DISQUS

tomasgordon · 1 year ago

Assuming the reader is NOT a Barama supporter (and even if you are), you might be interested in the following web page:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CS...

It's a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site - titled "Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake" - which is pretty revealing. The reporters' second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered "no" at the time, but didn't he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday's SC debate? I guess my concern is that his "mistake" conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he's certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $40,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.

There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they've probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn't see any real estate docs in Hillary's hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama's Chicago mansion in living color. Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4192372...

There is also a hard-hitting "print" article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&... - yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I'm afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama's lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko "mistake") because they don't want to be shut out of future interviews if he's the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We've had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don't want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!

tomasgordon · 1 year ago

Assuming the reader is NOT a Barama supporter (and even if you are), you might be interested in the following web page:


http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CS...


It's a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site - titled "Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake" - which is pretty revealing. The reporters' second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered "no" at the time, but didn't he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday's SC debate? I guess my concern is that his "mistake" conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he's certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $40,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.


There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they've probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn't see any real estate docs in Hillary's hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama's Chicago mansion in living color. Here's the link:


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4192372...


There is also a hard-hitting "print" article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&... - yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I'm afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama's lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko "mistake") because they don't want to be shut out of future interviews if he's the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We've had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don't want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!

digdin · 1 year ago

I got connected to your site from Talking Points. Looks great. The article gave me some historic perspective. Thank you

naugiedoggie · 1 year ago

I have a really bad feeling that President Obama will turn out to be as administratively incompetent as his predecessor. There is nothing in his resume that tells me he can run a country. It's not a foregone conclusion that he'll be a bad president ... but we have other, demonstrably more qualified candidates in the field. We need someone who can get us out of the quagmire. Pretty speeches may get him in the door, but they won't keep the wolf away. I don't believe he understands that fact.

Thanks.

mp

boyeen · 1 year ago

Michael, I have to respond to your "incompetence" concerns with Obama. I fully accept your premise and perhaps this is why so few Senators have reached the White House. We seem to value Governors more... for their hands-on experience of running the machinery of state. However, in this particular primary race neither Clinton nor Obama have governing experience so we need to look for something else. It may be a roll of the dice but personally I'm more concerned with Clintons negatives. I think Obama represents a new face with new ideas and an outsiders optimism rather than tired political dynasty. People are looking for a fresh start and the risks that come with it couldn't possibly be any worse than Bush/McCain or Romney.
Tim

brucec · 1 year ago

Thanks for making the historical connections. I do think this very well may be a right time/right place opportunity for BO. Billary is presently doing his part to make it a reality. (As previously mentioned by C.F, I found this beta site through TPM. Good luck with new venture.)

rodirwin · 1 year ago

You are looking good! Great article, brings back memories especially of JFK.



Skills needed to "run" the governemnt are not the classical "management" skills used in business (consider the current dolt in the White House with an MBA). We need a leader who can select good, competent people to do the managing for him. The President's job is to develop policies and set priorities, to negotiate legislation, to get people to work to gether.

bobdob · 1 year ago

Comments like the one by Michael Powe depress me beyond belief. I don't know if he's a McCain supporter or a Hillary supporter, but either way, he seems to believe that the president of the United States is some sort of an administrator--like the CEO of a corporation or something of the sort. This is exactly what we DON'T want the president to be. The president has aides for that sort of essential, but distracting nonsense. The job of a president is to set and articulate the course for the country during his or her term in office and then guard that course. The president is the big thinker. The decision maker. Being president is about leadership--not administrative duties.



Winson Churchill famously said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." We can no longer afford to be simply average voters. We need to be far more curious, far more critical, far more skeptical, far more active and much better informed if we expect to dig ourselves out of the mess our current administrator has put us in. Let's stop listening to the mass-mailed, idiotic lies we receive in our Inboxes every day. Instead, let's pay attention and get to know the candidates--all of the candidates--before we put someone in office who knows their way around Washington, but who can't think outside of the box we've allowed ourselves to be trapped in.

billclements · 1 year ago

Excellent commentary! I found your historical perspective cogent and persuasive. Not to mention edifying. It's very helpful to put someone like Obama into context. In many ways, he seems to be a much needed break from the past. It is my hope that he will be our next President.

serena1313 · 1 year ago

Has cynicism really blinded people from not seeing what is really taking place? Obama is uniting people, inspiring young and old, moderate republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, black and white, asian and native american, latinos and all cultures to vote for him.


Others complain that he is going to talk to conservatives and republicans to get them on board. I wonder how many of those people have read about his record? His record of working with some of the most conservative republicans that successfully passed legislation without compromising his principles puts that argument to rest.


Others think Obama is not "experienced" enough. Obviously they are not taking into account Obama has had more years as an elected official that Hillary. His "experience" is much more conducive to changing "politics" as usual because he is not entrenched in Washington politics.


Some say he is too young: Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama when he took office.


This election is not about race; it is not about "experience;" it is however about making wise decisions based on sound judgment & common sense. We've had an excruciating 7 years of trickery and deceit with "experienced" politicians and look where it got us. Do we want more?


Which candidate is more likely to bring change: a candidate entrenched in the Washington political establishment or the one whose experience is outside Washington?


Last but not least: With a deep understanding of the human psyche and a grasp of world events and how the two are inseparable indicates Obama is uniquely qualified to become the next president.


Let's not allow cynicism to blind us to a unique opportunity for real change.

yossarian54 · 1 year ago

As someone who is too young to remember campaigns prior to Reagan, it's great to have B.O.'s apparent insurgency placed in historical context. Thanks. Bruce Chamberlain: are you from Illinois? Do you love The Who? I have a weird feeling I may know you....from a library.

Mark H: yossarian54@yahoo.com

fxdci · 1 year ago

I am a bit confused. In the article you state that BO has much of the party leadership against him, however just this week several of the party big wigs have come out supporting him. Who are the ones that are against him? I'm not being confrontational, I was just wondering.



I also got here by way of TPM.

auntmo · 1 year ago

With all due respect, the pictures with the article are misleading.



The BOBBY KENNEDY branch of the Kennedy family is supporting Hillary Clinton.



It's only Uncle Teddy and Caroline that support Obama.



And frankly, by tagging himself as Teddy Kennedy's protege, given that Uncle Teddy is considered the MOST liberal of all Senators, even by moderates, Obama has now tagged himself not as a centrist, but as a left-wing liberal.



Association with Uncle Teddy won't bring back the Reagan Democrats or the Independents or the Moderates. They'll all move to McCain if that's their only other choice.



He literally NARROWED his possibility field in this choice, reducing his chances of winning the general election.



I truly believe Obama will regret this endorsement when all is said and done.

differentdrum · 1 year ago

It's amazing! The Clintonian's comments are always obvious - like Scientologists assigned to defend Tom Cruise on TMZ, they're remarkably easy to spot. And God bless 'em. I'm no Hillary hater. She's better than any Republican running, and I'll surely pull that lever if necessary in November (though like my vote for Kerry in '04 it won't do much good).



"Rezco" they screech, - completely ignoring the dozens of legit scandals (Can you say Hugh Rodham pardon, just as a starting point) that the Clintons have hanging over them to this day.



"Short on resume!" they howl... uh, what exactly has Hillary done so much better than Obama? Not what her husband has done - Hillary. Being the wife of the President doesn't count, folks. Otherwise, we'd all be as comfortable with Laura Bush's credentials as with Hillary's.



"Well, the 'Bobby Kennedy branch' (?!) is behind Hillary" they quickly opine, as defense against Teddy, Caroline and Patrick's extraordinary showing the other day. Please. I'll trade you 6 Kathleen's to one Caroline, any day. (Granted, Patrick's another story, though.)



The bottom line is, you guys just don't get it. Accept that and move on. I like Hillary and Bill. I've defended them against Republican and Dem alike, and I'll keep doing so (even as they insist on making it as difficult as possible these days). But Obama. is. different. You are unable to see that, and honestly, I kinda' feel bad for you. You're damaged - understandably so, given the last 15 years, but damaged none-the-less. It's time to move on. And Barak seems the perfect guy to help the US do that, while staying true to Democratic/progressive ideals.

auntmo · 1 year ago

Oh, my. Look at these numbers:



Clitnon 856,914

McCain 693,425

Romney 598,152

Obama 568,930



It appears that Obama couldn't even beat Mitt Romney, let alone McCain or Clinton. And that was AFTER Uncle Teddy endorsed him.



27% of the African American vote deserted him and voted for Hillary.



Ruh roh.

differentdrum · 1 year ago

...And rightly or wrongly, not one of those votes counts, remember? Hillary (and all the other candidates) signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. Yet for some reason hers was the only name on the ballot in MI, and she alone *did* campaign in FL. Gosh, not much of a team player! Oh well, that's how the Clintons roll!



In any case, she signed the Democratic National Committee's pledge - ruh roh.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/0...

aarre · 1 year ago

This story is typical of the press and media coverage which made Obama the presumptive
nominee of the democratic party. Favoritism is disguised as analysis, analysis which is now concentrating on "explaining" why Hillary lost the candidacy, explanations which studiously ignore the media bias in favor of Obama. Not that the media loves Obama, but that they wanted the weaker candidate to win in order to pave the way for another Repubican president. If the best
Obama can do is a tie in the polls with McCain after the billions in free publicity given him to date, what will he manage when the now largely favorable media turn against him?