here's the undisputed facts:

1. someone listed 2 parcels jointly ie you have to buy both to buy one.

2. parcel #1 had no house parcel no. 2 had a nice big house.

3. Obama couldn't afford to buy both as the seller required.

4. So Rezko bought the vacant one and Obama bought the one with the nice big house.

5. This is a benefit to Obama because he was able to break the 2 parcels apart when before he couldn't. Without Rezko's buying the other parcel, Obama could not have bought his house at all.

6. This benefit is a gift and violated Senate ethics rules against making gifts to US Senators.

7. In addition the seller knocked $300K off the price for Obama while Rezko paid the full asking price, ie this is another way of showing gift to Obama, this time with a specific dollar amount.

8. Then Rezko sold Obama a strip of land making the Rezko lot unbuildable ie unsale-able -- further confirming Rezko didn't buy it to build on it. Or to lie in the sun. Or to grow peaches. Or have a picnic. No, clearly one can fairly infer the whole purpose was to make a gift to Obama.

9. Rezko was indicted at the time. The crime?? Massive fundraising in exchange for sales of public office.

So saying "There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing related to Mr. Rezko" is wrong and should have been questioned. Saying all questions have been answered is: 100% denial.

10. You can throw in other undisputed facts like Rezko was Obama's "angel" investor for years, got Obama going in his campaign for US Senate through fundraising help, or how Rezko didn't even have the dough to buy the land because he's such a crook and a cheat ---and how he got the dough from some even more corrupt international slimeball over in Europe -- and how Rezko and this other slimeball have ties to Syria and Iraq -- or you can ask questions like Sen. Obama, what of all that did you know?

if you say you didn't know any of this how can that be true given your 17 year relation with this guy Rezko ?

if it is true, doesn't that call into question your judgment?

or, you gave back Rezko's campaign donations, and you said the land deal was a mistake, so why don't you undo the land deal, just like you undid the donations?

and a million other questions.

And let's bring up Whitewater.

And Travelgate.

And the Vincent Foster suicide.

And Hillary's cattle futures.

And Hillary's cell phone franchise investments

And Hillary's fundraising dealings with convicted felons

And Hillary's botched health care plan

etc.....

But then we couldn't give free web hits to Traitor Bob Novak, who thinks outing undercover CIA agents with his buds Traitor Dick Cheney and Traitor Karl Rove and Traitor Scooter Libby is all fun and games ...

It's not about HRC if our nominee is Obama and he's running against McCain.
It's about McCain v. Obama.

Obama's dealings with Rezko are on TV right now, MSNBC, Tucker, the Sun Times fellow says "yesirree, there are tons of unanswered questions." Even Tucker is amazed he's just now learning about all this. The reporter dude said Obama was claiming there was no agreement b/ the 2 of them to buy the two lots together and it was all a big coinky-dink that Obama's no. 1 backer for 17 years, who ran a massive corruption machine in Illinois politics, who was well known to be about to be indicted, showed up and made an offer for the adjoining land which just when OBama did.

Well I hope Obama didn't say that because that would be a pretty obvious flat out lie.

Plus, Obama got his for $300,000 off while Rezko paid full price for his, ie, this is a gift of several hundred thou to Obama.

This is direct, it's core, it's a very close associate of Obama and he's living in the house today.

Now, let's go compare Hillary.
Whitewater--um, there was nothing there.
And Travelgate--they fired folks and used FBI files. Well known, didn't prevent HRC from getting about 70% in NYS. So not a problem.
Vincent Foster suicide. WTF?? Are you fucking insane?? Or just shameless??
And Hillary's cattle futures.
Yes, like most pols, they hang out with richie riches and make money off it.
Not good! Just like Obama here. So.....he ain't so new and different is he. You just equalized him to HRC and her cattle futures. You made the point. Thank you.

And Hillary's cell phone franchise investments--not sure what that is about.

And Hillary's fundraising dealings with convicted felons--some of them insinuated themselves and she wasn't all that close to them -- not like Obama here. and Obama here has not returned the house.

And Hillary's botched health care plan

Um, she botched it like Truman and everyone else since. She said she did it wrong by not consulting committee chairs such as Moynihan. This was true. Later, Moynihan endorsed her at his own farm to kick off her campaign in NYS. IF he forgave her why can't you? She was wrong to not work it thru congress and has said so. When you try you fail. When you are a newbie you haven't tried so you haven't failed. True courage is trying again.

Ignoring Obama's flaws and limitations does not help anyone on the D side. They will come out and his electability will decrease. So this whole notion that he's going to magically win and the primaries are a good indicator of the result in the general is.....like a stock bubble. You have to project how he's going to do AFTER all this negativity comes out via GOP attacks.

that's all. I really don't think there's anything unreasonable in that.
what's not so logical is pretending this negative stuff just isn't there, or suggesting in November Obama can win a debate with McCain by pointing a finger to HRC negatives.

"Well I'm not as bad as she would have been, John"

that's your argument as to why this stuff isn't significant?

Isn't this a fun game to play?

Don't we accomplish a hell of a lot?

I don't think Hillary's cattle futures shenanigans are going to get her into trouble in Texas.