story be next week? $300,000???

The point here is not that the was hanging with Rezko, it is impossible for politicians to avoid some contact with sleezeballs, that goes with the territory.

The point is he has repeatedly and intentionally shaded and lied about his political relationship with Rezko. Why did he do that when if, as he contends, he did nothing wrong?

What else don't we know? Obama has lost his credibility.

Posted by: plaza04433 | March 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Now, I will begin by saying that we are FROM CHICAGO - I lived there 10 years and my husband 25 after he moved there to attend the Univeristy of Chicago Law School. I pulled up the Chicago Trib story and read it aloud to him. By the end, I was having trouble reading aloud while giggling and he was sitting there with his mouth open.

(1) No one - absolutely NO ONE - who has even a passing knowledge of Chicago politics function and managed to get appointed or elected to even the most minor job would ever have thought or believed the things that Obama claimes to have thought or believed about his dealings with Rezko.

(2) Anyone in Chicago can tell you that a quid pro quo is IMPLIED in all dealings with the power brokers and money folks in Chicago politics. it is not said, it is not mentioned aloud but someday, maybe sooner, maybe years or decades later, there will be something expected in return. The political contacts are made, circles are formed. allegiences are made (implicity or explicitly), and 'things' get done. If you don't grasp that fact, you don't get elected dog - you don't even get a job cleaning the streets - and are as thick as two bricks.

Now, my degrees are in history, political science and law and I worked as a US Congressional aide when I was younger so I was having a real hard time after the 3rd or 4th paragraph reading aloud while containing the laughter.

When I finished reading, my husband simply said in a stunned tone of voice "He is lying or he is too stupid to live on his own without a keeper. There are no other choices. Not for someone who came up in Chicago politics."

(And we ARE Democrats.)


Here is the link to the Chic Trib
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,2968927.story?page=1

If you read the comments, you will see that Chicagoans are most definitely NOT buying the 'oh gee whiz, I was naive and nobody came out and TOLD me favors might be expected down the road" cock 'n bull story.


BTW: copernicus73 wrote " think it is unusually veracious for a politician to voluntarily meet with the press in order to himself raise the issue of a controversial donor.
I think he's surprisingly untainted for someone who has been an elected politician for 12 years.


(1) Obama has NOT been in office anywhere for 12 years. He had 7 years in the part-time Illinois legislature and then has just barely managed 2 years in the US Senate (and was there less than 10 months before he decided he was fit to run the country.)

(2) It is the oldest trial lawyer's trick in the book. If you know there are some potentially dmamging facts or information, you get them out in front of the jury first so you can try to defuse it and it is not your opponent who brings it up. Makes you (meaning your clinet) look like they are being honest and upright about everything - the good and the bad.

Posted by: eabpmn | March 15, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

It's OVER.

Obama is unelectable.

Obama did a terrible job tonight on the news shows. He made HUGE, politically suicidal mistakes.

1. Obama attemtped to defend his "pastor" Wright. HUGE mistake. He needed to separate himself from the anti-white, anti-semitic, anti-America, pro-Farakaan Nation of Islam supporter. Instead, Obama defended Wright and dug an even deeper hole for himself. This alone has sunk him. THIS is the man Obama calls his "mentor" and "personal friend of nearly 20 years?" Why?


2. Obama claimed he has "never" heard Wright speak in such terms. Okay. Just wait till tomorrow when someone proves him a liar. Stupid.

3. Obama said he will continue to attend this "church.

4. Obama disclosed today that he has not told the entire truth about his contributions from Rezko who is on criminal trial in Chicago. This is a HUGE story that will also sink Obama.

Not only is Obama unelectable to the Presidency, he's a toxic VP choice, and probably won't even be re-electable to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. He's toast.

Posted by: TAH1 | March 15, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Hey Jake, don't wait, get in the streets today. Location, Location, Location Jake.

Posted by: electress | March 15, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

yugi81891:

I am not African-American -- I will also not attend any riot -- if you read some more of my posts, perhaps you will see that I am so well-educated that I don't support either Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Hillary DIANE Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | March 14, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

JakeD maybe you're the only one will attend the riot. I bet you are black. Thank you but I will not join you on your riot because I'm a WELL EDUCATED PERSON.

Posted by: yugi81891 | March 14, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Obam can not be trusted. He has so many twisted excuses when finally confronted. Obama accussed Hillary of poor judgement while he did practice poor judgement also.At least Hillary vpted for Iraq war was not a secret but Obama dealing wuth Mr. rezko was a secret not until it got out to the media before Obama admitted it. Obama for president? We don't think so. Obama has no originality. Nost of his speeches came from others. As what the Chicago sun paper said, there was nothing BOLD about Obama but the black people still supporting him because he is black. Ms. Ferraro was right and I saluting Ms. Ferraro not backing down what for she said. Yes, It works on Bill Clinton. The traitor black voters silence Bill but not Ms. Ferraro. Obama camp is the one playing racial card in this nomination. If Obama get elected for democrat nomination, we HOPE the MCCain Machine attack will crush Obama down. There were too many secrets about Obama that we do not know and the media refuse to air them because Obama is so charismatic that they are helping him to maintain a good image in the public eyes and being unfair to Hillary. I'm wondering what so charismatic about Obama. I find him malnorished with a funny long face and especially Michelle Obama, can someone teach and show her how to dress and be presentable. It will be disgarce to other world if Obamas become our country representive or maybe especially Michelle will learn how to dress up while in the white house by hiring the best courturier and pay by public tax payers and Barack will leran how to run foreign policy, economy, and local issues by his campaign group on his side in the white house.

Posted by: yugi81891 | March 14, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Keep it up, copernicus, please!! Meanwhile, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could be "ruinous" for the Democratic Party if the contest isn't resolved before the August nominating convention. And, John SIDNEY McCain is fundraising across the pond (didn't someone here suggest that Obama go to Europe too?)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/mccains-london-fund-raiser/

Posted by: JakeD | March 14, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I think it is unusually veracious for a politician to voluntarily meet with the press in order to himself raise the issue of a controversial donor.
Given all the press coverage and uproar about Tony Rezko, I do wonder why no one addressed the Clintons' 300+ shady donors/ associates/ presidential pardons in exchange for contributions/cattle futures/Whitewater/undisclosed donors to the Clinton Library/current undisclosed overseas business associates - the list could go on and on. I am not saying the Clintons are guilty of wrongdoing in these countless scandals - they may just have had the misfortune of unknowingly associating with questionable people. I am merely pointing out that there are many "Rezkos" in their closet.
Tony Rezko on the other hand, is ONE man, if this is the biggest scandal they can find on Obama, I think he's surprisingly untainted for someone who has been an elected politician for 12 years.

Posted by: copernicus73 | March 14, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I think the Democrats are just keeping their fingers cross that the other candidate's supporters coalesce around the eventual nominee -- I just don't see that as very likely any more -- especially if Hillary DIANE Clinton steals the nomination, there will be rioting in the streets.

Posted by: JakeD | March 14, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The latest poll from Ohio today shows McCain in a very strong position against both Democrats, leading them by 6%: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/friday-polls-general-election-polls.html

McCain is starting to enjoy quite an impressing string of polls. Democrats better find a way to counter this fast.

Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 14, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company