Hillary On The Morning Shows: Surprised By Photo Of Her And Rezko
Hillary hits all the morning shows, gets hit with a surprise on NBC: An old photo of her and Bill next to disgraced Obama associate Tony Rezko. NBC's Matt Lauer says that the network "received" the photo and that its date is uncertain; the same pic also popped up on Drudge this morning.
Asked about it, Hillary responds: "I don't know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17 year relationship with him. There's a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since, and having a relationship that the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring." Her campaign's official response is here.
To see the Rezko photo, roll the tape...
Comments (204)
Jeremy wrote on January 25, 2008 12:01 PM:I'd like to see them surprise her by calling her out on lying about Obama's record on womens' rights issues. First the misleading flier in NH that swung the vote to her at the last minute, then the misleading characterization of Obama's votes on victims' rights legislation he actually sponsored.
Obama was the only Senator to help fight the anti-choice efforts in SD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A&feature=user
You can't hardly tell Rezko is a "slumlord" in that picture of him with the Clintons. He seems.. whiter?
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 12:04 PM:Yikes. You don't just walk in off the street and get a photo like that. There's clearly more to it than she's saying.
The bottom line is that these guilt-by-association games are just ridiculous. You might as well show the photo of her and Hsu. As long as there was nothing improper going on, it shouldn't be an issue.
Pete wrote on January 25, 2008 12:04 PM:I did not meet that man -- Tony Rezko.
Seriously, though, Hillary is right. Obama is certainly more tied to Rezko than she is. It's sort of like trying to find equivalence between Hsu's $2000 donation to Obama in 2002 and the millions he dubiously raised for her in this race. It just isn't the same.
That said, the Obama/Rezko thing has been investigated for years and it really does seem that there's no there there.
We'll see what comes of the Clinton/Hsu fundraising deal.
Southpaw wrote on January 25, 2008 12:06 PM:That really the best you can do to mitigate the impact of this?
For starters, you'd better switch that t "disgraced Obama AND Clinton associate."
The photo itself should be on TPM's front page right now.
http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/_rezko300.jpg
And measuring the extent of the Clintons' relationship to Rezko against Obama's is so very beside the point. Obama did not raise this issue. Indeed, he STILL has not raised it. Lacking any *real* dirt, Clinton tried to use Obama's mere association with an indicted individual against him. Now it comes out that SHE and her husband have ties (however minimal they may be, and let's wait and see on that) to the same individual. The point is not who knows Rezko (or, ahem... Norman Hsu... ahem) better. The point is which of these two candidates is an out-and-out hypocrite, willing to say and do *anything* to get elected, regardless of whether it is relevant or, indeed, even true.
We'll see what comes of the Clinton/Hsu fundraising deal.
I'm guessing a pardon from the Clintons if/when they are re-elected?
steve wrote on January 25, 2008 12:07 PM:Questions Matt Lauer didn't ask but should have:
Did Rezko buy a lot adjoining your new home, on the same day you did, then give it to you?
Did you write letters of support and use your elected office tohelp him in his shady business dealings?
Did you personally benefit financially from the help you gave Rezko as an elected official?
Did you help Rezko after it was well known that he was involved in questionable, and likely illegal, activities?
Once you were finally called out on your Rezko connection, did you got on national TV and flatly lie about whether his shady dealings were public knowledge at the time you helped him?
last exit wrote on January 25, 2008 12:07 PM:The media should shove that photo right up Hillary's ass until feb 6.
bethincary wrote on January 25, 2008 12:09 PM:It's a very Rovian tactic to accuse your competitor of getting donations from "improp" sources.
Rove did this many times over-got corrupt money donating to his own campaigns to make a contribution to the competitor, then accuse THEM of taking illegal/corrupt money.
A common Rovian "Bait and switch" tactic.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 12:10 PM:Well, I never watch morning television (NPR's morning news is much better) so I missed this. I watched the video link, however, and I would say that she parried the "gotcha" thrust quite ably. I cannot imagine that this will hurt her much.
Honestly, if I were the Clintons, I would not overplay the Rezko connection. If folks give it any serious attention, they will see that there is really no "there" there. In order for the Rezko meme to be effective, folks have to have the impression that he is "dirty" and that Obama is "tied" to him. As such, the Clintons should want to keep him simmering the background, but never actually bring him to the table. As such, while I saw no evidence of Sen Clinton being shaken in this interview, if she was worried about something here, I doubt it is that she was saying "oh no, they've found out Rezko's connection to me." Rather, to the extent that this is worrisome at all, I imagine that the worry would run "oh no, this is rising to enough prominence that the news will air it all out and its potency will disintegrate when it is exposed to sunlight."
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 12:10 PM:To be fair, I bet half of the commentors here have had their pictures taken with the Clintons. Right?
Jeremy wrote on January 25, 2008 12:10 PM:Questions Matt Lauer didn't ask but should have:
If Rezko gets convicted will you pardon him if he hires/bribes one of your brothers?
green heron wrote on January 25, 2008 12:10 PM:You know Billary took Rezko's cash. Live by the slumlord, die by the slumloard.
hwc wrote on January 25, 2008 12:11 PM:What a hoot. The President and First Lady take literally tens of thousands of these meet 'n greet photos. These are taken with all the guests at any Democratic Party event they attend - for example a Mayor Daley fundraiser or a Illinois Democratic Party fundraiser.
It's literally an assembly line. The President and his wife stand there, while attendees wait in line to walk up, get their photo snapped, and move on.
C.B. wrote on January 25, 2008 12:16 PM:I wonder how much Rezko paid the Clintons to have this photo taken with them? Did he get to sleep in the White House too? The Democrats are so stupid. You think ALL the other deals of the Clintons during their White House years are not going to be fair game for the Republicans come November. Billary is a bad idea.
Oh and when are all the Clinton papers going to be released - after Billary have the nomination locked up???
We are going to be marched lock step down memory lane and it's going to be a nightmare - once again.
John McCutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 12:17 PM:Greg Sargent tried to shuck and jive us for months
Many of us weren't fooled
None of us should be now
With a degree of inevitability that makes Kabuki seem spontaneous, the 2008 Democratic race has become all about Bill Clinton all the time.
Walter Shapiro
Salon
Bill Clinton looks backward
He is attacking Barack Obama with the same playbook he used to go after Republican targets like Newt Gingrich. Are the Clintons stuck in reverse?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/25/clintons/index.html
"having a relationship that the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring"
What a slimy thing to say. Slams Obama for having newspaper articles written about him. If she has evidence of impropriety by Obama she should say so, otherwise she should shut up.
NCSteve wrote on January 25, 2008 12:18 PM:The way some Clintonites can doublethink themselves into believing that Obama's ties to Rezko are going to be more important to the voters than the veritable army of stinky fundraising debacles they've accumulated over the years never fails to amaze me.
Southpaw, but have you considered maybe starting your own blog and running it the way you want instead of constantly screaming at these guys about they way they run theirs? It's kind of like a houseguest griping about the decor of their host's home.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 12:20 PM:Rewatching the Today Show video, it just suddenly occurred to me who the negative Hillary reminds me of: Ann Coulter.
Notice the way she drops bombs in that stream of consciousness monotone just like Ann Coulter?
A little off topic, but an interesting piece on the clintons' campaign for a third term.
Drew M. wrote on January 25, 2008 12:21 PM:The Clintons better hope and pray there's absolutely no connection. It wouldn't be good for either Obama or Clinton if that came to light.
bob wrote on January 25, 2008 12:25 PM:I wonder how much Rezko had to pay for that photo. You only get to take a photo like that with a candidate if you are a big donor.
steve, every question you asked is intended to falsely mislead people, so it's no surprise Lauer didn't ask any of them.
aretino wrote on January 25, 2008 12:27 PM:So much for Hillary's spin that she's the candidate who has already been vetted.
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 12:27 PM:Great response: "I don't know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17 year relationship with him. There's a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since, and having a relationship that the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring."
Now, why can't Obama start explaining about his 17+ relationship, the discounted home purchase, the donations, the apparently linked votes, his misstatement about 'just 5 hours' of time to suggest he had no connection with Rezko. Heck, he's a friend, community- and business-partner for 17 years! While he couldn't give all the monies away fast enough, this does not lessen his culpability, nor his need to provide a serious and detailed explanation.
bob wrote on January 25, 2008 12:29 PM:Ha-ha, Hillary. Live by the dumb political gotcha games, die by the dumb political gotcha games.
This story is over for Obama, but just getting started for Hillary. Now every news source is going to try to figure out when and where the photo was taken, how much Rezko ponied up for it, every other occasion they met, etc.
Remember how much time TPM devoted to digging up a photo of George W. Bush with Jack Abramoff?
Matthew Lies! wrote on January 25, 2008 12:30 PM:There was no discounted home purchase, Matthew, you lying sack of shit. He purchased an adjoining piece of land for fair market value.
5 hours was correct. He's not a business partner.
Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 12:31 PM:Matt said:
Now, why can't Obama start explaining about his 17+ relationship, the discounted home purchase, the donations, the apparently linked votes, his misstatement about 'just 5 hours' of time to suggest he had no connection with Rezko. Heck, he's a friend, community- and business-partner for 17 years! While he couldn't give all the monies away fast enough, this does not lessen his culpability, nor his need to provide a serious and detailed explanation.
He doesn't have to because these claims are completely false and trailer trashing fabrications by the clintons.
Why don't the clintons start explaining what h. clinton did at 25 to establish 35 years of experience? How useful was that experience when she voted to launch a war based on lies for political purposes? What does she have to say about the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent iraqis and americans? What does she have to say about the destruction and devestation of a country? Why does she want to launch a war against Iran?
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 12:32 PM:"Great response"
No response is "great" enough, because at the end of the day - there is still a picture floating around with you and the slumlord you linked your opponent to.
John McCutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 12:33 PM:She is indulging in the partisan-style politics that Americans are desperate to leave behind and certainly don't want in a President. And she is either giving free rein to, or failing to control, her husband. Neither possibility bodes well. In one attack in the debate, Sen. Clinton accused Obama of helping a corrupt Chicago businessman with his "slum landlord business." The truth is that Obama had put in five hours of work as a junior law firm associate helping to represent a community organization that had partnered with the businessman. The truth is also that Obama fought slumlords as a community organizer.New York Daily News 1/23
Yet the Clintons continue to lie. They always have.
Thinking back on my vigorous support of this pair in the 1990's pains me. Boy was I played for a fool
I had my picture taken with Bill Clinton in Virginia and there is not a chance in heck he knows who I am. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with Delasus.
Mary wrote on January 25, 2008 12:33 PM:Now if someone comes up with evidence that Obama sat on the board of Directors at walmart busing unions, then they will be even.
Here's the difference:
Obama's name has not come up in connection with any of the corruption charges swirling around Rezko. In fact, prosecutors indicate that the source of Rezko's clout was somewhere within Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.
"My relationship is he 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," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with CBS' "Early Show." "Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=12034470&channelId=76&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=866
Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, according to board members. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has aggressively fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like firing union supporters and allegedly spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.
During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, according to Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/politics/19cnd-walmart.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin
the picture means nothing as canditates and politicians take pictures constantly....candidates take hundreds every day ,,,,from the looks of it the clintons were a lot younger in the pic...i can believe they wouldnt remember every pic and who they took it with
Jesus wrote on January 25, 2008 12:34 PM:Now, why can't Obama start explaining about his 17+ relationship, the discounted home purchase, the donations, the apparently linked votes, his misstatement about 'just 5 hours' of time to suggest he had no connection with Rezko. Heck, he's a friend, community- and business-partner for 17 years! While he couldn't give all the monies away fast enough, this does not lessen his culpability, nor his need to provide a serious and detailed explanation.
Clinton Supporters: "Why seest thou a mote in thy brother's eye, and perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 25, 2008 12:35 PM:Well I for one truly hope the Clinton campaign can keep their promise of not using negative ads against Obama or Edwards for that matter. I think it will depress voter turnout and emphasizes disunity in the democratic party which we need right now because God help us if another Republican gets elected.
Obama was not my first choice but He seems to me to be the only person in the democratic national race who is truly trying to appeal to independents, democrats, and moderate republicans. Although I think it would be fair to say that Mr Edwards has also used a populist message( I think he would be a great VP). I believe this is important as I think the Republican party needs to shift back to its core principles, ala Teddy Roosevelt, liberatarian principles and fiscal conservatisim rather than Gay bashing, Big Business supporting, anti-union, anti-tolerance, and anti-progress agenda.
We need change and the democrats need the independents as much as any other party, I just personally don't see how Hillary can fire up that group, but maybe I wrong. I mean she seems to be firing up some women and many whites in SC, so go figure!
Gotta go, Stay Solid!
Jim wrote on January 25, 2008 12:35 PM:I'm not a huge Clinton fan (either of them), but she's right here. This looks like a picture you get for donating $2,000, after the dinner with the $5,000 donors and the intimate cocktail reception with the $10,000 donors.
That said, nobody oughta know better than the Clintons that the kind of guilt-by-assocation charges she's trying to make against Obama are dishonest smear tactics, and I don't have much sympathy if they backfire on her.
nisleib wrote on January 25, 2008 12:35 PM:I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to ask Hillary how much Mark Rich paid for his pardon.
someone wrote on January 25, 2008 12:36 PM:why did tpm hack up her reply?
see here
for her answer to the question uninterrupted
John McCutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 12:38 PM:Mark Rich, Monica, Travelgate, the Lincoln bedroom...I don't really care if the Clintons partisans defend themselves here or not.
I am not going back to poke around the Clintons sewerage with them
timbnyc wrote on January 25, 2008 12:38 PM:Apparently there's a Clinton standing next to every bad guy.
Frankie wrote on January 25, 2008 12:39 PM:This is why Hillary is a liability to the party. Everything Bill touched has turned to shit...and now she's gonna have to eat that shit pie with a smile on her face.
Note to Hillary: Don't call out slum lords until you make sure they haven't donated to you or your husband.
Stan wrote on January 25, 2008 12:39 PM:>>>The way some Clintonites can doublethink themselves into believing that Obama's ties to Rezko are going to be more important to the voters than the veritable army of stinky fundraising debacles they've accumulated over the years never fails to amaze me.>>>
They don't believe it. They just are aiming for some kind of rough equivalence and relativism. It's true that the Clintons have so many skeletons that they need an additional closet. But they are trying to turn that into a virtue..."see, everyone does it, we just do it better."
At this point, Bill's abusive sexual history with women is their biggest asset, because it bubbles past all the money stuff, all the patronage, the cattle futures, the McDougals...everything. And so all they have to say is "this is just all about sex, you people are so hung up."
I've got two candidates for president I would vote for. Edwards, and Obama, in that order. I won't vote for anyone who I think takes this country the wrong direction, and that includes all the republicans and the Clintons. We need to move on in the right direction. And we will. This is going to be a long campaign. Everyone who wants to rush to annoint the Clintons knows that the longer they are out there, the worse they do. Check the trendlines and take a nap. This thing is a long way from over.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 12:40 PM:Why did she say:
" I didn't have a 17 yr relationship with this person".
Didn't hear Matt say 17 years-so a very odd answer.
Maybe Obama knew this about HRC-that's why he kept stressing during the debate to release the list of contributors to the Clinton Library.
Maybe Reznik is on th list-I'd bet.
Lee wrote on January 25, 2008 12:41 PM:This is less an "unpleasant surprise" than pure hooey and really very offensive example of NBC/Russert political attack couched as news.
Who cares if she shook his hand? The point is Obama's continuing relationship with this guy who appears to be been very useful to him.
Further, while the question to her was posed as if it were her attack on Obama it was actually a response to an attack on her.
This is just crap and you ought not to be wallowing in it.
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 12:42 PM:I'm not going to refute item-by-item as your language suggests its a wasted effort. But consider this:
- Obama has received more than $168K from Rezko, his family, and associates
- Obama bought his house for $300K below asking price as part of a combined purchase with Rezko.
- Obama, even if not directly, is involved in Rezko's upcoming trial.
- And, BTW, if Obama is so much for community activism and all the other good stuff folks are attributing him with, why does he have such a long personal, political, and financial relationship with a slum-lord?
Sometimes, I really think that Obama supporters are blind in their support, refusing to look beyond the 'new face' in national politics. (And, yes, Hillary comes with baggage, but I'd sure take hers over what we are seeing and hearing about Obama.)
Finally, Obama can't stop Rezko's trial and may likely get named more directly and even called for deposition or testimony. Won't this be great for his campaign and the Democrats?
Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 12:42 PM:BTW, here is a link to an article with links for back-up about the rezko trailer trashing fabrications by the clintons. There is nothing there and it is truly outrageous that they are lying so much about this to smear obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080124/cm_huffpost/083040;_ylt=AkEBcxUH.ZI9MS0jrPPNlfL9wxIF
It's funny the clintons have so much factual trash associated with them that people don't have to lie about their trash. However, the clintons have to lie and fabricate to try to trash obama. Talk about no morals and hypocrisy. Pathetic.
normanHSU wrote on January 25, 2008 12:43 PM:remember me?
John Dillinger wrote on January 25, 2008 12:45 PM:When Hillary says "I didn't have 17-year relationship with this person," Obama's answer should be "Ok, so can we talk about someone you did have such a relationship with, Web Hubbell?"
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 12:45 PM:Mary, take a look at http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article. It is one of several accessible on the topic. It pretty clearly links Obama in the upcoming trial.
fa wrote on January 25, 2008 12:48 PM:Yikes. The media campaign of piling on Hillary Clinton continues. Afterward, Lauer and the other NBC new staff share pats on the back for a job well done. The sorry part is the fact that they think they are practicing good journalism.
Jeremy wrote on January 25, 2008 12:50 PM:From your link Matthew:
The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.
Yep. Pretty clear. No there there.
Mary wrote on January 25, 2008 12:50 PM:At TPM, as well as other sites, the American People are outraged at the war crimes committed by GWB and the trashing of our government and constitution. It is truly appalling. Just when you think this administration has hit a new low, they come up with something worse. So now I ask you, if by some miracle congress does hold impeachment hearings, and if by some miracle, justice wins out and the GWB, Cheney and the gang are actually found guilty of "high crimes and crimes against humanity", how will that justice be metered out.
Now think about it - Bill has previously said if Hillary is elected, he and Daddy Bush would like to take a "restore America's image world tour". He is not just blowing smoke here - considering he has traveled alot with Daddy Bush and it has been reported that they are very friendly. Even GWB made a joke that his Dad liking Bill better. Now I ask you: Don't you think it would be hard to indict your BFF's son? Will justice ever be served in a Clinton Administration? If you thought the Marc Rich pardons were on the fence, just wait until they pardon the "the worst criminal leader in American history".
bo wrote on January 25, 2008 12:50 PM:Gosh isn't she sweet!!!! Hugs and kisses!!!!!
I'm voting third party! The hypocritical Bush enabler can go to hell!
Matthew, what's the campaign talking point on h. clinton's failure to read the NIE which would have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans and the destruction of a country?
JGabriel wrote on January 25, 2008 12:51 PM:Mikes: "Yikes. You don't just walk in off the street and get a photo like that. There's clearly more to it than she's saying."
Maybe, but not 'clearly'. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such photos that the Clintons must have posed for over the years at various local fundraisers, speeches, GOTV events, etc.
Frankly, if the Clintons had any in-depth relationship with Rezko, they certainly would have known better than to attack Obama's asociation with him.
Of course, they probably should have known better anyway. Whether or not Clinton has any relationship with Rezko, all candidates, knowingly or not, have sleazy contributors to their campaigns - attacking someone else's sleazy contributors is just inviting op research on your own.
Mark wrote on January 25, 2008 12:51 PM:Sorry Matt, that dog just won't hunt.
SD wrote on January 25, 2008 12:52 PM:Having spent years fighting spurious accusations about their business dealings and relationsips, the Clintons have evidently decided that "the politics of personal destruction" aren't so bad when they're the ones dishing the dirt.
No doubt when the Republicans resuscitate those same spurious accusations against Hillary the nominee, her supporters will tell her not to "whine" about it.
fa. The media was pretty charitable Hillary by not covering the role of her lying mailers attacking Obama's record on choice. I don't think your complaint really gets any traction.
frankly0 wrote on January 25, 2008 12:54 PM:17 years of very close association vs. a standard, perfunctory photo.
Can Matt Lauer be serious? What kind of insane "gotcha" moment could this possibly be?
Sometimes the Clinton hate just makes you really crazy and really stupid.
Jonathan wrote on January 25, 2008 12:54 PM:If the Clintons are not friends of Rezko as they claim, then at best there is only a half a degree of separation between them.
Allison Davis was the head of the law firm where Obama cut his lawyer teeth. Davis handled rezko related stuff while at the firm, then left the firm to join Rezko in his failed housing projects venture.
"Flashback: Sept. 19, 2004, at a big-ticket fund-raiser for Senate Demoratic candidates, including Obama, in the stunning Kenwood mansion of former Obama law partner Allison Davis and his wife Susan. The headliner was none other than Hillary Clinton."
source:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_says_clueless_abou.html
Lynn Sweet the reporter on that story has done some REALLY deep investigations into Obama for the past several years. Her findings are an excellent read.
summary of what chicago papers have dug up:
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/01/23/in-defense-of-the-locals/
Lynn Sweet's column:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/
This is unlikely to hurt TeamClinton much, but it will defuse their "slumlord" smear of Obama.
DougMN wrote on January 25, 2008 12:55 PM:The venom that 'Obama supporters' display when they bring up Clintons' supposed past misdeeds (that were all BS pushed by the Right wing noise machine with an assist from the WP, NYT and cable shows), leads me to feel that they're not really Obama supporters, just Republican Trolls trying to stir the pot.
fa wrote on January 25, 2008 12:56 PM:"I've got two candidates for president I would vote for. Edwards, and Obama, in that order. I won't vote for anyone who I think takes this country the wrong direction, and that includes all the republicans and the Clintons."
So, if Clinton happens to get the nomination, who will you vote for, Ralph Nader? If you fail to support the Democrat whoever that turns out to be, then expect a Republican president to veto all attempts to correct the damage of the Bush years. How will that work out for you?
Speaking of the Bush years, why is it that the 2 worst financial crises (S&L Scandal & Home Mortgage crisis) of the past generation took place under Bush presidencies?
tz wrote on January 25, 2008 12:57 PM:im still undecided but reading these comments is helping me make up my mind ....bringing up 10-15 year old accusations is stupid...after 115 million dollars spent investigating the clintons and not even a misdomeaner against them should close the case against them .....bush admin lied 935 times and he lied once,,,which there is not a man amongst us who would admit an affair on national tv...i know i wouldnt have.....but web hubble et al is so old its a senseless argument......the pepubs are going to tear obama a new rear end when they start their attacks.....so lets discuss the last 2 or three years and not bring up old crap thats be rehased numerous times
Bill wrote on January 25, 2008 12:57 PM:I did not have financial relations with that man Tony Rezko.
hadenough wrote on January 25, 2008 12:57 PM:The "liberal media" trying to paint obama's first politcal donor, 17 year friend, long time co-finance chair and now indicted big time Chicago poltical op on Hillary is not only good news for obama but also good news for Democrats.
Joe Wilson wrote on January 25, 2008 12:59 PM:Obama took a $300,000 bribe on his house and admitted it was a mistake.
Obama is corrpt.
tym wrote on January 25, 2008 12:59 PM:The slimebags the Clintons get caught again
Hoping for a big defeat for those corrupt liars
Oh, I like this link from the article on rezko I linked to above. This is good.
http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html
Jonathan wrote on January 25, 2008 12:59 PM:"Flashback: Sept. 19, 2004, at a big-ticket fund-raiser for Senate Demoratic candidates, including Obama, in the stunning Kenwood mansion of former Obama law partner Allison Davis and his wife Susan. The headliner was none other than Hillary Clinton."
source:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_says_clueless_abou.html
I was just about to say that I forgot to mention that I thought this was likely the source of the photo, however the date is too recent and the photo too old.
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 1:01 PM:Matt Lauer and the entire NBC organization have become quite good at kissing Obama behind. From top to bottom NBC has become a refuge for worthless journalist, Matt Lauer leads the pack.
Mary wrote on January 25, 2008 1:02 PM:Here's the bottom line, folks:
Polls are now showing Obama has lost 10 points in the white vote in South Carolina. Those voters have moved to John Edwards instead, as the "grown-up" in the Democratic Party.
Play all the nah-nah-nah games you want, but Obama's image as a "uniter," supposedly above dirty politics, is now tarnished.
Don't you wonder WHERE Matt Lauer got that picture from?
Tony Rezko wrote on January 25, 2008 1:02 PM:Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid me $104,500 for a strip of my land. See Corrput Chicago Politician
goldberry wrote on January 25, 2008 1:03 PM:Riiiighhhhht.
Obama is running around to all the terribly sympathetic media outlets saying the equivalent of "I have DIverTICuLIIIIIIITis" because Clinton is drawing some contrast and *she's* supposed to change the tone of the debate? What planet are these people on? As far as I can tell, nobody's said anything even remotely mean about Obama. Are we now supposed to believe that we are NEVER supposed to apply any kind of critical analysis to his candidacy, policies or campaign because it might be seen as mean?
You know. I don't think this crap is going to work this year. I think the voters are on to it. I can't think of one negative thing that the Clintons have said about Obama and the racial thing is completely overblown.
The more I hear about Obama's faux outrageous whining, the more disgusted I am by it. It's a distraction he is manufacturing to take the focus off of his campaign. Once he starts to get pinned down on something, it turns Democratic voters off and his campaign turns on the waterworks.
Fricking whiner.
Remember back in the mid-90s when the Clintons were selling personal access for donations to the DNC? Does "Lincoln Bedroom" help revive that memory?
In addition to providing nights in the Lincon Bedroom for big donors, the Clintons hosted "coffee klatches" at the White House to receive donations (and get a picture taken)from people with enough money and enough bundling power to do so. It wouldn't surprise me at all that this is where the photo was taken.
If that's the case, Clinton's campaign staff are slicing the truth pretty close to the line about this. Rezko's donation would show up in DNC records, not Clinton records, although it guaranteed the Clinton's limitless funds for the campaign for the second term.
This was all subjected to a Congressional investigation back then. Marvin Rosen was the Clinton fundraiser who came up with the whole Lincoln Bedroom scheme. And he's still a fund raising giant for Hillary Clinton, as a "Hillraiser."
colonpowwow wrote on January 25, 2008 1:05 PM:In Milwaukee (around 1970) I was on a drug education panel with a noted local rightwing judge (Christ Seraphim - yep, real name!), and a really borderline facist police chief (Harold Breier). I was photographed with them many times both for official photos and appeared with them in the newspaper photos at events all the time (I was the one who looked like a hippie).
So, I guess that means, especially since I'm sure I knew and talked with both of them much more than the Clintons knew Rezko, that we remained involved in each other's lives for 17 years afterwards and that Breier's wife just happened to do me a big personal financial favor by buying that lot next door so I could get my house.
LOL
malarson2 wrote on January 25, 2008 1:05 PM:It’s the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it’s too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues . Pass it on.
tz wrote on January 25, 2008 1:07 PM:BUSH HAS HAD MORE GUESTS IN THE LINCOLN THAN CLINTON.......RUSH LIMBAUGH ETC
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 1:08 PM:"Polls are now showing Obama has lost 10 points in the white vote in South Carolina.
..but now its up to 17 points..
"Those voters have moved to John Edwards instead, as the "grown-up" in the Democratic Party."
I love John Edwards, and would vote for the guy in a heartbeat - but how quickly we forget that John Edwards was labelled as a fiery and "angry" candidate a few weeks ago. Its easy to play the "grown up" when you are down in the polls.
"Play all the nah-nah-nah games you want, but Obama's image as a "uniter," supposedly above dirty politics, is now tarnished."
That's simply wishful thinking, Barney Fife-esque clumsy reasoning from a Clinton supporter - whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night.
tz wrote on January 25, 2008 1:09 PM:lincoln bedroos has been a tradition for ALL presidents thats a phony arguement
Norman Hsu wrote on January 25, 2008 1:10 PM:Shit man, Rezko is small potatoes compared to what I gave the Clinton's.
colonpowwow wrote on January 25, 2008 1:11 PM:Again with the "Clinton can't get elected" nonsense.
Okay, on an electoral map, please name one state that the pro-Iraq-authorization ticket of Kerry/Edwards - name one state that they carried in 2004 that Clinton won't carry in 2008.
Then add back in Republican-won purple states like New Mexico, Arkansas (especially if Clark is VP), Ohio, Iowa, and others in today's political climate, and show me how she doesn't win in a walk. BTW - I think Obama would win in the same manner.
to wrote on January 25, 2008 1:12 PM:So happy to hear the Clintons are going to tone down the smearmongering and try to talk more about the issues.
As election day draws near, expect another Hillary boo-hoo op at a diner.
RSchewe wrote on January 25, 2008 1:12 PM:These explanations sound like what I heard when that Abramoff picture became public. We take pictures with a million people. The picture is taken out of context. And on, and on...
Sure, there is no context to that picture of the Clintons and Rezko, but it does not matter if they are right or wrong. They just look stupid now after what she said bringing up Rezko.
A lot of times this is all about perception and they have been banking on that a lot in their campaigning. Well, it is coming back to bite them on the ass now.
They can explain this away all they want, but we are a fast food style nation and all most people will know is that she said "x" now we see "y".
There goes that bullet in there arsenal.
nellieh wrote on January 25, 2008 1:13 PM:Matt's career io a quest for crap and "gotcha." Neither he or any other "reader talker' would have the balls to ask President Bush the same showing him ALONG SIDE Jack Abramoff. Matt if you really want some "crap," find out who Gannon/Guckert was servicing in the White House. Or at least get the visitor logs.
Bob wrote on January 25, 2008 1:13 PM:More importantly Hillary will be awful for our down tickets.
It’s going to be blood in the water.
Also, with Rezko being so involved in Chicago politics I guarantee there will be more connections to the Clintons showing up as the days go on.
Obama's media people did the pro
choice media in SD. Do you
really think they'd be asking
Hillary to help? Hillary has
been a leader on women's issues
since her speech at her graduation
from college. Obama did not
mention one word about choice
or other women's issues in his
speech declaring his candidacy
last year in Springfield. Civil
rights, meaning people of color,
and gay rights yes. Women...
pay discrepancy, choice, violence...
no. Obama is NOT the champion of
women's rights. Hillary is.
Obviously if anybody has read any of my posting they can come to the conclusion that I am really not a big fan of Mrs.Clinton. SO with that said, if any Clinton supporters would like to take on these charges.
1)if Hillary was the Democratic nominee, do you see her uniting the party and America to take down the Republicans? If so what has she said in her campaign that states this?
2)IF Obama is guilty by association with Rezko because as the article that Matthew posted clearly states that Obama is in one paragraph of a 78 page indictment and that he is accused of no wrongdoing and that he has given the direct contributions from Rezko to charity, tell me how are Mrs.CLinton and Mr.Clinton any different with their associations with Mark Rich and Whitewater?
3) She talks about fighting with the Republicans, but specifically how is she contrasting her campaign messages to the Republican campaign messages?
I really do not think any of the Democratic nominees have stressed this enough and therefore there is no clear front-runner. But this is the base from which they should appeal as most people who are independent and Dem-leaning are tired of the Republican congress as shown in 2006 and tired of the Republican Administration. Why are they not beating that drum while at the same time expressing through their campaigns the differences between themselves and the other candidates?
malarson2, do you realize just how tired the 'Clinton is not electable' argument is?! This is pure BS and Republican talking-point propaganda. It is as false as saying that there are jobs American's won't do to suggest that we need to allow illegal immigrants to be in our country. In the latter, if you pay market wages, Americans will do the job, just like they used to before wages were suppressed. And regarding Clinton, if and when the choice becomes between her as the Democratic standard-bearer and a Republican (such as McCain, Romney, or Huckabee), do you really think in your worst nightmare that Democrats won't rally for Clinton?! If you think otherwise, you are farther out on the fringe than I'd prefer to conclude. And, if you and others say, no to voting for Clinton once she becomes the standard-bearer, then you become responsible if she loses and I guarantee the memory of this contribution to her defeat would not be forgotten.
So, let's just drop the 'can't be elected' propagand and focus on issues and more relevent concerns? Like Rezko's upcoming trial and what it means to Obama and the Democrats? BTW, as others have written many times, and I agree, dredging up old stuff on Hillary and Bill is just that, old news that won't mean anything against a popular Bill Clinton--didn't then and doesn't now. So, get over it.
Stopthespin wrote on January 25, 2008 1:21 PM:Hey Clinton partisans,
Tony Rezko did not have this slum lord reputation, in the 90's. In fact, he was seen as someone who wanted to help the community. So stop throwing around that Hillary spin.
How was Obama to know back when he started his career in the 90's that this guy was going to be bad news by 2005.
He can't read the future.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 1:21 PM:Okay, on an electoral map, please name one state that the pro-Iraq-authorization ticket of Kerry/Edwards - name one state that they carried in 2004 that Clinton won't carry in 2008.
Michigan. I have real doubts about Clinton's chances of carrying Michigan by this point. I have little hope at all of her taking any state that Kerry did not carry. In other words, I rather expect her to lose. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but I have little hope for her chances, especially agains McCain.
markg8 wrote on January 25, 2008 1:23 PM:Tony Rezko raised all of $200,000 for Obama over more than a decade in a bunch of different races. In the early 1990s Rezko was a low income housing developer who worked with community groups to build and rehab much needed low income housing on Chicago's south side. As a young lawyer Obama did 5 hours of work incorporating some of these community groups so they could enter into these ventures with Rezko's company. Rezko didn't become a slum lord until his finances started falling apart after he got in trouble with Patrick Fitzgerald.
Rezko raised and contributed lots of money to lots of candidates and their parties over the years.
The reason Governor Blagojavitch didn't suffer from his involvement with him in last year's election is because Repubs like congressmen Mark Kirk, Ray LaHood and IL House Minority leader Tom Cross all took his cash.
The Clintons had their picture taken with Rezko because he contributed to the Democratic party. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pic of him with a smiling George Bush. He contributed $7000 to him.
For Hillary to claim Obama "represented" a slum lord is a dishonest hypocritical attack. Now she says we should get back to the issues. Yes we should, Barack beats her badly on the issues.
John McCutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 1:25 PM:The ads attacking Obama that the Clintons just pulled from the air in SC are by any measure lies
Jeff Toobin, CNN, 1/24
So why does Sargent continue to republish them here?
Martin Heldt wrote on January 25, 2008 1:25 PM:I'm really disgusted at Hillary's gutter-snipe politics.
Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 1:27 PM:Gregg, she will never carry PA either. It was really, really close for kerry. I can almost guarantee she won't carry PA when you throw NAFTA and the rabid republican base in the mix.
Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:27 PM:Colon Powwow-
You're probably right, now that I think of it. Or might be right. No real evidence behind your claims, and, well, there isn't much behind mine either.
I guess on your front, the argument really comes down to who has the lowest 'ceiling" of possible votes. One could argue Obama, because, well put simply (and not very tactfully) he's black. There are (still) a whole bunch of people out there who fear the black man.
Let's be honest.
However, in another vein, there's Clinton's ceiling. Now do you really think its possible that HRC can get anything more than, say, 330-350 electoral votes?
I argue there are two goals that need to be accomplished for the Democratic Party this fall. And, seriously, it's arguable about which one is the highest priority:
1. Get a Dem in the White House.
2. Significantly improve the quality AND quantity of Democrats in both houses of Congress.
Now, an enraged conservative element of the electorate will pretty much guarantee closing the door on possible Democratic pick-up opportunities in Republican districts. I think you can count on that outrage coming out in force against the Clintons, because, whether they are telling the truth or not, the conservative base has a pretty irrational hatred of both of them.
However, does that exist against Obama? No, except for the usual "I hate liberals" bias. I think the only way you could see a similar mobilization of the Republican base against Obama is if we see a tidal wave of "Obama is a muslim" false attacks and false rumors. Same goes for outright racial attacks.
Would that happen? What would be the consequences of such attacks?
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 1:28 PM:PAYBACK?
BLOWBACK?
WINNER IS?
YOU DECIDE!
PROBLEM, TRY THE MIRROR!
SO WHERE IS BILL NOW?
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 1:29 PM:Thanks Stopthespin, so, did Obama know Rezko was a slumlord, if not, why not, and if so, when?
Get serious, with 17 years of community, personal, financial, and political relationship, can you really say that Obama didn't know what Rezko was up to and about his projects?! I think Obama is much smarter than that. He turned a blind eye because it was expedient and helpful personally, financially, and politically. He made this bed, now he can sleep in it.
Propagandee wrote on January 25, 2008 1:30 PM:Mr Rezco has been a busy little bee, spreading his pollen around to a lot people.
Check out the list.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Tony_Rezko.php
carolyn wrote on January 25, 2008 1:31 PM:As I recall, Rezko sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below market price. The extra property he bought later was probably at market price. This sort of thing is why Cunningham and others have been indicted and found guilty.
DougMN wrote on January 25, 2008 1:31 PM:John McCain is going to take Michigan!?!?! My god man, tone the Clinton hatred down a bit.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 1:33 PM:"Rewatching the Today Show video, it just suddenly occurred to me who the negative Hillary reminds me of: Ann Coulter."
All them smarty-mouthed bitches look alike to me, too.
Ann wrote on January 25, 2008 1:36 PM:Saw this on politico..Here is another link of Hillary to Rezko his name is Myron Cherry He is now being sued for swindling companies out of millions of dollars (RICO)
...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/06/sweet_blog_scoop_clinton_list.html
The major Clinton bundler (Hillraiser) is throwing a party for her tonight.
"A New York Times front page article on May 7, 2006 reported Clinton received over $145,000 in campaign donations from those closely affiliated with IPA. Since the article, most politicians that received donations from IPA have since returned the money back to IPA; the plaintiff's believes Clinton is an exception."
Hillary Clinton N.Y. Senator & Pres Candidate $145,000.00+ $00.00
Barack Obama IL Senator & Pres Candidate $16,000.00 $14,000.00
Lisa Madigan Current Att. Gen. of Illinois $21,000.00 $00.00
John Kerry 2004 Candidate for President $35,000.00 $00.00
Melissa R. Bean House Rep, Illinois $24.500.00 $00.00
Daniel J Seals Congressman, Illinois $12,600.00 $12,600.00
Robert D Torricelli Senator, New Jersey $7,000.00 $00.00
Sidney Mathias House Rep. Illinois $9,000.00 $00.00
Ken Salazar Senator, Colorado $8,500.00 $00.00
Organization Name $ Received
TOMPAC $110,000.00
DEM CONGRESS CMPGN CMT $58,500.00
DEM SENATE CAMPAIGN CMTE $235,700.00
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEM NATL CMTEE (D) $82,600.00
DSCC/Non-Federal Corporate $617,500.00
HILL PAC $20,000.00 (Clintons PAC)
Ntl Rep Congressional Cmmt $17,250.00
ALL AMERICA PAC $7,000.00
http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/16644
Here is the total contributions from Mr. Cherry mostly to Hillary Clinton
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/myron-cherry.asp?cycle=06
ABC News Story
This is the stupidest gotcha ever. As somebody noted, photos like this are assembly line deals at events. It's like getting your kid's picture taken with Santa at the mall. The meet and greet photo of Abramoff and Bush didn't do any harm to Georgie. Why should this hurt Hill and Bill?
I took a picture of a friend of mine with Eddie Vedder during Lollapalooza '92. If you use Drudge logic here, then I would assume that if I ever bumped into Eddi - which, of course, will likely never happen - he would say, "Hey, how's your friend, Mike? I remember that picture we took together."
That said, I think Clinton throwning Rezko in Obama's face is kind of sleazy and silly. So maybe the two cancel each other out. I hope so...need to move past this stupid stuff.
kjoe wrote on January 25, 2008 1:37 PM:That picture is so meaningless, and pointless---stupid stunt by the Today Show. Only thing it tells us---Hillary used to be a lot skinnier. Cue up Tammy Wynette....sometimes it's hard.....
old new englander wrote on January 25, 2008 1:39 PM:I have five words of advice for Sen. Clinton: March Rich and Norman Hsu.
joetucker wrote on January 25, 2008 1:39 PM:Man oh man. I'm a lifelong democrat and i used to love the clintons but i'll never vote for them now. Bill is the new Karl Rove. This footage is actually hilarious...after all their lame obama slams, here's a photo of her with a red herring she set up in the first place. The kind of thing you'd expect to see from Bush/Cheney. I'll vote 3rd party or write-in if she's the nominee. Hard to believe the dems stand a chance to blow the election in 08. What a disappointment.
Wil Burns wrote on January 25, 2008 1:39 PM:Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip
millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama
had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said in June 2002, asking that the record
be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
This photo isn't so bad for Hillary. It is a little better than when Rosalyn Carter turned up in a picture with John Wayne Gacy.
For all we know the next picture to turn up will be of Hillary and her guy Norman Hsu, with him in his prison uniform and her accepting $850,000 from him.
My guess is Hillary won't be saying slum lord much in the next few days.
vdomeras wrote on January 25, 2008 1:43 PM:In the clip she doesn't seem at all rattled. Her response seemed credible to me. I've seen picture like that in the offices of used car salesmen.
Yes, he may have made a contribution, and he is from Illinois. Judging from her hair, I'd guess that the picture is from the days when Rezko was perceived to be a legitimate good guy who was providing homes for the poor.
Obama apparently needed Rezko's help more than the Clintons did. Does anyone really believe that a squeaky clean politician would have made it to the level that Barack and Hillary have achieved? Any of the three leading Democratic candidates would be fine with me.
Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 1:45 PM:Good point mattie, did clinton know that the basis for invading and destroying a sovereign country was based on lies? If so how and when? Did she read the NIE? If so, when? Did she accept responsibility in being complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans? If so, when?
Pug wrote on January 25, 2008 1:45 PM:I've seen picture like that in the offices of used car salesmen.
Right. Maybe if the used car salesman had donated a hundred grand or so.
Am I the only one so turned off by Hillary's, as well as Bill's, rogue-ish behavior of late (straight out of the Rove-LBJ Playbook), that I am desperately yearning for a powerful, new Democratic Party (The New Democratic Party) think European Multi-Party System.
The true progressives amongst us, as well as the libs, could abandon the party that will ultimately become the "New Whigs", and start a party that is a actually relevant. For the lies being thrown around by the Clinton Camp reminds me all too much of how the Bush43 crew operates. It sickens me to no extent.
Take it for what it's worth, but I will not be voting on election day if my fellow party members fail me/us, and choose to nominate Billary Clinton. From the stupid lawsuit seeking to prevent the culinary workers in Vegas from participating, to the pathetic lies in NH, to her sickening behavior in the last SC debate, to her ridiculous vote to give the Neo-Con war machine the go ahead to invade/occupy Iraq, to her friendship with the anti-union Walton Family, it's over. The nightmare that was RushLimburgerClintonLewinskyJonesO'Lielly has to come to an end. We nominate Hillary, and we give 'em 8 more years of fodder.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 1:46 PM:A photograph of Antoin Rezko, an indicted Chicago businessman, standing between Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which surfaced on NBC’s “Today” show on Friday, might have been taken at a 1997 fund-raiser in Chicago for former United States Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, political insiders say.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/the-rezko-clinton-connection/
twirling fartknocker wrote on January 25, 2008 1:48 PM:you reap what you sow...
1) Hillary threw out the Rezko thing the other day in the debate and it's already come back to bite her as a hypocrite
2) she's been fighting dirty and loose with the truth for weeks -- and guess what will bury her in November should she win the nomination?
you reap what you sow
greensky wrote on January 25, 2008 1:51 PM:what is the source that the clinton picture was for a contribution
markg8 wrote on January 25, 2008 1:51 PM:Let's not forget EJ Dionne in the WaPo today:
"It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.
Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."
"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.
Bill's unbridled, erroneous praise for Reagan's policies (Lech Walesa did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than Reagan) is a hell of lot more effusive than anything Obama's ever said about the man. It's a big reason why the villagers started paying attention to the governor of a small poor state as a serious candidate.
On a related note...
Highlarious.
************
The Ideas Bill Forgot
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, January 25, 2008; A19
It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.
Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."
"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402801_pf.html
Columbia wrote on January 25, 2008 1:57 PM:Every body and their brother who goes to a fundraiser gets one of these photos. i know people who volunteered who have a bunch of these. It's not that big of deal.
interesting though that Obama was happy to attend a fundraiser with Clinton as the headliner when it benefitted him. Just as he was happy to play down his knowledge of intelligence when that was beneficial to him (ie before he keynoted for Kerry).
And he changes his tune when its in his political interest.
Also - D-Punjab. Social Security. Jeff Gerth. and my new favorite - "she was only crying because of her appearance" courtesy of J. Jackson Jr. on behalf of Obama. That's not sexist at all.
Whoever said it above was right - Obama never mentions women's issues and has never been a leader on this front. The Daschle team all went to work on teh South Dakota abortion issue and now they all work for Obama. He's gets zero credit in my book for doing whatever his handlers told him too.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 1:57 PM:The Ideas Bill Forgot
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
>>> Save us sometime, woulda. EJ Dionne, Lawrence O'Donnel are Obama loving elistist. They are nothing but Obama whores. Thank you very much!
jose wrote on January 25, 2008 1:59 PM:As the wise Lord Acton said, "power corrupts. and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I see this happening to the Billary campaign.
Hillary at the top of the Dem ticket in Nov is a BIG LOSER for dems. We will lose House seats. We will lose Senate seats. She hurts us from the top down.
Hillary will bring NE states into play for McCain or the GOP nominee. She will get slammed in the iron belt of the midwest by NAFTA ads. She will make Oregon competetive for the GOP. She will have little shot vs. McCain in Florida or Ohio.
Obama, on the other hand, helps the ticket from the bottom up. State Leg, State Sens, Mayors, School Board members, etc will be bouyed by having him at the top of the ticket. He doesn't energize the GOP base. Hell, they can't even figure out how to go after him without coming across as snide, hateful politicians.
Obama brings states like VA, NC, KY, IA, MO, AK and FL into play.
Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 1:59 PM:As I recall, Rezko sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below market price.
You recall incorrectly. Rezko did not sell the house to Obama at all. Obama never bought a house from Rezko, only a strip of property on the adjoining lot.
John McCain is going to take Michigan!?!?! My god man, tone the Clinton hatred down a bit.
Yes, John McCain would do better in MI than would Hillary Clinton. Michigan has 1) a awful lot of laid-off auto workers who (rightly or wrongly) blame Bill Clinton for shipping their jobs down to Mexico via NAFTA and 2) a large population of black voters who expressed their obvious displeasure with the Clinton's anti-Obama tactics by turning out to vote "uncommitted". Add the additional consideration that an awful lot of those out-of-work auto workers are also Vietnam vets who connect with McCain quite easily on that score and it becomes easy for me to see Clinton losing there against either McCain or native-son Romney.
Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:Oh, annon, I thought the term was hillary-hater. New name on the talking points?
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:You got nothing on me! This pic was taken at a Mosley-braun event. We have never taken any dirty money from Rezco. He's yours only. Your darling love boy. You thought you can push me down to your level. No luck! Good luck!
Barron wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:Hillary was smart to bring up Rezko in a national debate. Now everyone is talking about it. Obama has been in dealings with this man for 17yrs. Why did he say he only did five hours of work for him? He lied. Why is it ok for him to lie and why did he feel the need to lie? Obama is named in Rezko's indictment according to the Chicago Sun Times. It is funny to try and connect Hillary to Rezko with this photo. Obama is in head and feet with this guy and I am glad people are finally talking about it. The trial starts Feb.25th.
chupacabra wrote on January 25, 2008 2:04 PM:>>> She is indulging in the partisan-style politics that Americans are desperate to leave behind and certainly don't want in a President.
For me, a President who can deliver a kick to the sack has a lot more value than one who picks a guitar while New Orleans drowns...
OxyCon wrote on January 25, 2008 2:07 PM:The "Librul" media wants Obama to win the primary so they can then easily destroy him in the general election.
Obama is being given a total free pass by the "Librul" media so far, but you better be certain they already have their knives sharpened so they can destroy him after the primary, guaranteeing a Repub victory in '08.
That's the plan, and if you can't see it, you're blind.
A picture is worth a thousand words. If I was Obama's campaign I would immediately start explaining the shady relationship between Rezko and the Clintons. It doesn't have to be true. The truth never stops Billary.
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 25, 2008 2:18 PM:Hey Barron, I am not trying to pick on you but it seems that you may have not read all the information which is listed on the Rezko indictment. First if Mr. Obama lied then he should be given a chance to explain, but saying that he had 17 years of involvement with this guy, from what I have read, seems like saying I have known GWB because my dad gets a Christmas card from him every year. Obviously Obama took money from this man and his associates, but him and his associates contributed to many campaigns, both D and R. Also Obama returned the direct contributions to charity, which i believe was the right move. He bought a house next to the wife of this man, yet he said that was bonedeaded mistake. I say thanks now move on to the next topic. Look at the muck and see if it changes how you feel about the issues but don't focus on the muck! I mean I am not sitting here focusing on whitewater, Bill's philanderous nature, her working for the board of wal-mart, her being a former Republican, or her ties to Marc Rich etc.
Tony Rezko wrote on January 25, 2008 2:19 PM:Much of the criticism has centered on two real estate deals involving Obama's South Side mansion. In the first, Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price for a doctor's home, while Rezko's wife paid the doctor full price for the vacant lot next door. Then -- a few months before Rezko was indicted -- Obama bought part of that lot from Rezko's wife.
But Obama's ties with Rezko
go beyond those two real estate sales and the political support, the Sun-Times found. Obama was an attorney with a small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor.
If you're defending Hillary on this one, you're the punch line to an enormous cosmic joke. You're lower than used Winnabego salesman. You're the hypocrite that taught Hypocrites how to be hypocritical.
Anon wrote on January 25, 2008 2:23 PM:Here's the question.
WHY IS ALL THIS MUDSLINGING NOT BEING DIRECTED AT REPUBLICANS?
Why did Hillary have to ____ in our own backyard?
All our mucking energy should be directed AGAINST THE GOP, not each other.
I blame Hillary.
ChrisO wrote on January 25, 2008 2:24 PM:For the record, I'm very confident that Obama is not corrupt. But if his supporters think they can answer Republican attacks about Reczko by yelling "Norman Hsu! Lincoln Bedroom" then they are even more naive about politics than they appear in these comments. Obama entered into the house purchase with Reczko when Reczko was already known to be under investigation, so you can brush it off all you want, but takes more than crying "dirty politics" to make issues like these go away. And claiming that this photo somehow makes Hillary and Obama equally tied to Reczko is just ludicrous. Comments like "I wonder how much he paid the Clintons to get that photo" are just stupid. Instead of wondering, perhaps some of you commenters could do a little basic research. This is from the NY Times: "Mr. Rezko, who was once a major fund-raiser for Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has never donated money to either President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, records show."
The very fact that everyone is speculating when the photo was taken is a sign of what shoddy journalism this is on the part of NBC. How can they show that photo if they can't even say when or where it was taken?
And people stating flatly that you have to donate a lot of money to get a photo like that are just ignorant. I made a few phone calls for Bill Clinton's reelection in 96, and I still have two or three Crhistmas cards from them. I can only imagine what Obama supporters think it takes to be on the Clintons' Christmas card list.
As far as Hillary's electability, sweeping generalizations like "Hillary will bring NE states into play for McCain" would be a little more persuasive if they were backed up by any evidence at all (and as a New Englander, I can tell you they're total BS). I keep seeing references to the same poll where a bunch of people say they will "never" vote for Hillary. It's a logical fallacy to assume that extrapolates to all of those people going to the polls to vote for someone else. Just look at the numbers. Turnout in Democratic primaries is at record highs, and Hillary keeps winning. Where are all those dispirited voters who are sitting out because Hillary is such a divisive candidate? As I've said before, the Obama supporters who say she's unelectable would have a little more credibility if their candidate didn't keep losing elections to her.
SRK wrote on January 25, 2008 2:25 PM:January 25, 2008, 1:28 pm
A Rezko-Clinton Connection?
By Christopher Drew
A photograph of Antoin Rezko, an indicted Chicago businessman, standing between Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which surfaced on NBC’s “Today” show on Friday, might have been taken at a 1997 fund-raiser in Chicago for former United States Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, political insiders say.
Mr. Rezko, who was once a major fund-raiser for Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has never donated money to either President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, records show.
“Today’s” co-host, Matt Lauer, showed the photo to Mrs. Clinton on the air this morning, and Mrs. Clinton responded that she had no relationship with Mr. Rezko and had no idea where the picture was taken.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
This is a boneheaded move by Obama campaign. It keeps Obama's connection to Rezko in play for one more news cycle since all news stories like the one above start of referring to Obama's connection.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:27 PM:Norman Hsu! Lincoln Bedroom! Mark Rich! Whitewater! Vince Foster! Kathlene Willy! Paula Jones! Monica Lewinsky! (actually I kind of liked Monica)
green heron wrote on January 25, 2008 2:31 PM:Actually, what does it say about the first feminist presidential candidate that her husband has engaged in sexual harassment for decades, and she still tolerates him?
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 25, 2008 2:32 PM:Anon- agreed!
Remember the days back in 06' and 07' when the democrats and most of America wanted change. When they looked at GWB, GONZO, RUMMY, and DARTH with pure hatred for taking us into a war with fabricated evidence, a PR campaign full of lies(935)just to get us into war , disgraced the Justice Department and sent long serving members to the sideline so they could put in some new grad from LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, fumbled the efforts in New Orleans which still has yet to recover, obstructed NASA and government sponsored scientific studies by cherry-picking the data etc.
Gosh those were the days!
wow - matt lauer as political gotcha guy!
and next, Matt will show us why he wears boxers not briefs.
please.
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 2:32 PM:"This is a boneheaded move by Obama campaign. It keeps Obama's connection to Rezko in play for one more news cycle since all news stories like the one above start of referring to Obama's connection."
For one thing, to suggest without any substantial proof that it was the Obama campaign who put that out is just silly guesswork on your part - but the mere existence of the picture takes some sting out of an already nonexistent scandal.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:32 PM:A GOP View to Win Opens Up
Peggy Noonan writes:
There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years.""[...] But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?"
"Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage."
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
steve wrote:
"Questions Matt Lauer didn't ask but should have: Did Rezko buy a lot adjoining your new home, on the same day you did, then give it to you?"
Answer: No. Rezko bought the adjoining lot, and I later bought 1/6th of that lot for 1/6th of what he paid for it, over $100,000, although that 1/6th piece was appraised at less than half that amount.
Jay,
If you believe that this didn't come up from Obama campaign (to NBC which is the National Barack Corporation) then I have beach front property in Arizona to sell to you!
Now Peggy Noonan is the authority on why Clintons are bad. LOL!
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:40 PM:Down with those elist liberuls. We the common people support Hillary. Call us dumb but we really want to go back to the 90's and get back our prosperity!
grover_rover wrote on January 25, 2008 2:41 PM:Yeah, you are doing a great job making the case for Obama if he is the eventual nominee. How exactly are you going to take back the fact that you time and time again refuse to say he experienced enough to be president? You have even suggested that if Obama is elected we may be attacked by terrorists, as early as "Day One", how exactly is THAT in the best interested of the party? How exactly do all of your lies and slimy attacks help Democrats win the election, and how in the hell can you say you have been trying to keep the campaign about the issues and not about attacks when you, your husband and your surrogates are by far the major negative and sleazy element in this campaign?? You make me sick you lying, hypocritical power hungry piece of crap.
Obama is nice (and smart) enough that he won't stoop to all-out win-at-all-costs trench warfare against a candidate (and potential eventual nominee) from HIS OWN PARTY! That is a large part of why Obama hasn't been all that negative against the Clintons, and has largely stuck to defense. He understands that this kind of political cannibalism is NOT in the best interests of the party, our chances in the general election, or his own reputation. The fact that the Clintons are willing to do and say anything to destroy a fellow Democrat is not something we should be praising as "strong" it is despicable and absolutely in the worst interests of the Democratic party. The Clintons don't care what effect their attacks will have on Obama if he is given the nomination, they just want to take him down at all costs. It is a selfish, shortsighted strategy, and it shows they only care about personal power.
DownriverDem wrote on January 25, 2008 2:42 PM:PLEASE KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE:
NOVEMBER 2008!
CLINTON/OBAMA IN '08!
NOW THAT'S A TICKET!
THINK ABOUT IT! WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO EAT OUR OWN. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
CONTINUE WAR IN IRAQ
NO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
OIL WELLS OFF ALL OUR COASTS
CONTINUED LACK OF FREEDOM REGARDING OUR RIGHTS
PLEASE SUPPORT WHICHEVER DEM WINS!
Luxor wrote on January 25, 2008 2:42 PM:Oh Please!!! This is the best you got? How many pictures does she take everyday? And this equates to the same relationship that Obama has with Rezko? Looks like you went to the Fox News school of journamalism.
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 2:43 PM:"If you believe that this didn't come up from Obama campaign (to NBC which is the National Barack Corporation) then I have beach front property in Arizona to sell to you!"
You might have to start a realty, because I still don't see any concrete proof..
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:44 PM:grover_rover wrote on January 25, 2008 2:41 PM:
Yeah,
>>> Wow, we should hide away the fact that Obama is not experienced? We should never mention Rezko. Yea, the Republican opp. research stinks. They would never find anything with your golden boy!
Pictures never tell the whole story. I bet you will not find any pictures of the Clintons with Marc Rich, but they took a pile of cash from his wife, and gave Marc Rich, a fugitive who had never been brought to justice, a Presidential pardon.
The Clintons don't need no stinkin' pictures when they engage in their corrupt practices.
"As I've said before, the Obama supporters who say she's unelectable would have a little more credibility if their candidate didn't keep losing elections to her."
That makes sense. After all, we all remember the glorious presidencies of Stevenson, Humphrey and Dukakis! If you can win the nomination then you MUST be electable!
i b joshin wrote on January 25, 2008 2:53 PM:I saw the debate. Obama first told HRC the he was working to effect change while she was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Walmart. She answered by saying that she was working to effect change while he was a lawyer defending his campaign contributor Rezko.
And yet Lauer uses HRC's statement to show that she is attacking Obama.
HRC's campaign was positive for months while Obama and Edwards attacked her constantly. Obama's bitchy wife accused her of not being capable of running the country because she couldn't keep her house in order, a thinly veiled reference to HRC's philandering husband.
When HRC fights back, she is "attacking" and she is somehow wrong.
Lauer had no point if he had been truthful and produced both statements.
Who do these talking heads think they are to distort the records and try to influence the election?
And why are people such stupid sheep to buy into it?
Columbia wrote on January 25, 2008 2:56 PM:Obama attacked the entire Democratic party when he started to spew Village frames on issues ranging from Social Security to Health care to "post partisanship". (Not to mention his ridiculous homophobic pandering with McClurkin).
The Democrats are on the verge of a major realignment and he's running away from saying that the party is right, that we have better ideas and that people should support progressives. Instead, he's playing footsie with the Post and offering some bogus consensus that weakens our bargaining position, blurs the very real lines between the parties and won't f-ing work anway. (Because Roy Blunt is just waiting to split the difference on universal health care, dontcha know?)
Obama's hurting the brand. Bad for all democrats, but good for Obama. That seems to be the consistent message of his career - whatever is good for Obama. (In fact, I would argue his '04 speech didn't even do the job it was supposed to - bolster John Kerry. Because it. was. all. about. Obama. Compare and contrast with Zell Miller's speech which was atrocious but was at least about the guy on the top of the ticket.)
But I'll still take him over any Republican. Because any Dem is better for the country. Hillhaters/Obamaniacs apparently need to learn that lesson again.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:57 PM:Now Obama's sending photos to Drudge? Stop it Barack! We are following you for a reason!
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:57 PM:i b joshin wrote: "I saw the debate. Obama first told HRC the he was working to effect change while she was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Walmart. She answered by saying that she was working to effect change while he was a lawyer defending his campaign contributor Rezko."
But guess what! Obama's statement was absolutely correct! Turns out, however, that Obama never actually did legal work for Rezco, but for a non-profit organization that was a partner of Rezco in a particular project.
And that was 5 hours of work. Considering that Hillary's 60 hours spent over 15 months on Whitewater was "de minimus," hardly seems that Hillary should have used that as her "gotcha."
My understanding of the house deal is that the owner wanted to sell the house, as well as the lot next door, at the same time. Reczko bought the lot next door in order to help Obama buy the house, then sold a piece of the lot to Obama. Nothing necessarily illegal there, but hardly an action that casual acquaintances take for each other, and certainly not your average business deal.
This reads to me like Reczko was an operator who was doing everything he could to get next to an influential politician. It appears that Obama wasn't as careful as he should have been in insulating himself from the guy.
I think Obama's supporters have trouble accepting the fact that he's an ambitious, aggressive politician. Those aren't perjoratives, but c'mon, the guy's had a meteoric rise in politics. You don't get there by just sitting back and waiting for the world to reward you for being such a good guy. I'm guessing that he saw Rezcko as a wealthy, influential guy who was a source of lots of campaign cash. Every politican needs fundraisers on their side, and many of these people are difficult to control. If Bob Johnson hadn't been a billionaire supporter, and instead had been just a state party chairman or something, the Clinton campaign would have been much quicker to distance itself from his remarks.
Similarly, it was hard for Obama to just run the other way when it looked like Rezcko might be trouble. It's awfully hard to turn off that spigot. Not to mentiuon that Obama undoubtedly felt a debt to a guy who had been his supporter for 17 years.
CalD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:05 PM:If I were guessing, I would guess that photo came from Rezko himself. It was likely taken at some sort of event for which the president and first lady were the draw -- such as a fundraiser for some Illinois congressman, etc. -- along with 20 others just like it with a bunch of other people they didn't know.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:07 PM:Maybe Bill may knows him. Lets ask Bill!
DancingBear wrote on January 25, 2008 3:08 PM:Chris O, I have no problems with your post up until the last paragraph. Rezko is apparently known for trying to get in with rising politicians in Chicago politics. But there's no evidence that he ever got anything in return from Obama--except I'm sure he got his phone calls returned and such.
KilgoreTrout XL wrote on January 25, 2008 3:08 PM:What a non-issue. I'm a pragmatist, and I think that HRC might be able to play the GOP's hardball bullshit tactics better than Obama. She's got a meaner edge.
I'm also a vindictive bastard, and I know that republicans are just SEETHING at the thought of Hiliary as president.
That gives me a very warm feeling inside.
Of course, I think Obama is a fine man and would make a good president too. He has plenty of time in which to do so.
'But there's no evidence that he ever got anything in return from Obama'
Cuz Obama cannot 'find' the papers from his time in the Illinois senate??? Maybe?
'except I'm sure he got his phone calls returned and such.'
'Hey Obama, did you get my $160,000?'
LOL
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:16 PM:CalD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:05 PM:
If I were guessing, I would guess that photo came from Rezko himself. It was likely taken at some sort of event for which the president and first lady were the draw -- such as a fundraiser for some Illinois congressman, etc. -- along with 20 others just like it with a bunch of other people they didn't know
>>> CalD, you are normally very well informed. Per NYT, this pic was likely taken at a Carol Mosley-Braun event. Rezko has never contributed a penny to Clintons' compaigns.
John B. wrote on January 25, 2008 3:17 PM:I had my picture taken with the Clintons once. It was at a White House Christmas party. They didn't know me from a can of paint.
Charlie wrote on January 25, 2008 3:18 PM:I think that who knows Rezko and how well has nothing to do with anything. He's apparently some 'political power broker', according to someone interviewed by CNN. You would think that an IL senator would inevitably cross paths with such a political power house. I think we all cross paths with people less than law-abiding, but that doesn't, and shouldn't, speak to our character...guilty by association simply does not stick in this situation. Just the same, Rezko opting for a photo opportunity with the Clintons doesn't assocaite them guiltily in any way either. It shouldn't be an issue. It became and issue when it came out of Clinton's mouth...big surprise. It seems that nearly ALL of the 'issues' of the last 3 weeks or so have become issues after being spewed from the mouth of one of the Clintons. If Hillary wins this nomination this way, I will strongly consider a Republican in the general. I'd rather have an HONEST conservative than a fellow Democrat I don't trust. Obviously, trust goes a long way with me. Maybe some people don't feel that they need to trust the person running the country in which they live.
Clinton says she wants to bring the campaign, and debates, back to the issues. But it's Clinton that's gotten it so far off of track. Strategy: Contort the campain away from the issues that SHOULD be deciding it long enough to make a comeback, catch up to Obama, then make it seem that you're the one taking the lead and cleaning up the campaign. You shouldn't get credit for cleaning up a mess you made, it is more of a responsibility, not a gratuity. But it's worked and it's looking like she'll take the nomination. I don't care what you think and what you plan to do when in office if you have to lie about a better candidate to get there.
Liam wrote on January 25, 2008 3:29 PM:Rezko is small potatoes. If you want to hit the jackpot, just Google: "Clinton's indicted fund raisers" and you will find the real mother lode of political corruption.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:This is a boneheaded move by Obama campaign. It keeps Obama's connection to Rezko in play for one more news cycle since all news stories like the one above start of referring to Obama's connection.
Hm, I have no idea whether or not Obama's campaign tipped the Today Show off to this photo or not. That said, if they did I would argue that it is anything but boneheaded. There is no substantive evidence of corruption on Obama's part in any of this. The problem for Obama is that folks only know that 1) he had dealings with Rezko and 2) that Rezko is being indicted for shady dealings. Once you examine these facts head-on, you see that this is no big deal for Obama. Until you do, however, you are left with an unsavory mental association between Rezko and Obama. Anything that forces the television media to cover this story and air it out in all of its gory detail works to dispel the troubling insinuations. For Obama, it is the lack of television attention to the story that is problematic.
Badger wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:ITA, it's a standard-issue grip'n'grin photo. By the way, Rosalyn Carter was photographed once with John Wayne Gacy. I guess that means the Carters were in favor of serial murder.
Columbia wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:Clinton was talking about the issues when Obama went negative ... last year (and apparently, so did Michelle Obama with the "keeping your house in order" comment):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102907.shtml
He is not pure. Neither is Clinton but she has other legs to stand on. Live by being above it all, die by being with the rest of us.
ihatebeets wrote on January 25, 2008 3:36 PM:And George W. Bush has no recollection of ever meeting Jack Abramoff and wouldn't know him if he fell over him. Just because they're seen together in pictures.....Is this Hillary's Abramoff Defense?
Tony wrote on January 25, 2008 3:37 PM:I am a registered democrat and I am absolutely sickened by how the Clinton's operate. I will never vote for her if she is the nominee.
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 3:38 PM:"Clinton was talking about the issues when Obama went negative"
Horseshit. He was stating a distinction, and then Clinton had her surrogates smear hm with drug innuendo and race baiting.
"He is not pure."
..but compared to Clinton, the junior Senator from Illinois is a fucking altarboy.
"Neither is Clinton but she has other legs to stand on."
Her Iraq vote? The fact that she's running on her husbands record? Those legs?
DrumMajorForJustice wrote on January 25, 2008 3:40 PM:I am not concerned with the picture! Thank God my infatuation with the Clinton's is over. The Clintons, by their actions in the recent past, have shown that they have a place for African-Americans (AAs) like Obama, Ford and other well-educated AA men in politics. It is: we will define your place and role in the Democratic party. We will patronize you when you are docile, agreeable and compliant; and we will destroy you when you act contrary to our political plans, wishes and your personal intellect and desires. Consrquently, all AAs should now clearly see that the Democratic party is not interested in our political emancipation and transformation from a slave's mentality; but, rather, are patronizing AAs only to enhance the Democratic establishment's polital power. Thanks Bill and Hillary you have freed me of my hopeleness and Sen. Obama has shown me the power of hope. The Democratic party has allowed the Clintons to push AAs overboard; and damn, many of us are quite excellent swimmers! AAs should resolve that after the gallant fight by Sen. Obama and the coronation of Hillary that a vote for Hillary is a perfect example of self-hatred.
jose wrote on January 25, 2008 3:45 PM:Do any of you know anything about Chicago Politics? It's about as sleazy as it gets. And for the most part, Obama stayed well above the fray.
Even so, without the Daley machine in 1960, it would have been Nixon in the White House then, not JFK (dead people voted). Chicago has the most intricate network of neighborhood aldermen, city councilpeople, state legs, fire cheifs, county commisioners, etc, of any city in the US. Even NYC.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 25, 2008 3:48 PM:green heron: "You know Billary took Rezko's cash."
Rezko never contributed to either of the Clintons' respective campaign committees. He was, however, a $10,000 contributor to the DNC in 2000, while Bill Clinton was president, and he was a regular contributor to the Illinois Democratic Party.
Joe Wilson: "Obama took a $300,000 bribe on his house and admitted it was a mistake."
That's a very harsh accusation to make, especially absent of any evidence of quid pro quo. and it's a very unfair characterization of the transaction in question.
It's entirely plausible that Obama was quite unaware of any arrangement that Rezko and the property owner made regarding the ultimate disposition of those two adjoining lots, which the owner apparently insisted were to be sold together.
So right now, the worst one can say is that Obama did discuss with Rezko his family's inability to afford both lots. After all, Rezko was in the real estate business. It's therefore conceivable that the Rezko family purchased the vacant lot simply to help their friends buy the house on the front parcel, and they planned to sell the lot later.
Of course, if that's the case, it also undercuts entirely Obama's current contention that the two men were little more than passing acquaintances.
rbe1 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:53 PM:the democrats are going to be defeated in the general election by only one thing, no matter who is nominated, hate.
rreddy wrote on January 25, 2008 4:01 PM:Just another Clinton hit job by NBC news. Resko was not news when Obama was the story, but now a photo surfaces, no date, nothing to substantiate anything and the press and the Obama bloggers go nuts. You may want to check out 'CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Keeping Them Honest' for a little honesty on Obama and the Resko connection.
We're all Rezko now wrote on January 25, 2008 4:02 PM:It's really unbelievable what some Hillary supporters are resorting to against Obama. For example:
"Bullying tactics of Barack Obama against Hillary may be a signal for all women in this country. Watch out!"
I'm not kidding. And I don't think the user is. See here: http://www.ondayone.org/node/381#comment-115
Columbia wrote on January 25, 2008 4:12 PM:Oh Jay - what issues are raised by D-Punjab or the discredited Jeff Gerth "20 year plan" claim? Or "keeping her own house in order"?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120507.shtml
I'll take "none" for $200.
But she can take the heat. The question is, "can obama?"
Eleanora wrote on January 25, 2008 4:16 PM:Latest polls quoted on this great election blog that's just a page click away!
Pres '08
Jan 25 Rasmussen
Clinton (D) 47%, Romney (R) 42%
But nobody will ever vote for her. Cool logic you've got there.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/polltracker/pres_08/
to We're all Rezko now - I don't believe in that logic. But I don't believe in DrumMajorforJustice's logic either, and I hear it a lot more.
Jay wrote on January 25, 2008 5:09 PM:"Oh Jay - what issues are raised by D-Punjab"or the discredited Jeff Gerth "20 year plan" claim? Or "keeping her own house in order"?"
How many of her surrogates brought up drugs? The distorting mailers and radio ads. The hamfisted Reagan quotes - even though both Bill and Hillary were both complimentary of Reagan in the recent past. Jesus, the list goes on..
"But she can take the heat."
Can she really? Hiding behind her husband and running on his record? She still hasn't proven that she can take the "heat" at all. *pocketing 200 bucks*
Columbia wrote on January 25, 2008 5:24 PM:But you don't argue my point. Which is that Obama went negative. And each one of my examples pre-dates anything you have. Sooooo.... Obama not so pure and Obama very negative, very early.
(and hiding behind her husband? she's taken abuse from the media for more than a year in some of the worst language imaginable - see Matthews, Chris. Bill hasn't been really out there except the last month. I think she'll be fine. By your logic, I could say Obama is hiding behind Claire McCaskill, John Kerry and that guy in South Carolina who called B. Clinton "lee atwater".)
Doctor Biobrain wrote on January 25, 2008 5:30 PM:Yikes. The media campaign of piling on Hillary Clinton continues.
For me, this is one of the best reasons why I'd prefer that Hillary not get the nomination. I'm not sure why Clinton supporters believe that reminding us of how much the media hates Bill and Hillary is a good thing, but I'd prefer a candidate who wasn't already loathed by the media and D.C. Establishment.
Perhaps they'll eventually do the same to Barack, but we can have no doubts what we'll get with Hillary. They wanted Bill impeached the first time and I'm sure they're salivating over the idea of getting a second chance.
Daniel W. wrote on January 25, 2008 5:34 PM:One Question: How can any self-loving Dem vote for a person (a couple, actually) who was admittedly fooled by Dick Cheney and Bush43 (thus leading to their support of the war)?
"They tricked me! They lied to me! The war-mongering chickenhawks fooled me! It isn't my fault! And by the way, that's not blood on my hands, no sir, Bill and I had some french fries for lunch!"
Were YOU fooled?
"That makes sense. After all, we all remember the glorious presidencies of Stevenson, Humphrey and Dukakis! If you can win the nomination then you MUST be electable!"
Nice reading comprehension there, anon. So in your political genius you've d