35 Comments - Squideshi - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 8:50 am: I’m not convinced that the Clintonistas will attempt to eat Obama alive. The Democratic Party is really good at putting charismatic candidates out in front of the public and trying to convince us that this time things will be different, or this candidate is the one. We always seem to find out later that we keep getting fooled. In summary, maybe we shouldn’t assume that there will be a battle within the Democratic Party–Obama may simply be party of the strategy. - SouthernILRepub - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:03 am: Being able to like Barack Obama is one thing, I think there are very few people who will disagree with the fact he is likable. However will Obama have the ability to lead a nation, that is up for debate and thats why we have elections to decide our leaders. The primary process will be the proof that one would need to decide who will be the standard bearer for the Democrats and Republicans. I wish the readers of this blog would realize that to speculate the results of the Democratic or Republican primary in ‘08 are too premature. Sen. Obama still has a lot to prove to the voters of the nation. He still has some low name id (40%) as of the polls from early December. Sure he will have a capable staff and can fight amongst the Clintonians. Hillary is her own worst enemy. Rich just weeks ago you were very critical of Obamarama, have you changed your tune? You are one of the few press people that would have the ability to share true insight of Obama. - DeepFriedOnAStick - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:11 am: Miller, You’re convinced that Obama and his people forced the Blair Hull garbage into the light? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:13 am: Remember Lincoln went into the Civil War to keep the Union unified, not end slavery. After 100,000’s of Americans died under his administration of a dismal war effort, he finally called for an end slavery and energized the North. Barak Hussein Obama Lincoln has that in him-, wait until critical mass of death and destruction first, then maybe face up to a dismal war effort and sky rocketing pentagon budget. - SouthernILRepub - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:18 am: 12/19/06 Here’s a good place to start: Why did Obama get a big discount on his house while Rezko paid full price for the lot next door (which was originally part of the same property)? Did Rezko actively and knowingly subsidize Obama’s discounted purchase price by paying the seller full price for the vacant lot? Obama has usually successfully shifted the discussion to his purchase of a portion of the Rezko land for more than he should have paid. But it’s that first purchase that I have the most qualms about. - Ihatedoubledee - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:26 am: Obama was a back bencher in Illinois Politics and he’s a back bencher in the US Congress. His party held control of the State Senate during his tenure and he still wasn’t able to make huge change. Bottom line he is was to much of a novice to even consider a run for president. He may be able to raise a great deal of cash in Illinois, however, on the National level he’s going to run into some bigger and more skilled players that are going to make him look someone that is out of their league. If people want someone that is a moderate and is well respected they should vote for McCain becuase let’s face it anyone who runs against him is going to have an even harder time than they did in winning their primary. - bored now - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:35 am: i’d suggest that the clinton’s are much better at recovering from their own missteps than they are at taking down an opponent. unless you think that newt gingrich was a brilliant politician, the clintons showed little ability at parrying gop attacks — until they went too far (eg, shutting down the government, impeachment). i’d argue that the clintons are better at taking credit for the accomplishments of their opponents than they are at destroying their opponents. the thing about obama is that he fills a huge hole in the democratic (party’s) psyche. my whole life, democrats have been looking for the second coming of camelot. obama, not by design, fills that desire. democrats have, since carter it seems, trouble offering voters hope, a positive view of the future that includes all americans (from their own perspective). again, obama fills that need. obama offers the perfect alternative to those of us who know that america will not elect another clinton, let alone perpetuate the dynastic presidential cycle we’ve unexpectedly been in. and obama offers the hope of the reversal of the silent prejudice that has been hidden from view, but remains part of business and government since the castration of the civil rights movement. obama represents a new hope that america can not only grasp, but cling to. - SangamoGoP - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:41 am: Let’s not fail to mention Steinberg’s jubiliant comments in today’s Sun-Times. He perfectly captures the media frenzy and why the US is so taken with Mr. Obama - he is being fed to the public on the silver platter of glowing “journalism”: “This item is directed toward that puzzled third, wondering why Obama announcing the formation of an exploratory committee for his presidential bid deserves attention at all, never mind the full blown Mardi Gras we in the press are holding. Let me explain the appeal. Look at the stiffs the Democrats have put up for the highest office: John Kerry. Al Gore (who might be a tousle-haired prophet now but came off like a wooden board when it counted). Then skip the aberration of Bill Clinton and we have Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale. The Democrats were set to add to this grim legacy, their doom all but sealed, facing certain defeat as the party backing America’s own Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Hillary Clinton. And along comes Barack Obama — deus ex machina! — to solve all their, and the nation’s, woes. Of course we’d go nuts over him. We can’t help it.” Ugh. - Ihatedoubledee - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:41 am: Again, what is the hope that Obama brings to the table he has very few ideas for good lord even a plan! to bring change to the United States. No one argues that we need a change. However, having two president’s in a row that allegedly did coke would not be the best idea for the people of the United States. - Patriot - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:49 am: Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are like prize fighters. Neither one wants to enter the ring first. I bet Hillary will hold out the longest. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:51 am: I watched a bit of Dick Morris on Hannity and Colms last night. He said Obama was running a 2000 campaign, faster, earlier, heavey use of internet… Clinton was running a pre internet 1990s campaign…. She had talked of doing mail out cards instead of email… stuff like that. - abouttime - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 10:02 am: ihatedoubledee — Sorry to say, but all of our presidents have had moral deficiencies. Whether it is cheating on their wives(about all of them), doing blow (43), having ‘relations’ with their slaves (Jefferson), being a drunk (Grant) on and on. Don’t buy into this media crap that says you can’t have a history and run for office or be President (even a good one). Whose left? At least Obama was honest about it. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 10:07 am: In the primaries, Obama will win 90% + of the black vote and 50-75% of the progressive vote. Hillary will have a slight advantage with women voters. The big battle, especially in midwestern states and especially in Iowa, will be over organized labor. Clinton has the insider advantage in labor, but she also has the baggage. Labor leaders — who are overwhelmingly male — don’t have the strongest record of supporting female candidates, and they never really warmed up to Hillary as First Lady. Then, there is of course NAFTA, which was Bill Clinton’s creation and still leaves rank-and-file union members, especially those that vote in Democratic primaries, seething. - Ihatedoubledee - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 10:07 am: Abouttime- The drug use aside you and no one else can really….still… say what Obama is about what is the plan that he brings to the table. He hasn’t laid one out as a Senator in the Majority he simply wants to attack and critique the republicans. If he really wanted to run for President he should be a vocal advocate for change that involves a “plan” where is it folks? He is still an elected official in the US Senate he and his fellow Illinois Senator have simply come up short in doing what they were elected to do, unless you consider baseless rhetoric part of the job. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 10:36 am: If the situation in the Middle East continues as it has, and Bush and Condi seemingly are totally without viable new options so it likely will do so, the primary challenges for the next President will be foreign affairs, not domestic. This is unfortunate, because it means more and more of US citizens’ money will go to overseas war or to buy alliances in the Middle East and elsewhere. So there will be much less for domestic initiatives. Say bye to universal health insurance or better funding of NCLB And just as it is pointless for Republican to blame their current status in Illinois on George Ryan, it will be increasingly pointless for the next President to blame a toxic Middle East situation on George Bush. Bush is a lame duck president who, in practical terms, is already gone. So, what of Obama’s foreign policy creds? Well, they are pretty much nonexistent. And his few proposals are notable for their fence-sitting qualities. Like waffling on the nonbinding resolution to cut off money for future troop increases. At least Hillary has finally had the courage to come out for a cap (coupled with an increase in Afghanistan troops so she looks tough). So if our oil supplies are about to be cut off in 2008, Iran has the bomb, and the Middle East is in turmoil, the nation is going to vote for an untested former state and national senator who can’t make up his mind on anything but is a good talker? I don’t think so. They’ll vote for McCain or Giuliani. Dems who see Obama as the next Messiah should take note. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 11:12 am: In relation to the Rezko deal, people like SouthernILRepub wonder why Obama got a reduction on the sales price for the house while Rezko paid full price for the lot. While I’m not a real estate person, I’m in Chicago and have a sense of what is going on. Kenwood has big old homes that are typically expensive to maintain and restore. The neighborhood is still gentrifying. Therefore there is limited demand for the homes and they are cheap for their size. Obama bought the house after it sat on the market for several months, indicating that it was over priced. The flip side is an empty lot is desirable because someone (particularly a developer like Rezko) can build a new home without any historic preservation issues and enjoy the ambiance of the historic neighborhood. There is limited cost to hold the empty land and it will increase in value as the neighborhood gentrifies. One issue is there are few places in the country that are comparable to Kenwood, which adds to people questioning the deal. I can see why people from downstate can’t figure out why anyone would pay over $600,000 for an empty lot. Kenwood is very unique. It was once one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Chicago but had a big fall. The neighborhoods immediately to the north and west are still as tough as they come. The El Rukn gang used to be headquartered just to the north. But the Lake is to the east and Hyde Park, home of University of Chicago and a nice nieghborhood, is immediately to the South. I think it is good for Obama to be from a neighborhood like Kenwood. It has a great mix of people and you are exposed to real poverty on a daily basis. It helps create a more realistic outlook than living in a consistently wealthy neighborhood like Ms. Clinton. - SouthernILRepub - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 11:28 am: Objective Dem, I was simply reposting the comments from Rich on the date in question. I was also noting that not even a month ago Rich was becoming critical (or at least gave the perception) of being critical of Obama. The important thing is that people need to be very cynical of any politican (Dem or Repub) that comes from Illinois. Usually when there is a stinch of Rezko, it seems as if there is some bad news that comes along with it. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 11:33 am: Objective Dem 11:12 In Rezko lot buildable? Not sure if that question has been answered. Also, with millions of dollars to spend on gathering news, why don’t the Trib or Sun-Times send someone to the Recorder of Deeds office to get copies of the mortgages? They should only cost a $1.00 appeice. - barackstar - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 11:38 am: On the Clintonistas… don’t forget that Axelrod and Daley were on the inside with the Clintons, so Barack has additional help dealing with any mud they sling. I love all the talk about “experience.” We’ll hear more about Lincons experience. JFK’s experience. Someone tell me what great experience our current president brought to office? Bush was voted in by many because they thought he wasn’t as stuffy as Kerry. Charisma wins and Obama has tons of it. - ANON - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 12:13 pm: It will take more than eloquent words and situational simalarities to be worthy of a comparison to Lincoln. Obama would be able to find his way domestically as POTUS, but it is the foreign policy aspect of the job that presents doubt. Can Obama succeed at being a strong Commander-in-Chief? Will he be able to sacrifice blood and treasure if the times call for it? North Korea, Iran and Syria aren’t going away, and are sure to be outstanding challenges to the U.S. Chavez and company will also prove to be threats to the world as well. Does Obama have the guts and grit to take the hard line against them? Or will he avoid a military option (which we all hope will never be necessary) at all costs to avoid conflict at home? - Just Saying - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 12:23 pm: Anon — Obama’s foreign policy credentials aren’t great, but they are probably better than W’s or Bill’s before either of them were president. (Remember when people said it was unfair that a reporter asked W who the president of Pakistan was?) Obama’s on the Foreign Relations Cmte. He’s been to the old Soviet nuclear silos, the U.S. camps in Iraq and Afghanistan and the cities of Africa. He also spent two years as a kid living in Indonesia, where his mother worked at the U.S. embassy. Granted, that’s not a whole lot go on. But I think if he stepped on to the world stage, he would give the United States instant credibility — at least initially. He’s lived in a Muslim country, which would help in the Middle East and beyond. His ties to Africa are obvious, which helps him there. And he’s not George Bush, which would help him in Europe. You’re right about his wishy washy position on Iraq. He was among the first Dems to oppose the war. But as far as how to get us out, he’s been hemming and hawing for years. Still, national security isn’t going to be the strong issue for the GOP it has been. After all, why is it we’re in Iraq? Why is it that North Korea and Iran are thumbing their nose at us? Why is the Axis of Evil so strong? The right answer’s probably pretty complicated, but the easy answer for voters is that Republicans let it all happen. - State of Farce - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 12:24 pm: Cool beans Rich - you were nearly “On the Cover of the Rolling Stone”….how cool is that? You go guy! - jerry - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 12:53 pm: Anon 11:33 - the simple answer is that they have, and found nothing. thus there isn’t a story there. thus they aren’t going to waste valuable space with a story to tell us there isn’t a story. After all, to date, the only “story” on the purchase is an op-ed by John Kass, who is as partisan as they come. Everything else is speculation based on Kass’s column. I have to agree with Mr. Miller that Obama certainly knows how to fight a political fight. Isn’t it rather interesting that both of his foes were defeated via sealed divorce records? Someone leaked that stuff to the press, causing the press to start foaming at the mouth in order to get their hands on the documents. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 1:14 pm: jerry 12:53 After all the ink on this story, you don’t think readers want to know who, how and when the Rezko and Obama purchases were financed? Bebe Rebozo’s relationship to Nixon only came to light after he was already in office so it didn’t effect his election in 1968. Had Rebozo’s connection to Nixon come to light before the election Nixon may well have lost. We know about Rezko and Obama before the election. All these deeds and documents will be on line before it’s done. Can’t change or hide them now because they’ve already been imaged by the Recorder. - Anon too - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 1:17 pm: Jerry, the stuff on Ryan came from the camp of one of his primary opponents… before the GOP primary. - ANON - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 1:33 pm: Just Saying 12:23: Obama was a kid when he lived in Indonesia- I believed he left there when he was 10 years old. That experience may be a desperate stretch for foreign policy experience on his resume. W and Bill may not have had extensive foreign policy experience, but W was the governor of one of the largest states in the U.S. and Bill was involved in DNC policy making. They both were directly in charge of the well being of millions, and responsible for billions in budgets. Obama hasn’t managed anything like that yet. He has not been tested in that way. Some may see this as an advantage, but there is much to be said for public service on that level. His biggest test as a candidate was the primary for his Senate race. He cruised to victory in the general because he had an absurd opponent. Otherwise, he was a Dem. elected in a Democrat district for the IL Senate. I am eagerly awaiting to see how he will fare in the primary debates, where it will take a little more substance and less cliche to be formidable. - Lincoln Look Alike??? - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 2:54 pm: All other things aside and in all seriousness, I find there to be an eery similarity in the physical characteristics of President Lincoln and Sen. Obama based upon photographs I’ve seen of both men. Both men are tall, slim, even gangly if that is an acceptable term and I think even a case could be made for their head size and facial markings (moles) being uniquely similar. Just something to think about and does anyone else see any resemblance? I find it intriguing. - Adam - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:24 pm: I think the people are just as responsible as anyone else for the political climate in this country. The second someone announces they are running for president, or anything else probably, people on blogs and elsewhere try to rip them to shreds. If people really wanted a decent climate in this country they would not do that. Politicians are far from the only ones to blame. - Way Northsider - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:13 pm: If a resume were enough, Bill Richardson would be the front runner. As for foreign policy experience, Barack has FOREIGN experience - i am thrilled that someone with actual understanding of how some of the rest of the world works, is running for President. Knowledge from briefing books is one thing, knowledge from having people from all over the world in your family is something infinitely more valuable. He understands that people in different places evaluate the same set of “facts” differently and that there is nothing wrong with that. THAT is the kind of foreign policy experience we need, not the kind that says “I have been on x missions to y countries and sat on this many commissions and been driven around on so may fact finding tours”. As for the suggestion that progressives will vote for McCain - NOT any progressives who know anything about what McCain actually stands for. - Papa Legba - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:20 pm: Regarding Obama and Foreign Relations. Has anybody been keeping an eye on Putin and Russia? Putin has them heading back to where they were pre-Gorbachev. They are still a force on the world scene and will be growing more powerful behind their closing doors. Putin may not have the bubbly charisma of Obama but he is no dummy. IF Obama was to make it to the presidency and he had to negotiate with Putin he wouldn’t stand a chance. It would be a situation reminiscent of JFK and Khrushchev. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:26 pm: “Way Northsider” you hit on something that I’ve thought about whenever the critics start slamming candidates for a lack of experience or “qualifications” on the “issues.” This ain’t a meritocracy. It’s a democracy. Big difference. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:28 pm: I don’t get your point, Papa. Is it that you think Obama is much less smart than Putin, who, according to your logic, is also much smarter than Bush and his team because Russia is in resurgence? - ZC - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 5:32 pm: The issue is not going to be experience. The issue is not really going to be race (the voters who will decide on that, weren’t going Democrat in the first place). The issue is going to be whether, at the end of the day, Obama’s policy stances make him too liberal to get elected President. And I really don’t know the answer to that, because I don’t know the record yet. But rest assured Tom DeLay has it all databased by now. Obama hasn’t taken that many votes as a US Senator, but make sure the Republicans and Hillary have and will advertise (fairly, I think) every vote Obama ever took in the Illinois Senate. For a conservative muckraker, is there gold in them thar hills? That is the campaign issue that will, I suspect, make or break Obama. People are going to like him, but they see an African-American Democrat from Chicago and they’re going to naturally assume he’s liberal as kingdom come. - Papa Legba - Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 5:46 pm: Rich. My point is don’t under estimate Putin and the Russians. They are a factor in world affairs. The Bush point is moot. They are too focused on the Axis of Evil. - jerry - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 9:23 am: As far as a general statement goes, Papa is certainly right. The US has stood idly by while Putin turns Russia back into a totalitarian dictatorship. But a lot of people are making a lot of money in Russia, so there isn’t a lot of desire to push back against the Putin dictatorship. And a Putin dictatorship, for many, many reasons, is far more scary than a dictatorship in Venezuela, or Bolivia, or pretty much anywhere else. But, this is an Illinois blog, and I digress. Obama may not have the huge foreign policy credentials of a Richardson, but to say he has none is to ignore his record. Obama sits on the foreign relations committee. He’s made trips to the Middle East, to Africa, etc. He’s far more qualified and experienced, foreign policy wise, than our current president was prior to his victory. He’s probably similarly qualified to Bill Clinton, less qualified than George Bush Senior. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.