Comments on Rezko Raised as Much as $250K For Obama

Oh, ECB. Are you trying to imply Obama accepts dirty money unlike your girl HRC?

Yep, Obama just keeps getting into it deeper and deeper. But that's OK, I'm sure this was all Hillary's fault.

Yes, a Hillary Clinton cultist is attacking Obama over a shady business/real estate deal. Nothing wrong with that picture.

Give it a rest, ECB. You just come across as shrill with this shit.

Now that you mention Hillary. From Americablog...

In another example of Hillary's resume being a wee bit padded, it seems that Hillary didn't create the children's health insurance bill after all. In fact, her husband's White House was initially against the bill. But in all fairness to Hillary, I hear Barack Obama is black. From the Boston Globe:
[T]he Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996....

privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton - along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain - missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers.

ECB will not be happy until she sees John McCain in the White House. And if that happens we should start a movement to get her canned from the Stranger

Wow. What a sleazeball. No way I'm ever voting for Obama.

Hillary's time has come and gone. Deal with it. The sooner you folks do, the better America will be. Why do you all want to make baby Jesus cry?

Obama is becoming more and more unelectable with every passing day. And you can't blame Hillary for all of that. Hillary didn't force Power to call her a monster. Hillary had nothing to do with this Rezko BS, which is not going away. Hillary had nothing to do with Obama's choice of minister, and that's not going away either. And Ferraro? Well, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of the country agrees with what she said.

How much did the other guys in Rezko's gang donate to Clinton? There's plenty of that sleaze to go around, you know.

i guess when you buy into the stereotype that everyone who likes obama thinks the guy walks on water, you probably assume you've struck gold with this one.

no, he's not perfect, but compared to the clintons' endless list of sleazy connections, it's easy to see how people could make that mistake.

Cough cough.

Obama had his "Keating 5" moment. If we give McCain a mulligan for his unethical dealings, why not Obama?

8 - it's no secret a lot of the country agrees with ferarro. that's exactly why she repeated it on every major network in the country the other day. news flash - a lot of people in the country also think i'm less than human because i suck cock.

a lot of the country is stupid. and i don't appreciate once-respectable figures in the party that's supposed to represent equality and civil rights parroting their stupidity on national television, just to score hillary a few bonus points with the 15-watt bulb set.

Wow. So, after probably hesitating longer than was wise, he admitted he made an error and explained the situation. Good for him for being honest. I don't demand perfection. I do expect the willing to change course after a bad call.

Now, about those tax returns...and the library funds...and the repeated race baiting...and that vote on Iraq....shall I go on?

To expand on what I was saying above (a little less snarkily), we've all dealt with eight years of a president who, among other failings, is incapable of admitting when he's done something that was unwise or unethical or just plain stupid. I, for one, haven't enjoyed it very much. I don't think either democratic candidate has a perfect record (though I think the case could still be easily made that Obama's is a lot less dirty). However, Obama has overall been pretty good about admitting when he made a bad choice. If Clinton has made one honest admission that any of the things she's done, either in terms of voting, campaigning, or in more personal matters, was unwise, I haven't heard much about it. I think I'd be a lot more comfortable if she had.

Sure would be nice to see those Clinton tax returns.

Well, I can't speak for Hillary, so I won't. And you can't speak for Obama, and I don't expect you to. It just seems to me that, when Obama's been speaking for Obama lately, pretty much all he's been doing is apologizing.

And yeah, part of it is that he's been sold to the public as the Great Savior of America who walks on water and whose shit doesn't stink. And it's turning out that he not only can't walk on water, but he really doesn't even swim all that well, and his shit stinks just as bad as everyone else's. That's a long way to fall. Hillary's the devil we know; there aren't really a lot of surprises there. Obama's the devil we really don't know. How many surprises are still out there waiting to be uncovered?

I love the fact that he comes out right away to talk about it, offer his explanation and apology for anything he may have done wrong. You ever see Bush doing anything like that?

I know this Rezko thing doesn't look good, but compared to Norman Hsu, Whitewater, a refusal to release tax returns, the selling of the donor list, the paid-for pardons, and all the other nefarious dealings of the Clintons, Obama still seems untainted. The fact is, the Rezko dealings seem like small beans and didn't seem to save the Obama's much if any money on that real estate deal, so I'm a bit unimpressed with the complaints. The complaints against the Clinton folk seem to be much more warranted.

Obama's admitted he made a mistake in taking Rezko's $250,000. Clinton, on the other hand, refuses to admit she made a mistake in authorizing the deaths of the 85,000 human beings who have died so far in her war. Not only that, but she's now claiming that she never intended to authorize a war, that she was voting for diplomacy all along.

It's just obscene to quibble about Obama admitting honestly to taking sleazy campaign contributions when Clinton continues to blatantly lie about her support for this war.

without having read any of the previous comments, it seems like rezko did some stuff for Obama, but Obama never ever did anything for him. so, Obama is willing to let folks help him out. that's the story. which isn't a story.

also, i'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to say ANYTHING about Obama's financial dealings until Clinton releases her tax returns, which she has continuously refused to do.

*Cough*Whitewater*Cough*

Norman Hsu is small potatoes compared to her husband's generous contributions from Mark Rich. Of course Hillary gave away the money but a lot of her supporters did not (*cough* Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania *cough*).

Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's dirty money makes Obama's Rezko donations look trivial in comparison.

I wonder who gave money to the Clintons?

And how much they got for speeches ...

u all r not getting it. Obama is a pol.

"I do expect the willing to change course after a bad call."

He's not changing course. He's living in the mansion that Rezko helped him buy. He isn't giving back the mansion. He's giving back stuff once he gets caught like apol, and he's not giving back anything he really needs, just like a pol.

Obama's premise is he's above it all, he's different, he's vastly superior as a transcendent political figure. Hagiography was invented just for him.

Any amount of the sleeziness or just bein' an ordinary pol destroys the premise. Any amount of new facts that just make the average American/Murkan swing voter feel, "uk, he's not like me at all!" destroys the hope and the emotive bond. Then, instead of running neck and neck with McCain, Obama the pol will be 5 points down.

Instead of "Wow he's David v. Goliath!" the story arc will be "Gee, Let's All Look at this Fall From Grace."

Obama is Icarus.

N.B.: Wiki: Icarus: "a vehicle for heroic audacity."

Any outrage over this is fake if it's coming from a Clinton supporter. Obviously obviously obviously. Obviously.

hey, at least obama is capable of apologizing.

an apology for corruption - what cabbage patch are you from

I think Obama would made a fine president, but I never put him on the perfect plate like others have

"been there, done that"

Angel

@27-I think asking him to "give back the mansion" is a little silly. Considering the sellers had been trying to dump the property for quite a while, I rather doubt they'd want it back. He's admitted it was a bad move, and I doubt he'll be accepting any more assistance from Rezco, or do something in the future (especially considering the problems it's caused). That's called learning from your mistakes. And that's not the only example. I've been reading his book, The Audacity of Hope. He was always for greater civil protections for gay people, but initially against gay marriage/civil unions with identical protections because he thought the fight "unwinnable" and a distraction from more achievable goals. Then a lesbian constituent of his explained why those rights were so important to her. He REALIZED HE HAD BEEN WRONG, ACKNOWLEDGED IT, and CHANGED HIS POSITION. So obviously he's not perfect(the initial position was wrong), and a lot of his strongest supporters already know that. He's just someone capable of admitting when he has been wrong, and it's THAT quality, that awareness of his imperfections, that's a part of his appeal and a part of what makes people believe he could really do things differently. Hope means striving to be better, not already being perfect. Politicians that think they walk on water and can do know wrong are a dime a dozen, but politicians willing to acknowledge that sometimes they need to rethink things are far more rare.

You must be aware that Clinton's record is hardly free from bad decisions in both the personal and political arena. Can you point me to one example where she's admitted she made a bad call?

The nomination will be Obama's. Get over it.

Anyone else notice that Clinton supporters never spend any time talking about what makes her so good? It's all attacks on Obama.

I'm starting to think that the general will actually be easier. There's some serious emotional damage among some Clinton supporters. "No you don't understand! They'll destroy you! Let's slander you some more so you'll see how it will be!"

And your point is? Nothing about this story rises above the appearance of impropriety, at worst. Show me some evidence that Obama did anything that was illegal or unethical on its face, and you'd have something. Short of that Rezko is a non-story and you know it.

Here's something to Slog about: what exactly is Hillary's path to the nomination at this point? I'm serious, I'd like to hear how Clinton supports think this is going to work. Because to me it looks like all she can do is throw an ocean of mud, stir up racial tensions, and pray that Obama self-destructs. Is there some way she can win without utterly abandoning the high road?

Let's put this to bed already, from Glenn Greenwald -

Throughout the 1990s, the word "Whitewater" was the weapon used continuously by the Limbaugh Right and the establishment press to cast innuendo on the Clintons' financial lives. The word was just tossed around as slippery shorthand for corrupt dealings. It never had any substance. No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original "Whitewater" transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found.

One could read literally thousands of news accounts about the "Whitewater scandal" and never encounter a single, specific charge of impropriety. The word simply stood for a series of confusing, complex, boring financial transactions that were combined with dark and vague innuendo which, repeated enough, led to a "where-there's-smoke- there's-fire" presumption of guilt. Slothful journalists could not get enough of the tactic because tossing "Whitewater" around required no real work, active investigation or critical thought -- the mortal enemies of most establishment reporters -- but instead was just a cheap and easy way to imply that they were pursuing some sort of scandal.

"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea.

Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere.

Yesterday, Digby -- citing a post she wrote more than a year ago on this specialized GOP template for manufacturing media scandals out of pedestrian though boring financial transactions -- described exactly how this process works:

Over a year ago I took one of my periodic trips down memory lane and roughly outlines the press treatment of the Whitewater story. At the time, the Rezko story was just starting to bubble up out of Chicago, and I explained how these stories are used to degrade the reputations of Democrats . . . .
These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad" . . .

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

Once the original transaction gets solidified in Media World as representing something dark and bad, then it's no longer necessary to bother with anything specific. Tossing around the innuendo becomes the only thing necessary to continue to fuel it. Here's a classic and quite common example of this genre. As Digby wrote:
These stories are very difficult to control once they get going. The MSM gasbags start "analyzing" the whole thing in terms of whether the subject of the inquiry is being forthcoming or if he's "stonewalling" and it snowballs into armchair psychology and novelistic character studies. From what I gather of the Rezko matter so far, we can probably expect this to have the same trajectory. The press conference yesterday was deja vu all over again.
Early in George Bush's term, it was revealed that one of his closest and most loyal supporters, Enron's Ken Lay, committed one of the most massive frauds in American corporate history. The President's own brother, Neil, has been involved in numerous accusations of serious impropriety and yet continues to be paid by multiple sources for virtually nothing other than being George Bush's brother. The central cog for the GOP fundraising machine, Jack Abramoff, is now imprisoned as a serial felon. Led by his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, John McCain has been linked to some of the sleaziest figures around.

Yet somehow, the standard in those cases is that, in the absence of specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the political official, merely being linked -- even intimately -- to thieves and felons won't be held against the political official. By rather stark contrast, the multiple former Clinton associates who were convicted of wrongdoing -- the McDougals and Webster Hubbell -- were constantly used to imply that the Clintons themselves had done something corrupt, and now, Tony Rekzo's conduct is being sloppily and dishonestly cast onto Barack Obama without the slightest attempt to actually make the case that Obama has done anything even arguably wrong at all.

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around "Rezko" innuendo unless they're able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama's conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of "Rezko" is invoked. If they're incapable of articulating even those basics -- and they are -- then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

It's precisely the empty nature of the "scandal" that makes it impossible to resolve. The more he addresses it, the more he fuels it; conversely, the more he refuses to address it, the more he will be accused of "stonewalling" and not being forthcoming. It's just illusory innuendo that, by design, can never be satisfactorily addressed because nobody can ever apprehend what the substance of the "scandal" is. Substance-free scandal is the only kind that attracts the intense attention of the media hordes.

RE: #34's question on Hillary's path to the White House -

Delegate Battles Snarl Democrats in Two States

MICHAEL LUO and JOHN M. BRODER
New York Times

March 15, 2008

...influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states...

Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

“If we do not resolve this issue,” Mr. Korge said, “I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.”

Hey folks, listen up. Obama can't be President without Clinton supporters and Clinton can't be President without Obama supporters. So how about turning down the hate and focus on how to defeat the real enemy - John McCain.

ECB, you really should offer a comment more often. The stories you cite don't always imply what you seem to think they imply.

Campaign contributions from questionable people, while Not Good, aren't exactly unique to Obama. It also doesn't mean that the contribution wasn't 100% legit. Obama claims Rezko has never asked him for a political favor.

The root issue is that money is too much of a factor in the success of a campaign that a politician basically has no choice but to accept as much as they can to stay viable. This is why I had such admiration for Edwards, and I tend to think it's a large part of why he had no real chance in this race.

On the whole, Obama has been pretty good about full disclosure, admitting to mistakes, firing problematic surrogates decisively, etc. In fact, in the paragraphs quoted here, you find that Obama offered up this particular information voluntarily.

On the other hand, a bunch of people here have mentioned Clinton's tax returns and they have a point. She says her returns will be out around April 15th. Are we to believe that they aren't done yet? Are we to believe that she can't hire a competent accountant to get them done sooner? It's hard not to think she doesn't want them out sooner. Releasing them "around" April 15th (April 16th? April 20th?) hardly gives much time for them to be properly vetted before the Pennsylvania contest. *If* this Rezko business is just now ramping up (not sure that's true), when it's been known for practically ages, it's hard not to feel like any similarly tricky subject re Clinton's returns isn't going to be overlooked until the majority of the remaining contests are over.

If there is nothing dubious found in them, I really would have to wonder why Clinton didn't try to get them out as soon as possible to avoid this kind of speculation. Doing your taxes in a timely fashion, either by yourself or through an accountant, especially when releasing them is the right thing to do as a major D candidate, seems like par for the course for someone with presidential potential. Is her cabinet going to be as boneheaded as her personal accountants?

If there is some genuine reason why they aren't out yet, I will eat my words, but I really have to wonder.

This reminds me, I need to track down a W2 that was lost in the mail :(

Anyone else notice that Clinton supporters never spend any time talking about what makes her so good?

Hillary has made change, silly. After she loses, she's going to become a token clerk in the Manhattan subway and make change all day long.

The Rezko thing doesn't look good

Rezko was a Christian Arab engineer who owned a string of pizza places, who, together with a Jew, built housing for poor people. Exactly when was the Evil Incarnate detector supposed to go off? Is selling pizza suspicious? Is housing the poor suspicious? It can't be the Christian Arab thing, because there were Sens. Abourezk, Spencer Abraham, Rep Darrell Issa, Casey Kasem, Danny Thomas, Orville Redenbacher (just seeing if y'all were paying attention).