Obama is the John Kerry of the primaries

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
The machine is out to destroy this dude. He might not even have a career in politics by the time this is over.
The Clintons are pushing the Rezko thing real big now.
Not one word from Obama about Whitewater or Travelgate or any of the other Clinton blood trails. How can he think he will win like this? How could experienced advisors think he could win like this after the past two elections?
Seems like a planned failure. He doesn't have to engage in the mudslinging himself but where are his people to attack Billary?

ABC put out a bullshit story that Obama was flipping out mad at a reporter- now fox and others have the video and the story is a total fuckin lie. :smh:


This LA Times piece will do damage if it is picked up by everyone



----------
Longtime patron may be a problem for Obama


Alleged slumlord and indicted businessman Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has long supported the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has returned related donations.


By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 23, 2008
CHICAGO -- Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama's Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.

In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Among other things, he has returned $85,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions in what a staffer calls "an abundance of caution."

A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.

For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.

In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.

Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Obamas secured their brick Georgian Revival-style home on June 15, 2005, for $1,650,000. Later, the Chicago Tribune reported, Rezko paid $14,000 to build a fence, required by city ordinance, along the new property line.

Obama says there was nothing improper in these transactions. The housing deal came after it was known that Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities.

Obama has said that, in retrospect, the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created.

Today, Obama campaigns for president as a new kind of politician, less beholden to special interests than his opponents. He and his staff regularly contrast his policy of refusing to accept donations from lobbyists with Clinton's practices. His relationship with Rezko may undermine the power of that claim.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton waves away such concerns, and in response contrasts Rezko against jailed Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu.

"This has nothing on the nearly $1 million that Hillary Clinton has had to give back as a result of the Norman Hsu scandal," he said.

"I would put Sen. Obama's record of fighting for lobbying and ethics reform up against anyone in this race," Burton said.

But a government watchdog group that once lauded Obama for leadership on ethics says the Illinois senator should have known better.

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

Obama's connection to the businessman dates to his return to Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law School.

Obama worked then for the Chicago firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. At the time, Rezko was developing and investing in low-income housing. In that role, he became one of the firm's clients, a point that Clinton made during the South Carolina debate.

During the debate, Obama acknowledged doing as much as five hours of work for a church group that was joining with Rezko to develop low-income housing. Clinton accused Obama of helping Rezko and his "slum landlord business."

Judson Miner, head of the firm, said in an interview that Obama billed about five hours of time working on a Rezko- related matter.

In the mid-1990s, Miner said, Rezko was viewed as an innovative developer intent on improving housing conditions, often working for church groups on Chicago's South Side.

"He became more interested in greener pastures," Miner said. "He got indicted. He became a bum. But in the 1990s, it was a very different picture."

The "slumlord" reference is backed up in part by a 2007 Chicago Sun-Times investigation that found that Rezko's low- income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many black families living in squalid conditions, sometimes without heat.

When Obama first sought public office in 1995, Rezko provided $2,000 in donations. Five years later, when Obama unsuccessfully challenged Democrat Bobby L. Rush for his U.S. House seat, Rezko and his associates contributed a much-needed infusion of cash in the final weeks of the campaign.

In 2003, when Obama launched his bid for the U.S. Senate, Rezko hosted a fundraiser at his home. The event, attended by more than 130 donors, featured an open sushi bar.

The Times arrived at the total of more than $200,000 by reviewing donations dating back to 1995, primarily looking at people who had business relationships with Rezko. Aides to Obama said they thought the total for Rezko-linked donations was lower, but were uncertain of the exact amount.

The criminal case against Rezko appears to center in part on his efforts to provide contributions to Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions. The federal investigation, dubbed Operation Board Game, produced allegations that Rezko and others sought to squeeze kickbacks from firms doing business before state boards. One oversees public schoolteacher pension investments. Another authorizes permits for hospitals.

Just a few years ago, Rezko was hobnobbing with the emir of Qatar, squiring him to Springfield and Chicago. He sold to a British billionaire -- but still helps manage -- what would be the largest undeveloped swath of land left in downtown Chicago, 62 acres along the Chicago River. He even became partners in a planned power plant in Iraq.

Obama has said repeatedly that he did nothing in exchange for Rezko's early and consistent support.

But in 1998, then-state Sen. Obama wrote to state and city officials urging them to provide funding for New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and Allison Davis. Obama wrote the letters, first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, on Illinois Senate stationery, saying: "This project will provide much needed housing for 4th Ward citizens."

Some who were part of Rezko's world remain Obama backers.

Kelly King Dibble was a Rezko company executive, and became Blagojevich's director of the Illinois Housing Development Authority until her resignation a year ago. She co-hosted a fundraiser in November at Chicago's South Shore Country Club for Obama.

Dibble -- who said her friendship with the candidate's wife, Michelle, goes back years -- said that whatever Rezko may have done, he was always decent to her: "I don't know him to be a crook. I know him to be a nice man." Nor does she believe he was, as Clinton said, a "slumlord," though she noted that it is hard to maintain low-income housing.

"It is sad that it has sunk to this level," she said.

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

dan.morain@latimes.com

Hamburger reported from Washington and Morain from Chicago. Times staff writer Chuck Neubauer contributed to this report.
 
Lets see how it plays out. This story is for white racist to consume. Long ass stories mean very little coming from that bitch.

Obama '08

-VG
 
factcheck_header.gif



<font size="5"><center>Clinton-Obama Slugfest</font size><font size="4">
Who lands a clean punch? Edwards was there, too</font size></center>

January 22, 2008

<font size="4">Summary</font size>
In one of the liveliest debates of the 2008 presidential campaign, the three top Democrats slugged it out in Myrtle Beach, S.C. We noted some low blows:

  • Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans" including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts.

  • Obama falsely denied endorsing single-payer government health insurance when he first ran for the Senate, saying, "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer." But in fact he gave a speech in 2003 saying, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program."

  • Edwards misleadingly claimed, "I was the one who beat John McCain" in a recent CNN poll. The problem is that there is a more recent CNN poll, one that shows either Clinton or Obama beating McCain and doesn't include Edwards.

<font size="4">Analysis</font size>
Just three Democratic candidates took part in the scorching debate cosponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus in Myrtle Beach, S.C.: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It was the next-to-last such encounter scheduled for the Democrats prior to the Feb. 5 "Super Duper Tuesday" showdown when more than 20 states hold nominating contests. South Carolina Democrats go to the polls Saturday.


<font size="4"><center>I Love the '80s!</font size></center>

dem_scdebate_hillary2.jpg


Clinton attacked Obama for supposedly supporting Republican ideas, which she said included federal deficits and "privatizing" Social Security:

Clinton: [He] has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote. ... They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt.

Obama pushed back, saying he had never endorsed such notions:

Clinton: [You] talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

Obama: I didn't say they were good ones.

Clinton: Well, you can read the context of it.

Obama: Well, I didn't say they were good ones. ...

Clinton: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented...​

We can’t speak to how things "came across" to Clinton, but we’ve listened to the entire interview and to our ears, it’s just flatly false that Obama said he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans." Clinton is referring to what Obama told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal. A video is available on the Internet.
Here’s what Obama actually said in the portion to which Clinton referred:

Obama (Jan. 14, 2008): The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.​

There’s a difference between praising someone for having ideas and praising the idea itself. Obama is doing the former – and just as clearly not doing the latter. He says the GOP approach has "played itself out," for example.

It’s also false to imply – as Clinton did – that Obama endorsed Republican proposals to set up private Social Security accounts or that he praised deficit spending. We listened to the entire 49-minute interview, and Obama said no such thing.

<font size="4"><center>I Love the '80s: Part Deux</font size></center>

Obama also has been taking heat for praising Ronald Reagan in that same interview. See the text box to the left for his exact words. Clinton tried to avoid mentioning that, for good reason, but Obama turned it against her anyway:

Obama: The irony of this is that you provided much more fulsome praise of Ronald Reagan in a book by Tom Brokaw that's being published right now, as did – as did Bill Clinton in the past. So these are the kinds of political games that we are accustomed to.​
<font size="3">Obama is correct: Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have lauded Reagan’s political skills. Tom Brokaw’s "Boom! Voices of the Sixties" quotes Clinton as saying that Reagan was "a child of the Depression" who understood pressures on the working and middle class:</font size>

Hillary Clinton (in Brokaw book): When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.​

<font size="3">And here’s Bill Clinton in 1998 at the dedication of the Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.:</font size>


Bill Clinton (May 5, 1998): The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.​

<font size="3">We’ll leave it to others to decide who's praising Reagan more. The fact is that Bill and Hillary have done it, not just Obama.</font size>


<font size="4"><center>To Their Health</font size></center>

Clinton charged that Obama’s position has shifted on health care, from favoring a single-payer, universal system when he was a Senate candidate to the plan he favors now, which would provide access to health insurance for all but wouldn’t require it. Obama denied that he had ever said he would work to get a single-payer plan. We score this round for Clinton.

Clinton: Secondly, we have seen once again a kind of evolution here. When Senator Obama ran for the Senate, he was for single-payer and said he was for single-payer if we could get a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. As time went on, the last four or so years, he said he was for single-payer in principle, then he was for universal health care. And then his policy is not, it is not universal. ...

Obama: I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.​

But Obama's denial doesn't hold up. In a speech to the AFL-CIO in 2003, when he was setting up his run for the Senate, Obama said:

Obama (June, 30, 2003): I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, is spending 14 percent, 14 percent, of its gross national product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.​

That sounds to us like someone who's pretty gung-ho for a single-payer plan. But after Democrats captured control of both the House and Senate in 2006, Obama tempered his position. He said in a New Yorker interview last year:

Obama (in The New Yorker, May 7, 2007): If you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system ... would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition ... would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive.​

But that was 2007, not when he was running for the Senate, which is what Clinton was referring to.

<font size="4"><center>Obama "Took a Pass?"</font size></center>

dem_scdebate_obama1.jpg


Clinton was mostly right when she attacked Obama for casting 130 "present" votes as an Illinois state senator. But she was wrong when she added, "the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all of those present votes was taking a pass. It was for political reasons."

It’s true that Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. But let's straighten out the sourcing of the article that said he "essentially took a pass" when he cast those votes. That one was written by Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, in a Feb. 14, 2007, opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, not the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune story, which ran in December, did quote Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois National Organization of Women as saying, "When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass." But those weren't the words of the Tribune itself. And Grabenhofer was endorsing Clinton at the time.

Beyond that, there's some substance to Clinton's general criticism. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The New York Times examined the issue in December and found a mixed record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support," the paper reported. "At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."


<font size="4"><center>Ka-Pow! Boffo!</font size></center>

dem_scdebate_obamahillary4.jpg


Obama and Clinton traded more personal swipes when Obama attacked Clinton's one-time membership on the board of directors of the world's largest retailer:

Obama: Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.​

It's true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters. According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company's founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company's anti-union stand, they said. But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing "serious differences" with its "current" practices.

<font size="3">The Rezko Matter:</font size>

Clinton hit back at Obama, reminding voters of his relationship with a longtime contributor who is now under federal indictment.

Clinton: ... I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago. ...

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.

Obama: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.​

According to an investigation last year by the Chicago Sun-Times, Antoin Rezko was involved in developing at least 30 low-income housing buildings in Chicago, in partnership with several community groups and using a combination of taxpayer and private funds. A number of the buildings fell into disrepair, collecting housing code violations, and Rezmar, Rezko's company, was sued on many occasions.

Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was "representing ... Rezko." That's untrue.

Obama has known Rezko, however, since he left Harvard Law School, and Rezko has been a major contributor and campaign fundraiser for him since Obama's first campaign for the Illinois state Senate. Earlier, we looked into questions about a land deal in which the two wound up with adjacent parcels. No wrongdoing was found in connection with that transaction, though Obama has said it was "boneheaded" for him to be involved in it when he knew Rezko was under investigation. Rezko has since been indicted on fraud and other charges. Obama, who returned some contributions from Rezko and his associates long ago, returned another $41,000 over the weekend in an effort to distance himself from the businessman.


<font size="4"><center>Borrowed Time</font size></center>

Clinton and Obama battled over their votes on bankruptcy bills and an amendment to cap interest charged on credit.

Clinton: There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30 percent interest. Senator Obama voted for it. I voted against it. ...

Obama: It is a fact, because thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling.​

Obama did vote against – and Clinton voted for – an amendment that would have placed a 30 percent cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. We could not find any public statements made by Obama regarding the amendment. The Clinton campaign points to a Chicago Tribune article that says Obama changed his mind on the vote in a move the paper attributes, in a none-too-flattering way, to the freshman senator's learning curve:

Chicago Tribune (June 12, 2007): To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure. ...

But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. "You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for," Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. "Thirty percent is sort of a random number."

Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment. ... Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos.​

As for whether the 30 percent cap was too high, that’s certainly a matter of opinion. Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sponsor of the amendment, said on the Senate floor that such a cap “is still consumer abuse” but is much better than rates of more than 300 percent, which he said were being charged by some loan operations in the country. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said in a September 2006 report that the rates credit card companies charge to those who commit a "violation of terms" averaged 27.3 percent in 2005. Seven of the 28 cards the GAO examined charged rates of more than 30 percent.

In last night’s debate, Clinton also said she had opposed the overall bankruptcy bill, which made it more difficult for consumers to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy; Obama opposed it, too. She didn't vote on the final bill, which passed by a 74-25 vote, because it was the day of her husband's heart surgery.

Also, Obama mischaracterized Clinton's comments on her vote for an earlier, 2001 bankruptcy bill. He said:

Obama: In the last debate, Senator Clinton said she voted for [the 2001 bill] but hoped that it wouldn't pass. Now, I don't understand that approach to legislation.​

That's not exactly what Clinton said. Moderator Tim Russert asked if she regretted voting for the 2001 bill. She answered:

Clinton (Jan. 15 debate):
Sure I do. It never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn't agree with. I was happy it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.​


<font size="4"><center>"I Was the One"</font size></center>

dem_scdebate_edwards1.jpg


Yes, there was another candidate in this debate. He got a couple of good swipes in at his adversaries, but we haven't addressed them here because they were mostly accurate. But former Sen. John Edwards echoed a misleading claim he made in a TV spot we criticized earlier, choosing his words only somewhat more carefully this time. He said, "The last time I saw one of [CNN's] polls that had all three of us against John McCain, I was the one that beat John McCain everywhere in America." That's literally true, but still misleading.

Actually, the most recent CNN poll, released 10 days ago, shows both Obama and Hillary beating McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup. Edwards was not in that poll. The one he refers to, which "had all three of us" matched against McCain, is from early December. In that one, Edwards was indeed the only one of the three who was ahead of McCain, though Obama did tie him. That, of course, was long before a single vote was cast in a caucus or primary.

–by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Justin Bank, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson


<font size="4">Sources</font size>

Gonzales, Nathan. "The Ever-'Present' Obama; Barack has a long track record of not taking a stand." Wall Street Journal, 14 Feb. 2007.

Hernandez, Raymond and Christopher Drew. "It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo," 20 Dec. 2007.

Brokaw, Tom. "Boom! Voices of the Sixties." New York: Random House, 2007.

Clinton, Bill. "Remarks by the President at Ronald Reagan Building Dedication." 5 May 1998. The White House, 22 January 2008.

Obama, Barack. Afternoon with Barack Obama, video by James Ball. 14 Jan. 2008.

Dorning, Mike and Christi Parsons. "Carefully crafting the Obama ‘brand’." Chicago Tribune, 12 June 2007.

Dayton, Mark. Comments on Senate floor, 2 March 2005.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Credit Cards: Increased Complexity in Rates and Fees Heightens Need for More Effective Disclosures to Consumers," Sept. 2006.

Barbaro, Michael. "As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far." The New York Times. 20 May 2007.

Fouhy, Beth. "Clinton feels heat over Wal-Mart ties." The Associated Press, 12 March 2006.

Drew, Christopher, and Mike McIntire. "An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment." The New York Times, 14 June 2007.

Novak, Tim. "Obama and his Rezko ties." Chicago Sun-Times, 23 April 2007.

MacFarquhar, Larissa. "The Conciliator." The New Yorker, 7 May 2007.

NOTE: These sources have links in the actual article.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html
 
<font size="4"><center>Obama's Reagan Remarks to Reno Gazette-Journal,</font size></center>

Jan. 14, 2008

Obama: I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into – he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren’t working, that we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html
 
"Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Obamas secured their brick Georgian Revival-style home on June 15, 2005, for $1,650,000. Later, the Chicago Tribune reported, Rezko paid $14,000 to build a fence, required by city ordinance, along the new property line.

Obama says there was nothing improper in these transactions. The housing deal came after it was known that Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities.

Obama has said that, in retrospect, the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created."
:hmm:

The reality is that people are tying to make Obama out to be political deity. From what I have observed, he hasn’t laid out a long term fix for the economy, the issue I am most concerned about. He may be trying to attract republicans to vote for him, but John Edwards’s point of not taking campaign contributions from lobbyist is important. Especially in light of this:

source: Chicago Business.com

May 14, 2007
By Greg Hinz

Michelle Obama cuts way back on U of C hours
(Crain’s) — Michelle Obama, the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, has cut back sharply on hours at her lucrative post with the University of Chicago Hospitals, and may not be there at all in the near future if the senator’s campaign continues to do well.

Spokespeople for both Ms. Obama and the university said Monday that on May 1 she cut back to working 20% of her normal load as vice-president of communications and external affairs. Both also denied a report in the Washington Post that Ms. Obama is “about to be unemployed,” although they conceded that could change.

“As of now, she works here and we want her to stay here,” the university spokesman said. He added, “We all presume that if the campaign continues to go as well as it has, she will have to take a leave of absence.”

The spokeswoman for Ms. Obama said she first went part-time on Feb. 1 and now “is planning on maintaining 20% as long as possible.” Asked how long that might be, the spokeswoman said, “I don’t know that. She’s planning on maintaining 20% at this time.”

The spokespeople said that, even when on the campaign trail on behalf of her husband, Ms. Obama remains in touch with work via cell phone and BlackBerry, and occasionally works from home.

Ms. Obama was paid $273, 618 by U of C last year, according to the 2006 income return filed by her and her husband. Her spokesman said Ms. Obama's base salary actually is $212,180, and that she now is being paid 20% of the base.

Her post has created some political controversy. Ms. Obama got the new job and a big raise from a lesser position shortly after her husband joined the Senate in 2006.

Ms. Obama also will remain on the baord of Westchester-based TreeHouse, Inc., where she has made tens of thousands of dollars a year in salary and stock options annually, the spokeswoman for Ms. Obama said. The firm's largest customer is Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc., who Mr. Obama and others have criticized for alleged anti-worker policies.

The Washington Post says it stands by its story that Ms. Obama will leave her U of C Hospitals job soon.

or this:

source: Chicago Tribune.com

Michelle Obama resigns position with Wal-Mart supplier

Posted by Christi Parsons at 4:35 pm CDT

Michelle Obama resigned her position as a director of Treehouse Foods today, ending the relationship with the Wal-Mart supplier that had threatened to become a problem for her husband, Barack Obama, in his bid for the Democratic nomination for president.
Treehouse supplies pickles and other specialty foods to Wal-Mart, a frequent target of union leaders who say the company treats its workers unfairly.
Michelle Obama cited increased demands on her time for resigning the position, which she had held since the summer of 2005.
But the decision comes as Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from any ties to Wal-Mart, a key target of one of the party's most important constituencies. Several labor unions are engaged in a public campaign to change Wal-Mart's business practices.
"While we regret her resignation, we understand and respect her decision," said Sam K. Reed, the chairman of the Treehouse board.

Posted by on May 22, 2007 4:36 PM | Permalink

I’m not bashing Obama, I just want people to look at his policies and not just the fact that he is a “qualified Black man’.
 
"Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Obamas secured their brick Georgian Revival-style home on June 15, 2005, for $1,650,000. Later, the Chicago Tribune reported, Rezko paid $14,000 to build a fence, required by city ordinance, along the new property line.

Obama says there was nothing improper in these transactions. The housing deal came after it was known that Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities.

Obama has said that, in retrospect, the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created."
:hmm:
Now what exactly is your point ???

QueEx
 
Now what exactly is your point ???

QueEx

What a coincidence. Oops, I’m sorry, I made a mistake! Give me a break. A Harvard Lawyer and a Princeton graduate making a mistake like this? Look at your candidates with open eyes.
 
The reality is that people are tying to make Obama out to be political deity. From what I have observed, he hasn’t laid out a long term fix for the economy, the issue I am most concerned about. He may be trying to attract republicans to vote for him, but John Edwards’s point of not taking campaign contributions from lobbyist is important.

I’m not bashing Obama, I just want people to look at his policies and not just the fact that he is a “qualified Black man’.

Especially in light of this:

[1] Michelle Obama cuts way back on U of C hours

[2] Michelle Obama resigns position with Wal-Mart supplier

You quoted two (2) articles in connection with the above commentary. Which one related to Obama's policies??? Neither. They both related to his wife's employment.

Are you concerned that people are deifying Barack Obama or that they are <u>not</u> deifying Hillary Clinton ???

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go in defense of white folks and against our own.

QueEx
 
You quoted two (2) articles in connection with the above commentary. Which one related to Obama's policies??? Neither. They both related to his wife's employment.

Are you concerned that people are deifying Barack Obama or that they are <u>not</u> deifying Hillary Clinton ???

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go in defense of white folks and against our own.

QueEx

I am saying they are both politicians. Hilary is laughable with her comments about Dr. King, since she was a Goldwater Girl when she was younger. Another thread illustrates what Goldwater was about in the early 1960s. It’s obvious where she is coming from. So many people seem to be giving Obama a pass on some things. I’m not saying what he does is not typical or even out of the ordinary, but if you are going to link Hillary to Bill which is justified since he is campaigning for her, then link Michelle to Barack. She does a lot of campaigning for him also. If I were to blindly support Obama, because he is Black, then I should have supported Allen Keys.

Why all of a sudden are you pulling out the race card Mr. Libertarian?

Remember, everything Black just ain't Black!
 
You quoted two (2) articles in connection with the above commentary. Which one related to Obama's policies??? Neither. They both related to his wife's employment.

Are you concerned that people are deifying Barack Obama or that they are <u>not</u> deifying Hillary Clinton ???

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go in defense of white folks and against our own.

QueEx

Which is why that poster remains number one, forever and in perpetuity on my ignore list.

Thank you QueEx for posting the fact check articles.

Obama '08

-VG
 
<font size="5"><center>Obama's Former Friend</font sizes></center>

RealClearPolitics
By Robert Novak
March 3, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As Sen. Barack Obama nears the Democratic presidential nomination, a corruption trial of his former fund-raiser Antoin (Tony) Rezko on charges of influence peddling begins in Chicago today (Monday). Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal.

Obama bought a mock Georgian mansion on Chicago's south side on June 15, 2005, the same day Rezko's wife bought a plot next door from the same seller. Obama then purchased from Rezko another parcel at above-market value. Federal prosecutors recently revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire who lives in London, wired $3.5 million to the financially strapped Rezko in Chicago less than a month before the Obama-Rezko purchases. James Bone, investigative reporter for the Times of London, wrote last Tuesday that "the money transfer raises the question of whether funds" from Auchi "helped" Obama buy his house.

This is what candidate Clinton had in mind after losing Iowa's caucuses when she claimed Obama had not been properly "vetted" to be president. For months prior to that, her agents had hinted darkly that Obama's past could be used by Republicans when the time came. But these were only hints, because of fear that explicit revelations would backfire against Clinton.

The closest Clinton has come to openly raising Obama's connections with Rezko was during the Congressional Black Caucus presidential debate Jan. 21. "I was fighting" against "bad" Republican ideas, she told Obama, "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slumlord business in inner-city Chicago." In fact, Clinton messed it up. Rezko was not a client of Obama's firm and was not a slumlord. Accused of racial insensitivity, Clinton dropped the issue.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's sharp-tongued communications director, was not giving up and was more precise than his candidate Feb. 14, when interviewed by "National Journal On Air." He contended: "There are many questions ... about his relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko that he could answer, that he has not. What was the exact nature of his relationship with Mr. Rezko? ... How much money did Mr. Rezko bundle for him? ... What favors did Sen. Obama perform for Mr. Rezko?"

Clinton agents have shopped this story around the news media since her 10-state losing streak started. A "Rezko Watch" blog attacks both Rezko and Obama daily, while alleging connections between them. The blog appears to be written by a self-styled "citizen journalist" who calls himself "B Merryfield" and dispenses the straight pro-Clinton line.

Obama has conceded his simultaneous home purchase with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake. He is returning $150,000 raised by Rezko and his associates, and is contributing to charity $72,650 in Rezko contributions. Asked by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Nov. 11 why he was "associating with such a person," Obama replied, "There was no evidence of wrongdoing," but added, "There's no doubt that it was a mistake on my part." He made clear he had cut off all contact with Rezko "since he got in trouble with the law."

But the case against Rezko prepared by the always determined U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald poses possible new pitfalls for the Democratic front-runner by introducing into the proceedings Auchi, who has been convicted on corruption charges in France and given a suspended sentence. While his friends describe Auchi and his family as victims of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, Pentagon sources call him a "bagman" who laundered money in London for the Iraqi dictator.

Chicago Sun-Times reporters Chris Fusco and Tim Novak asked last week how it was possible for Auchi to get government permission to visit Chicago in 2004 despite his French criminal conviction. Obama aides were quoted as saying Auchi never reached out to the senator, and representatives of both men say neither has any recollection of meeting the other. But the Times of London reported last week that "the two may have had a brief encounter" at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago. It is an indistinct part of an indistinct story Hillary Clinton's handlers wish had attracted attention before now.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obamas_former_friend.html
 
`

. . . so you read the <s>fine</s> Red print as well . . .

`
:lol: oh yeah - when I read any article I look at the source and writer before reading it- often if it is a shill ass like Robbie Nosack I don't bother reading it.
 
Back
Top