Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

More RezkObama

Posted in:

Illinois

* For the third time in more than a year, Senator Obama’s presidential campaign announced this week that it was shedding more donations tied to Tony Rezko. The announcement came amidst the Florida primary and didn’t receive much press. Some watchdog groups like the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform have praised the Senator for his decision, but many more are left scratching their heads:

Calculations by the media and Obama’s own staff of Rezko’s financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. The reason: The numbers depend on assumptions made about why a donor gave in the first place.

In the latest total, Obama has promised to give to charity more than $150,000 he collected through Rezko. His campaign said the latest installment of $72,650 was raised for his 2004 U.S. Senate race at a dinner at Rezko’s 8,500-square-foot Wilmette mansion. Obama’s campaign still has not offered a clear explanation of how it determines Rezko-linked donations or why he has dealt with them piecemeal, apparently in reaction to bad publicity.

The public records don’t make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama’s presidential campaign. Furthermore, different media outlets have reported ranging figures:

The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000.

It’s understandable that it is difficult to determine all the donations that have some connection to Rezko in one way or another. For instance, if Rezko holds a fundraiser at his house, do you give away all the donations that were raised there, or just the ones that were given by friends of Rezko? A donor may attend the event that has never even met Rezko, but was brought by a friend of a friend. On top of that, you risk offending donors over the giveaway:

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn’t heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko’s home to charity. “If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I’m fine with that,” he said. “But I don’t see how this makes a difference now — the money still got him elected. And how do I know it’s not going to a charity that’s offensive to me?”

* What’s more troubling than the giveaway though are the hazy explanations. In a Chicago Tribune column today Eric Zorn highlights some of these statements:

Well, my relationship is [that Tony Rezko] 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. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems….Barack Obama on CBS “Early Show” Jan. 23

Nobody had any indications that [Rezko] was engaging in wrongdoing….Barack Obama on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jan. 23

Now contrast these claims with some of the headlines that were circulating around the time of the land deal with Rezko:

* 7-18-2004 - Blagojevich adviser tied to appointee; Doctor, fundraiser co-owned condos
* 2/13/2005 - Tollway oasis pact rich with links to governor’s allies;Fundraiser, friend tied to restaurants
* 3/16/2005 - O’Hare vendor called minority front; Top Blagojevich aide owns Panda Express outlets, city charges
* 4/8/2005 - Stroger taps Blagojevich aide; Controversial insider gets fundraiser role
* 5/20/2006 - First lady of Illinois linked to developer

* and the most blatant: 5/26/2005 - Tony Rezko; Top fundraiser, adviser and close friend of Blagojevich faces scrutiny as controversies dog the administration in which he has played a crucial behind-the-scenes role

Now, either it would be an understatement to say that the Senator is being disingenuous about all he knew of Rezko at the time, or he is being honest about how much he knew, and it truly was a “boneheaded mistake.” The latter is a lot harder to swallow. Which ever it is, it still undermines his campaign theme of better judgment. Watch for Hillary to spring this on him again in tonight’s debate, but this time with a sharper edge.

posted by Kevin Fanning
Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:17 am

Comments

Can someone tell Capt. Fax his email box is full and thus uunable to receive more good ideas!

Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:24 am
I’m not sure Clinton is going to spring Rezko again in light of today’s New York Times expose on Bill Clinton’s Foundation/Kazakstan/uranium dealings, which included meetings in Sen. Clinton’s home in NY. Yes, it’s complicated, but it also makes $200,000 in Rezko money look like chump change.

Serious glass house stuff, I doubt she’s dumb enough to throw another Rezko rock.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:28 am
I think a lot is being made out of nothing regarding Obama’s relationship with Rezko!

Sure, Obama received contributions from Rezko, but, there’s no indication Rezko got anything in return.

Rezko gave money to just about every politician in Illinois. That was his way of trying to get in a good light in case he needed a favor. What favor did Obama provide? None as far as I can tell.

What is certain is the fact Rezko was given many favors by Blago! Thats the distinction that needs to be made!

By the way, I do not support Obama in this election!

Comment by MOON Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:29 am
The clintons have their own explaining to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?hp

A lot more money is involved that has foreign policy implications.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:29 am
Yeah Obama really has to hit her on that. I’m not sure if anyone caught this, but a few days ago Hillary said we have to “scrutinize the sovereign wealth funds.” Obama is missing a golden opportunity to take her up on that when Bill is receiving his largest donations to his library from middle eastern countries like Dubai.

Comment by Kevin Fanning Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:33 am
More reasons for Clinton to stay positive tonight:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/7047_really_bad_news.html

Yikes. Obama is the luckiest pol in the world if this stuff sinks in to the electorate it’ll be like Blair Hull and JACK! Ryan all over again.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:45 am
Ugh, I’m so sick of this psuedo-story I could puke. It bothers me that the media can create a whirlwind story if they want to, just because they don’t get the answers they think are owed to them. Regular people don’t care about this story. And if it caught their attention, they’d hear or read (if it was fairly reported on) that he returned the money or donated it to charity, and that’s that. So he made a boneheaded mistake - get over it. People make mistakes, learn from them, and then move on.

I would much rather the media challenge the candidates on their policy ideas than hover around a dead-in-the-water story like vultures. And they shouldn’t hide behind the shield of ‘the public has a right to know’. Give me a break - they do it for themselves. Give the public info on the issues - polls show that’s what the people really want.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:46 am
Memo to Sreenan - you don’t have a say in what anyone does with your campaign contribution, whether they keep it, give it back to you, or give it to a charity that is offensive to you. You paid for your 15 seconds with Obama, now shut up. The same goes for the rest of the contributors who may now be on Obama’s give away list.

Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 11:56 am
Kevin, 11:33, beg to differ with you in terms of Obama raising dubious Clinton contributors issue. This is a huge, submerged issue that the Justice Dept. is probably already looking into. Having this sort of story on p 1 of the NYT is damning than making it part of a debate that would be better focused on real issues that voters understand and care about.

Comment by jaundiced eye Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:07 pm
oops … “is more damning”

Comment by jaundiced eye Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:08 pm
That may be true, but what good would it do for him if she locks up the nomination by then?

Comment by Kevin Fanning Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:10 pm
Isn’t the sad element the complete lack of a honest explanation on the real estate deal? This suggest a much closer tie.
It seems unlikely that a person can close of two real estate deals on the same day and not be close friends.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:11 pm
Never underestimate the speed at which opposition research works and how quickly it turns into p 1 stories and criminal charges that short circuit
careers, whether political or corporate.

Comment by jaundiced eye Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:20 pm
Anon- What has been dishonest about his answer? Aren’t you making an assumption? I know you’re making an assumption that they were friends. But even then - what if they were acquaintances? Rezko was everywhere back then, even when he was under suspicion. What will you infer from an acquaintance relationship?

Unless Obama, up until this week of course, is secretly meeting with Rezko to get his advice on strategy, or is playing secret backroom poker games with him, or is still taking his money, I don’t see how any of this matters.

What a waste of time.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:22 pm
Every candidacy is faith based because we do not know what the future holds. But many voters also take into consideration a canidate’s record of accomplishments and failures as an indicator in which to base their faith.

With such a thin resume, Obama’s supporters are more faith based than usual. This means that with his success in obtaining voter support, the average Obama supporter looks to Obama in a far less tangible way than supporters of other candidates.

So, it will take an awful lot to pry voters away from Obama since their support is more faith based. They attribute presidential greatness in a man based on his beautiful image, voice and the prose he speaks. Obama is a classic case of a cult of personality.

That being said, Clinton needs to attack this cult image before it wins the nomination. So, unlike her challenge with other candidates, she doesn’t have much to work with regarding Obama. This means that every tiddly thing that can knock him is exaggerated, which actually makes sense - if you had a guy applying for a job with only two years on a job, you would look closely at those two years and read into it anything that can help determine their fitness for that job. Same goes for Obama’s Chicago political past, including Rezko.

At this time, Rezko could probably announce the most horrid news against Obama, yet there will be many of Obama’s supporter so faith-based, they will not stop believing.

Exaccerbating the problem was the application of the Kennedy ‘Camelot halo’. This further innoculates Obama and his supporters from reality.

Clinton has a tough challenge ahead. Bill Clinton wasn’t incorrect to label Obama’s appeal as a ‘fairy tale’, because it is that kind of appeal Barak has over his supporters. They WANT to believe to the exclusion of a host of disqualifiers Obama would normally be disqualified over.

I think it is ironic to hear the term ‘faith-based’ applied to right-wing Republicans when what we are seeing now is a very powerful faith-based appeal for this left-wing Democrat. Perhaps we are talking about a new religion?

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:31 pm
I have a problem with any candidate giving money to charity. I those I support and those I don’t. I feel that when a Politian finds out a contributor is doing something wrong then maybe do something with the money. However if they truly didn’t know then they shouldn’t give it back. I think Obama knows more about Rezko then he is letting on. The house deal is really bad.

Comment by Just Because Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:46 pm
I wish that I could have some faith that none of the money being raised in the current campaign will factor into some decision by the next POTUS or administrative agency heads or staffs, whomever is elected. There is a certainty that someone will question the role of money bundlers in choices of cabinet or agency heads or in their decisions affecting campaign donor interests. There is almost no way in the current campaign system that the power of money is not going to creep in. From some of the questions raised in this post, it can be concluded that all is not as transparent and open to the sun as many of the “reformers” claim. Saying that you do not take money from lobbyists or PACS simply does not suffice to erase the smear or the potential for conflict.

I am not sure that a single candidate in this race can throw stones without receiving their just return.

Comment by Vole Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:51 pm
VM,

Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment was about Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war. It was not about his overall campaign or any “cult of personality” or “faith-based” treatment by the media.

Clinton claimed Obama’s record was no different than Sen. Clinton’s record on Iraq, and that it was a “fairy tale” to believe otherwise.

Except it isn’t a “fairy tale” when you consider he based his allegation on the following “facts”: Obama gave an anti-war speech in 2002, but later took the speech off his web site (horrors!); Obama refused to criticize Kerry or Edwards at the 2004 convention for voting to authorize the war (Clinton ought to know that it’s bad form to criticize your party’s nominees on the eve of the convention); and finally, that Obama voted in the Senate to continue to provide funding for the troops (good idea Bill, let’s screw the troops to make a political point).

The master of linguistic gymnastics, Bill Clinton even had the gall to suggest that he’s always been opposed to this war. There’s a fairy tale for you.

I want the Clintons to go away. They only care about themselves, not the country. Obama isn’t perfect, but he isn’t the Clintons, which is good enough for me.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:52 pm
VM,
Will you stop with the “faith based” references to the Obama Movement. Why does a couple more years in the Senate make her so much more experienced? Hill’s resume just as thin. Does being first lady count as qualifying for the presidency? Hill keeps talking about her 35 years experience. What’s that? My wife is a surgeon. I’m a plumber. We’re married. Does that mean that I have the experience necessary to remove your thyroid gland?
The Obama movement is in some way similar to a religious experience because of the feelings and the fervor and the need to change the way this country conducts its business.
This is the first time in my life since Eugene McCarthy that I didn’t feel like I was voting for the lessor of two evils. Barack can and will make a serious difference and change all of our lives for the better. Let’s give him a chance. What have we got to lose? We couldn’t do any worse than “W”.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 12:53 pm
I’ve always hated the “give the money to charity scam”. For all I know, Obama may give the money to a Jihadist, Muslim, pro-choice group (kidding). Just give it back! Obama, Edwards and Hilalry have minimal senate experience..especially since Obama has been running for president since the Democrat’s convention.

Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Bill, my man, I would never let you remove my thyroid.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Vole & some of the other posters are right on target. It is hard to imagine raising the kind of money necessary to run for office without having a number of questionable backers.

Even the more important question of quid pro quo is distorted because a big backer probably agrees with the candidate politically and would expect collateral benefits from having a like-minded person in office. The trick for investigators is to determine if benefits are contingent on contributions.

I have not seen reports of patterns of contingent political benefits to contributors from Obama. With respect to Gov. B, examples of contingency seem to be plentiful.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:07 pm
Obama is going to get hit harder than the Clintons on ethics because of how he’s portrayed himself. He’s different. A break from the past. He’s “Change We Can Believe In.” The subtext, to me, is that he’s more honest and less cynical than other politicians.

The Clintons have been on the national stage for more than 15 years now. You know what you’re getting with them. Many choose to hold their nose and go along based on a perceived level of competence.

Obama’s asking voters to make a leap of faith that he can do the job AND that he’s different from other politicians.

The house hurts on both fronts. Inviting a guy like Rezko into your personal financial business makes you question, at best, whether he has the judgement for the Big Job, and at worse, whether he’s just like every other cynical, manipulating politician who has a taste for living large.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:15 pm
Part of BO’s attraction seems to come from his claims to be new, refreshing and different. Thus an ideal vessel to be an agent of change, (whatever that means.)

With the thinness of BO’s resume, it is only natural for an examination of what is out there.

So far we seem to have a candidate who is a product of the Chicago machine system. Quid pro quo is a verb there. BO’s run for Congress could be interpreted as a favor to the machine in order to ‘punish’ Bobby Rush for running for mayor in ‘99. It simply is an accepted way of business and is profitable to the practicioners. (Note: Daley’s support of a candidate against Bernie Stone because BS voted against the mayors budget, punishment?) BO’s good fortune continued to being selected to run for US Senate.

The flurry of interest is not because of the specific actions/inactions being discussed, but as these activities swirl around the media blender, BO appears to be simply a Chicago style politician rather than the fawn-like angel as the web spinners have woven.

That is not necessarily bad. Chicagoans have returned these kinds of individuals to office time after time, so it must be OK with these voters. The question is whether there is a desire to bring Chicago/Illinois style politics/politicians to the national stage. We can see the Daley forces working on the campaign. Do you think they would have a disproportionate voice in an inexperienced President’s office? There is no Shackman Decree on Federal jobs…….

Comment by plutocrat03 Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:16 pm
Google Loyal network backs Obama for another glimpse…

Comment by countryboy Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:30 pm
plutocrat03, interesting observations. We often look at these presidential races as national but what regional interests are the candidates taking with them and how does that shake out in campaign contributions, endorsements, regional rivalries, etc. Obviously GW carried a lot of Texas water (oil and crony capitalism) to the White House. What would Obama take with him? How would he affect Chicago, midwest agriculture (ethanol), coal, etc. and would these possibly conflict with national interests like reducing green house gases? What interests will have their hooks in him and can he escape their hold and be above all these potential conflicts?

Comment by Vole Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:30 pm
Bill THE PLUMBER

Comment by The Rookie Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:33 pm
Barack is splitting hairs, and he’ll probably be successful at it.

Of course, the Clintons have their own house-purchase issue too, that has never been fully investigated:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E1D9103FF936A1575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

How is he splitting hairs? When people raise the slumlord/legal work/fundraising concern, it is totally legitimate for him to say “no one had an inkling”. The land deal was “boneheaded” precisely because lots of “ink” was being used on the issue, as Kevin has summarized. It’s a bit unfair to nail him for mixing the two when he hasn’t been asked as explicitly about the land deal in a while. As Rich has pointed out, THAT’s the issue that a good reporter needs to nail him on. Of course, no one has been successful getting the Clintons to disclose their house financing either.

Comment by / Anon Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:47 pm
Here are 6 reasons to be concerned about who wins the election:
Attorney General Al Sharpton
Director of FBI Jesse Jackson Sr
Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton
Secretary of State Al Gore
Secretary of Defense Louis Farrakhan
Secretary of Commerce Ray Nagin

Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 1:53 pm
Why don’t Illinois Democrats support Hillary Clinton?

Comment by anon Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 2:04 pm
Anon 2:04,
Maybe it is because when she live in Illinois, she was a Republican.

Comment by Jaded Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 2:44 pm
Bill, what’s up with you these days. I’m agreeing with you AGAIN on everything you wrote but I would not let you fix my plumbing, even if you did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 2:55 pm
You Obama-philes are delusional.

If Obama raises this issue in debate, Hillary can hit a home run:

“My husband has a friend who is working to make energy supplies more stable and less costly.

“Your friend and political contributor is in jail tonight — and you still haven’t explained how it is that out of three million people in Chicago, your friend Mr. Rezko — who is sitting in a Chicago jail cell tonight — just happened to buy property next door to you on the exact same day that you were buying your home, from the exact same seller and using the exact same Realtor.

“That’s an amazing coincidence isn’t it?”

Comment by Old Elephant Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:16 pm
I agree with plutocrato3…Obama sprang from the machine despite his Harvard credentials and community organizing background…he took money from Rezko as long as 17 years ago when Tony was buying up properties in soon to be Senator Obamas IL Senate district…the land deal with Tony in Hyde Park adjacent to his home while Rezko was under indictment…c’mon Obama true believers…I want to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy but wishing for it won’t make it real…he and Hillary are career pols cut from the same cloth…
to run you gotta play the game…

Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:21 pm
I agree with those who are saying the visual media and others are making too much of the Rezko thing. I also agree that if you want to find a supporter that is shady you will probably find one in every candidate’s closet. I was disgusted the other night to see how certain networks played up “The Snub”. That ranks right up there on the list I things I reallly don’t care about like anything that happens to Brittany Spears. I also agree that ANYONE would be better than returning Hillary and Billy Bob to the White House. The thing that really grates with me is WHY anyone listens to anything he says. Any person who makes it to the White House and does not know what “is” means should be run out of town on a rail. And she is the most cold blooded woman I have seen. I am still wondering how she managed to generate a tear for her “feelings” to show on national TV. (I didn’t see her pull a nose hair.) But nothing would surprise me, this state did re-elect Blago.

Comment by Irish Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:29 pm
– One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn’t heard if the campaign now plans to give it away. –

This is the same guy who now owns the lot next to Obama. How is it that these stories always seem to interconnect everywhere?

In light of the fact that Obama made $35 million in January, why doesn’t he just dump all of the money that possibly could be tied to Rezko and get on with the campaign? Didn’t Hill drop $800,000 of Hsu money just to be on the safe side? Obama should follow that example because another story about Rezko contribs only hurts later down the road.

Comment by Bud Man Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:38 pm
Why isn’t anyone asking the speaker to return all the Rezko money that he and DPI received? I think its a pretty significant amount of money (tens of thousands of dollars).

Comment by 23RD WARD IN DA HOUSE Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:39 pm
Irish,
Why don’t you care about what happens to Brittany Spears?

Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:42 pm
Loop Lady - Again, I say “so what?” What’s the worst case scenario? Obama knew Rezko had the money to buy the property when Obama himself didn’t have the money so he asked him to buy it and then sell him a piece? I mean, that’s what everyone is getting at, right? Or is there something that I’m missing? More likely it was that Obama told someone he had this problem and that person told someone and Rezko was at the end of the chain. Either way, WHO CARES?

Is there some sort of quid pro quo that I’m missing? Did Rezko get some government contracts out of the deal? Did Rezko exercise any sort of influence over Obama? Did he get to sit in some meetings that he shouldn’t have or something? What’s the big deal? What’s the ‘A-HA! Gotcha!’ piece of this overblown, ridiculous story?

85% of the time, media makes me sick. I agree with Irish that ‘The Snub’ was obnoxiously over-covered. Could we talk about the issues please?

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:43 pm
Irish,
I heard Hilly used an onion.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:44 pm
Bill S. Preston -

The problem is not what favor did he get, but rather it is that he was willing to get into bed with him and do him a favor. This is not someone he knew for a few years: try 20+. He got his first campaign contribution from the man, and while it was known he was being investigated for political corruption, Obama got inot bed more with him.

It would not be a big deal if Obama did not make such a big deal about his judgment. That is his campaign: hope, change, and judgement. His response to the fact that he’s not qauliied is he has good judgement. Well, these stories blow a gaping hole in tht argument, and that is why these stories are more than relevant.

I think the next story will be that Obama’s 10 foot strip purchase made the lot undevelopable for any practical purposes. Novak has been digging on this one for a while, and I’m sure they have a stroy or two more up their sleeves.

Comment by Bud Man Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 3:50 pm
Just trying to remember…
Didn’t another Illinois Pol recently run on a reform and change platform… something to the tune of…
“No more business as usual”…????????????

Comment by curious george Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 4:00 pm
Bud Man makes excellent points.

We mere mortals don’t have multi-millionaire friends who can subsidize our home purchase for us (and if you overpay for a strip of land so that someone else can get a better price on the adjacent property that is a subsidy.)

No one does a favor like that without expecting to get something in return. Maybe there was no specific quid pro quo, but it certainly doesn’t pass the smell test.

Comment by Old Elephant Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 4:02 pm
you know that even when the Kennedys reigned in Camelot there were plots, money, influence, a Chicago connection, etc. …things haven’t changed, the media just digs deeper, there’s FOIA and the blogosphere…if Obama lets the story (or Hillary)define him in these circumstances, he’s not as smart as he appears to be…just naive…

Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 4:54 pm
47th-

To my recollection, Obama said he supported the war early in his Senate run. Only after he was safely running against Allen Keyes did he change his tune and start talking anti-war. Typical inside the beltway politician move.

Those who wrap themselves in white show the most dirt. Obama came up in Chicago politics and he wrapped himself in white when he runs for Presdent. Big mistake, because there is alot of dirt in Chicago.

Comment by Bud Man Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:07 pm
North of I 80, Are you speaking of Clinton, Obama, or some combination thereof? If you are suggesting that BO would nominate Jesse and Al based on skin color, you’re a bigot, and if you think Al Gore would make a bad SOS, you keep denying global warming, it won’t make it go away. Also, what is with the Muslim stuff wumpus? Have you been believing everything the right wing kool aide drinkers have been saying? No, Obama is not nor has ever been a Muslim. His estranged father is, but how does that matter? Keep trashing him so Grandpa Mac can beat Billary in the general, is that your plan? Lay off the slander. We dems have learned to avoid your swift boats. Tax and Spend Liberals seem to be the only ones who can balance the budget.

Comment by Muddy Wind Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:15 pm
I used to work for a man who’s company didn’t seem to do things on the up and up, but there weren’t any glaring misdeeds. I still accepted a paycheck twice a month for two years. He hasn’t been indicted, much less convicted, but now I’m sure that he was involved in shady business practices. Does that make me a bad person? Do I have to give the money to charity? No. Let’s not forget that Rezko hasn’t been convicted of anything yet, though he is guilty as sin.

Comment by Muddy Wind Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:28 pm
Bud Man,

Your recollection is flat-out wrong. Use the Google.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:33 pm
All this back-and-forth is hilarious. Read the positions of HRC and BO. While their campaign styles are certainly different, they are in essentially the same place on the issues. Vote for either for the same result. Next case…

Comment by Mr. Wizard Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:50 pm
47th -

You are right. Thanks for te correction. Thts wha I get whenj I listen to Bill Clinton!! I still stand by this statement:

Those who wrap themselves in white show the most dirt. Obama came up in Chicago politics and he wrapped himself in white when he runs for Presdent. Big mistake, because there is alot of dirt in Chicago.

Comment by Bud Man Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 5:57 pm
Rich is right. Rezko is truly the toxic Zelig! The Pittsburgh paper reported earlier this week that Rezko sideman Ali Ata contributed to Governor Ed Rendell! Now the Sun-Times has a story tying Rezko to LA Mayor Villaraigosa!

Comment by Punley Dieter Finn Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 6:27 pm
Let me see by shedding more donations tied to Tony Rezko all is forgiven. Give a break!
Guess white collar crime pay dividends in ole Illinois. Just ask Obama and Blagojevich!
Is there any state in union which Rezko doesn’t have any politicians in his hip pocket?

Comment by Gomez & Natasa Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 6:52 pm
Rezko is toxic to many.

But only one person went in on a financial deal
with the man from Syria to buy a mansion for
his family to live in.

That’s why it’s called Rezkobama.

It’s the house, stupid. and the mansion is
subsidized housing for Barack.

A pity that Rezko could not have taken some
of the $625,000 and fixed up some of the
buildings for the poor he was supposedly
trying to help.

Obama should have known better. The rest of
us did.

Comment by amy Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 7:30 pm
Muddy Wind; race? bigot? slander? the winning combination [unless either completely destroys the other] is a combo ticket of Clinton & Obama. Look at the power-hungry Dems waiting in the wings to latch onto a Dem prez-vice-prez train. Each of those listed can deliver huge #s of voters in exchange for more power. Doesn’t the idea of Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court make you just a little uneasy?

Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 9:14 pm
Boneheaded mistake! It’s all about power and money, money and power.
The reality is “people are a distant third!

Comment by Change! Yea right! Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 9:27 pm
“It’s the House, stupid.”

Great, Great line and spot on.

Comment by Old Elephant Thursday, Jan 31, 08 @ 10:32 pm
Bill said: “We couldn’t do any worse than ‘W’.”

Careful. We used to say that about George Ryan.

Comment by anon Friday, Feb 1, 08 @ 8:02 am