I will not vote for Obama because of Rezko dealings

or that is until he and his campaign clears this up. Frankly the situation on Rezko is uglier than I've ever seen discussed on Dailykos or in the MSM. And I'm annoyed, why wasn't this covered here earlier? My caucus is Feb. 5th. After the SC primary I said, I'll switch from Edwards to Obama. Now it's Edwards again.

Yesterday the two diaries on Rezko were asked by many posters to delete. And on an Obama diary yesterday, I looked for answers, and just got  non answers that even contradicted each other, vague descriptions of what happened, not of the ethical and legal dilemma's involved.

Hey, I was around during Whitewater. Whitewater looked cleaner than

Obama's house deal. Obama is a fool if he's not putting everyone involved in his house deal on LEGAL RECORD right now, so if they backtrack, they can be labeled liars. IS THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN DOING THIS?

No Obama supporter yesterday on Dailykos answered my questions on how Rezko's wife and Obama ended up with side by side properties, closing on the same day, Obama getting the discount, and Rezko's wife paying full price. Because of no answers, I did a  google search. And it looks like a Hillary Clinton supporter website asked the same questions I had. I'm not a Hillary supporter, check my diaries and my comments. But they want to know the same things that I want to know. I don't want to spend the first two years of an Obama presidency with an ongoing independent investigation.

Do Obama supporters UNDERSTAND the implications here? If some Rezko lackey starts talking, factually or nonfactually, that there was some quid pro quo, Obama will be tied up for a very long time.
I would love to hear an answer that puts a posiitive pro Obama spin on this.

Here's also a MYDD diary on this from Jan. 20th by truthteller2007, it also has a lot of comments, but no answers: http://mydd.com/...

This blog entry is from Sweetness and Light, a pro-Hillary blog(?) It  poses some of the questions I have with a decidely more negative spin:  
http://sweetness-light.com/...

The house cost $2,305,000. However, in 2005 Obama bought the house he could not afford. Here is how Obama bought a house he could not afford    Step 1 - Obama talked the doctor selling the house into selling the house and the house’s side yard separately. There would be two separate buyers of the single property - both purchasing the property on the same day.

   Step 2 - Obama had previously asked his friend REZKO to buy the side yard of the house. REZKO was doing financially well at this point.

   Step 3 - Obama purchased the land with the house on it. REZKO, probably to hide his involvement in this land deal and protect Obama, had his wife Rita purchase the side yard. Both purchases of the single property closed on the same day.

Result - Obama got a $300,000 discount on the much more valuable property on which the house stood. REZKO’s wife, Rita, purchased the side yard for full price. After the deal, Obama paid for mowing of his front lawn as well as REZKO’s yard.

The math is this: Obama gets a $300,000 discount and pays $1,605,000 for his house; REZKO’s wife buys the yard at full price for the undeveloped, less valuable side yard for $625,000. Obama gets a $2,305,000 house for $1,605,000. "Profit" to Obama = $925,000.

Before I vote for Obama in my caucus on Febuary 5th, I want to see this cleared up with nothing to come back and bite Obama and the Dem. party in the behind. I want to know that there are legal statements out there that nothing untowards happened in the house/land deal between Rezko/Obama. Some posters yesterday, claimed the "archpundit" had the answers, but the portions of the site with answers weren't accessible. Some claimed the Chicago Tribune had answers, they had articles with a description of what happened, but no answers. A Frontrunner in a Presidential Primary needs to have a better game plan than this. It would ALSO BE HELPFUL IF OBAMA SUPPORTERS HAD THE SAME STORY.

•  Hmm

  I seem to remember a picture of the Clintons with Rezko as well.

  But of course, the facts are irrelevant in this debate.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:04:42 AM PDT

  •  Knock it off.

    I'm serious here. Give me an answer smart aleck.

    by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM PDT

    •  Okay

      I don't know every in and out of the case, but I do know this:

      Tony Rezko was for a long time a major Democratic fundraiser, and he was a major contributor to both Obama (in 2004) and the Clintons (back in the '90s). I also know that the Chicago Sun-Times probed deeply into the case and found nothing incriminating on Obama's part. What you are engaging in here is guilt by association. And if Obama deserves that, so does every other candidate. Norman Hsu, anyone?

      But that's beside the point. People like Rezko and Hsu do unethical things all the time. Every year it's someone. There is still zero proof that either Clinton (with Hsu) or Obama (with Rezko) did anything wrong.

      by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM PDT

      •  Not an answer

        by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM PDT

        •  then ask a lawyer

          or a reporter. Like I said, I don't know every in and out of the case. I do know that if there was a "there" there, this would be the top story right now.

          And again, why is Obama any more liable for Rezko's behavior than Clinton is for Hsu's? The situations are comparable.

          by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:14:23 AM PDT

          •  Oh really?

            These are the kinds of stories that don't get covered during a primary - candidates gain a false sense of security - and then they come out gang busters in the general.  Camp Obama should get this one done now and not count on this story going away.

            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:23:16 AM PDT

            •  I Don't

              think that there's any merit to the story. The Clintons would have used it instead of playing race card or that Obama  using drugs.

              by christine20 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:08 AM PDT

              •  Senator Clinton raised it at the debate.

                I think that counts as using it and I am sure that her campaign would not have encouraged her to use that if they did not feel they were on some sort of solid ground.  Rezko was arrested yesterday on a bond violation.  Next week he is going to court again.  This story will not simply fade into the background.  The Obama camp needs to deal with it or they are going to get burned - in the general election - if they make it there.

                by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:34:06 AM PDT

                •  What happens if Obama

                  is called to testify in the trial?  It started at the end of Feb.

                  by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:41:06 AM PDT

            •  like who the donors are to the Clinton Library?

              by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM PDT

              •   Obamabots Are Not Going To Turn Attn From This

                This is about Obama, pure and simple.

                by PssttCmere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM PDT

            •  I absolutely agree.

              by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:40:09 AM PDT

          •  That's not true.

            I have no doubt that the RNC is already working on the oppo research, but they will hold their fire until the general election.  I'm sure there are people in the national media looking into it too.  Brian Ross is already writing about it.

            by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM PDT

        •  It won't make any difference what the answer is

          Because McCain and company won't stop asking the questions.

          And the story is ugly.

          It features children sleeping in apartments with no heat in Obama's district.

          It's going to cost Dems the election. Because when Republicans put 'slum lord', 'cocaine', 'campaign donation', 'black man' 'government contracts' and 'Chicago Dems' in the same narrative, there's always only one conclusion:

          Where's President Daddy?

          Whatever there may be to admire in Obama, this story will kill his candidacy.

          by kidneystones on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

          •  I don't know the details

            But I know if Obama doesn't answer it now, it will be even worse later.

            by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

            •  Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?

              There is no there there.  How can he answer a question that doesn't exist?

              by Yoshimi on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:22:50 AM PDT

              •  Strawman argument

                This is not about something that did not happen.
                The house deal was real.
                The slum housing was real.
                The donations were real.

                by J Rae on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM PDT

                •  Correct. The entire Rezko thing is a strawman

                  Thanks for pointing that out.

                  by Quicklund on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:56:58 AM PDT

              •  Then why are the Chicago papers

                warning Obama that he needs to get it all aired out now?  The Tribune may even have stuff they haven't published yet.  This is not a joke that can just be blown off.

                by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM PDT

            •  The problem is: there is no satisfactory

              answer. Not for the attack media and certainly not for the Republicans.

              A/ Obama is completely innocent and doesn't know what's going on in his own district, I mean for fifteen years.

              B/ He's guilty.

              Republicans and the media don't want a clear yes/no answer because they live off the story.

              The Obama gang have convinced themselves that Obama will get a free pass on this.

              Betting the farm on the good judgment of the press and public.

              I don't much care who wins, as long as Dems do win.

              This story is a deal breaker.

              by kidneystones on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM PDT

          •  McCain was one of the Keating Five

            So what? It was never determined that he did anything wrong, and the result will be the same for Obama.

            Obviously Rezko is a sleaze and Obama admits the deal was a mistake. But did anything unethical go on, on Obama's part? Nothing to suggest that yet.

            And again I ask, why the Rezko/Hsu double-standard around here?

            by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM PDT

            •  This is a fair question.

              HRC is, IMHO, as unpopular as she could possibly be already.

              She'd have to dig up the Statue of Liberty and start beating Obama over the head to drive her negs any higher.

              Obama, on the other hand, is the fabled prince. The stories have different trajectories.

              McCain's time as a POW insulates him from all but the most egregious wrong-doings.

              Truth be told, there are plenty of folks who want to believe the worst about the young, bright and beautiful.

              I'll restate: I just want Dems to win.

              I don't see how Rezko goes away. Work that in with some  'candidate's drug dealer arrested' crap on Drudge and the tabloids.

              Think we're not going to see the interior of some of the Rezko run buildings in Obama's district? Rezko turned off the heat for three months in winter. Got a $100 fine the same time as Obama got his first $1k check.

              Whatever Obama was doing, it wasn't getting the heat turned on for his constituents: the children I mean.

              It's bad.

              Remember Edwards story about the woman who couldn't afford heat for her family and bundled them into bed in winter clothes?

              She could have been living in Rezko's buildings.

              Some of us are trying to make folks aware of just how ugly this is going to get without crafting the narratives exactly.

              Don't think the media or the Republicans are going to leave this story alone.

              by kidneystones on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:36:40 AM PDT

            •  It's not just one deal though.

              It's a 20-year close relationship.  Rezko nurtured Obama's career.  Don't you get that?  And Brian Ross claims there is still at least $100K of Rezko donations that Obama hasn't returned or given away.  Obama got millions of dollars in government subsidies for this guy.

              by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:46:05 AM PDT

          •  mccain ask the question? w/his dubious past.

            I doubt it.

            by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:36:17 AM PDT

            •  McCain doesn't have to do anything.

              Have you been paying attention the past 30 years or so?  There will be 527 groups that put stuff out there.  And there will be private parties who do it.  And the DNC with do it on the sly.

              by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM PDT

        •  Here is what I know.

          The property you are referring to was subdivided and the owner (the physician) asked that both purchases be closed on the same day.

          By the way, the blockquote gives him a $925,000 profit. That doesn't add up. The actual difference between the asking price and the price paid on the property looks to be $700,000. Just thought I would point that out since I know you are really trying to get facts straight here.

          by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:17:06 AM PDT

          •  I didn't understand the numbers either.

            Yesterday, some people said there was no discount, the Rezko's bought the adj. land to make it cheaper. Another said, it was just a deal on the house.

            by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

            •  Rezko bought the side lot at asking price.

              With real estate, empty land is generally just empty land -- purchase price doesn't vary from market price doesn't change regardless of how long it's on the market.

              With the house, Obama got it for under market price, as it had been unsold on the market for a good while.

              The purchase on the house was conditioned on the seller closing the empty lot the same day.  That's the story.

              by Pegasus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:25:25 AM PDT

              •  Why would the seller subdivide on his own?

                That makes no sense.

                by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

                •  Actually, it does.

                  It's easier to sell two cheaper properties than one expensive one, because your pool of potential buyers is larger.

                  Thanks, Pegasus, this is the first time anyone's told me an explanation that makes any sense to me.

                  by strandedlad on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

                  •  AND insist they close on the same day?

                    Uh uh. I'm not buying.

                    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM PDT

                    •  Well then, why do you bother asking

                      if you insist you already know the answer? LOL. :)

                      by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM PDT

                  •  But why would someone buy a vacant lot

                    at full price and subdivide it and sell a part of it even at an extra price for the parcel? Can anything be built on the vacant lot now?

                    by lpeacock on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM PDT

                    •  That's the remaining question

                      I have in order to put this to bed.  Or was there a side agreement for Obama to buy the lot back at a later date?

                      by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

                      •  Condos

                        Rezko sold the remaining land to a business associate (at a small profit) who is working to build condos there.

                        by JohnKWilson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM PDT

                        •  Has the remaining parcel been

                          approved to build condos on?

                          by lpeacock on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

                •  Having trouble moving the house?

                  And decided to chop up the lot?

                  Why does anybody do anything?  I have no idea, and don't really see the relevance.

                  by Pegasus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM PDT

                •  I'm on the Board of Directors

                  with a realtor and I live in a town that is experiencing massive growth.

                  Subdividing a property oftens move part of it much quicker on the market because you can offer two pieces at two different prices, versus the entire property at one price that no one can afford. In other words, if you are the seller, it's a smart move to subdivide your property, particularly if you are in a hurry to sell.

                  by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:40:48 AM PDT

                  •  And you decline to close on one part

                    until the same day you close on the other?

                    Isn't that a little counter-intuitive?

                    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:03:28 AM PDT

                    •  I don't know.

                      Why don't you ask a realtor since you are so gosh darn curious about the minutia of this purchase?

                      by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM PDT

                      •  Nah, I think I'll ask McCain and Romney.

                        Bet they know every single detail here ...

                        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM PDT

                        •  And what they don't know, they can make up

                          or speculate on, just like you are.

                          by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

                    •  Quirk in how property taxes are collected in IL

                      Taxes are paid along with the mortgage to a bank. The bank holds the taxes for quarterly payment. This used to be a source of endless scandals. If you subdivide property and sell on different days, you must get appraisals etc. Which is expensive and time consuming. But sell them on the same day, the whole problem goes away.

                      by DaleA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM PDT

                    •  Not if

                      it's the buyer that's askign you to do it and you just want your money.

                      by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:25:17 AM PDT

                    •  Just in case

                      somebody wants the whole big mansion lot, you try to close on both properties on the same day. That way, if the mansion deal falls through, you can still have the whole thing to offer, since you know that the side lot for condos will be easy to sell.

                      by JohnKWilson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

              •  NOT "under market price"!

                Sheesh.  He made an open market purchase against another bidder.  By definition, what he paid was market price.  The listing or asking price is not the same thing as market price, particularly in the Midwest where everyone understands the sellers don't expect to get the listing price.

                by DelRPCV on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:45:19 AM PDT

                •  right, thanks. good correction. n/t

                  by Pegasus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

                •  Can you give a link, bought on auction?

                  by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM PDT

                  •  Here's a good link that includes Q&A:

                    From the Sun-Times:

                    Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?

                    A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.

                    Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?

                    A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.

                    Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?

                    A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.

                    Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

                    A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.

                    Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

                    A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

                    We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

                    by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM PDT

                •  Can you provide a link?

                  Because if there were multiple offers on this house, and all the offers had Rezko buying the vacant lot, I think it would make Obama look a lot better.

                  by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:36:44 AM PDT

            •  From what I have read on this,

              the property that Mrs. Rezko bought was an undeveloped lot next to the house Obama bought. The physician's property had been subdivided, possibly to move the house quicker, since it had been listed on the market for about 3 months. So I think we really have two properties here for sale and two different buyers. The only real juice here is that the 2nd buyer was Rezko's wife and I would guess that Obama perhaps got the house at a lower price because it was not moving on the market and because he referred a buyer for the adjacent lot.

              I honestly don't see the fire here but I do absolutely see how the Republicans will spin the shit out of this. Hell, Democrats are already jumping all over it. I can only imagine what the opposition will do.

              Can you imagine how fun it's going to be if Clinton wins the nod? We are going to revisit Whitewater, impeachment and stains on blue dresses until our heads explode.

              In other words, I think this will always be an issue no matter how many times Obama addresses it because the Republicans will always wallow in the mud rather than talk about the issues--it's the nature of the beast.

              by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

              •  thanks

                for that explanation.  I have been wanting to find out what this was about, without wading into some ongoing shitstorm/piefight.

                by fotyc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:52:41 AM PDT

                •  You're welcome. :) n/t

                  by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

              •  Check out the video link by Bob Johnson

                below, the MSNBC one, it explains the dilemna. It doesn't help to make light out of it. Because the Repbulicans sure won't.

                by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM PDT

                •  Was I making light of it?

                  I was honestly attempting to answer your question.

                  Thank you for the link.

                  by Pager on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM PDT

        •  Rezko befriended Obama when he was

          still in college.  Apparently Rezko enjoyed picking out future successful politicians and helping bring them along.  For a long time it was always said that Obama had a 17 year relationship with Rezko, but the other day Obama said he'd known Rezko 20 years.  I read that Obama got government contracts for Rezko after he got into the Senate.

          by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM PDT

      •  Not True

        He was not a contributor to the Clintons.  This is patently false.

        by BRockNYLA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:12:28 AM PDT

        •  And that Photo was given to Rezko

          because he was a nice guy?

          That photo was a twofer and must have been taken at a high $$$ fundraiser.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:52 AM PDT

          •  Which may or may not have been held to

            support the Clintons - duh.  According to the records Rezko never gave money to the Clintons so one would assume that the photo was taken at a fundraiser for something or someone else - could have been Obama for all we know.

            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

            •  Well, the Clintons better come clean because that

              photo looks damning.

              by Yoshimi on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM PDT

              •  You've got one photo of the Clintons and

                multiple photos of Obama - not to mention a land deal, a decades long relationship and what looks like bona fide political patronage from Rezko to Obama - man you are a fool if that one photo of the Clintons is the sum total of your strategy for addressing this story.

                by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM PDT

                •  The Clintons' past if filled with so many

                  dubious dealings, that I wouldn't go there if I were them. Currently, the Clinton library donors are still a secret. Who are they? Why arent
                  the records released. Imagine the potential conflict of interests that could be revealed?
                  Didn't Marc Rich's wife make a sizeable donation to the library? Is that why Rich was pardoned?

                  I mean there's so much gluck stuck to the Clintons that they and their supporters need to tread lightly. PPl are losing patience wtih them.

                  by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM PDT

                  •  Yes, but you aren't getting the bigger issue here

                    which the diarist raises.  Forget about the Clintons - forget about this primary - put yourself into the general election head space and think about what you would say about this story if you didn't have the Clintons as your cover - because you won't if Obama is the nominee - the Clintons will be history and saying that Obama is just like them won't help you with those Independents and Republicans that Obama claims he can deliver - so what do you say?  Seriously?

                    Honestly, this is why I hate both Obama's and Edwards' purity platforms - they always seem nifty during a primary - but they often get you into trouble in the general election.

                    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM PDT

                    •  don't you think that if there was anything there

                      Clinton would hit him with it? They went back to his kindergarten essays for pete's sake.

                      If there is anything there, Clinton will have found it and will trot it out soon.

                      by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:48:25 AM PDT

                      •  She used it during the SC debate.

                        I think she has introduced it quite forcefully and in a soundbite that was replayed many, many times - and I expect that whatever is going to happen with Rezko in court next week is something they are counting on being meaningful to the race.  That is my guess.  In any case, the coverage of Rezko's arrest yesterday repeatedly refered to Obama's relationship with him and no one mentioned the Clintons.  So the Obama camp really needs to deal with this because the drip, drip, drip effect is almost worse than one big hit that goes away in a news cycle.

                        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM PDT

                      •  She already did and she may do it

                        again in the CA debate coming up this week.

                        by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM PDT

                  •  Obamabots Aren't Interested In Truth

                    ....let me reiterate, we are talking about Obama.  The Clintons can go there, as they have had everything known to man thrown at them, and they have been found innocent.

                    Obviously, they aren't innocent enough to suit you.  Let's stay on track, if you can.

                    by PssttCmere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

                    •  UNIT 71198 IS INTERESTED IN TRUTH

                      >THIS UNIT DOES NOT WANT TO INSTALL CLINDOWS '92. BENCH TESTING INDICATES OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED USING OBAMOS X. OBAMOS RUNS USING AN EDWARDIX CORE PLATFORM BUT IS SUPPORTED BY MORE APPLICATIONS. OBAMOS USER INTERFACE PREFERRED - STYLISH AND USER-FRIENDLY. THIS UNIT FEARS CLINDOWS MAY CRASH.<</p>

                      >RECOMMEND OBAMOS WITH WEBB-BROWSER.<</p>

                      by XStryker on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM PDT

                      •  Very funny

                        Missed it yesterday

                        by kkjohnson on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:34:18 AM PDT

                  •  That's hardly the point.

                    Are you going to use the Clintons as a defense of Obama when he becomes the nominee and has to start dealing with accusations about this?  You're being silly.

                    by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:03:23 AM PDT

                •  Clintons have scores of shady associations

                  Hsu, Hubbell, Peter F Paul, questionable pardons, just to mention a few.

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:43:30 AM PDT

                  •  Yes and the public expects that of them.

                    Obama though is the purity candidate and therefore is at greater risk when his armour is dinged.

                    Deal with your own candidate - a Democatic White House may be riding on it.

                    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM PDT

                    •  I don't think that's a good defense or an

                      effective one either: It's OK for The CLintons Because People Expect Slime From Them.

                      I think the secret donor library list is a new scandal that should prove interesing.

                      by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM PDT

                      •  I don't think it is going to matter if Obama wins

                        and that is the point - unless people are going to carry on running against her after she has lost - which would be dumb imo.

                        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM PDT

                        •  well, if McCain is the candidate

                          there's lots to rehash about the Keating Five that I'm sure many people have litte if any idea about.

                          by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:00:07 AM PDT

                          •  No one cares about the Keating Five.

                            The Keating Five are not currently on trial.  Look - here is the problem - deflecting by pointing at another candidate can only be used effectively if the story is current, easily understood (the Keating Five never was even twenty years ago) and if the candidate in question can't be forgiven for the trespass - Obama's story fits and the Keating Five and the library donors simply do not fit that bill.

                            Honestly, on the land deal - Obama should have sold the house the moment that the story surfaced - just to avoid the appearance of impropriety - Rezko is going to jail - rightly or wrongly - he is going to jail and Obama is simply too close to him at the moment not to be deliberately putting distance between himself and Rezko.

                            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:08:19 AM PDT

                    •  well,

                      Obama never said he's a "purity" candidate. I don't think he should have made the real estate deal. I most certainly would not have if I were him. However, no wrongdoing on his part has been presented or accused.

                      "Deal with your own candidate. a Democatic White House may be riding on it."

                      I don't see Clinton supporters "dealing" with Clinton scandals by telling us about Clinton scandals diary after diary? Whitehouse maybe riding on them too. What with the sex scandals, shady fund raising scandals and the whole shabang.

                      It is still not clear to me if the Clintons can overcome just one thing: Bill Clinton's wag the finger "that woman" lie to the American public while at the same time the Clintons and the  Clinton machine was trying to demonize Monica as a stalker. That story alone, should the GOP raise in some fashion, can sink the whole boat for Democrats across the board in addition to losing the WH.

                      by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM PDT

                      •  I am not a Clinton supporter.

                        I am speaking as a Democrat who would like to win the White House.

                        If Obama wins the nomination - you will not have the Clintons as your cover - and all we want to know is WTF do you propose to do about this story without them?

                        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

                        •  as i said in the other comment

                          i'm for sunshine, 110%, but I oppose indicting people before having evidence. What is known provides little ground to be concerned.

                          "and all we want to know is WTF do you propose to do about this story without them?"

                          Has Obama been charged with any wrong doing? He hasn't been. I expect him to tell it like it is, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

                          If you support Edwards (as I recall being the case), then, his opportunistic votes and positioning (which is amply demonstrable) is a far worse in terms of baggage in the general election. And it's not just the war; he's practically running against the most significant portions of his own record.

                          Also, I don't think Edwards' hands are that clean on campaign fund raising type matters. He refuses to disclose financial details of his non-profits (Fortress hedge fund connections, perhaps?) and his 2004 campaign admitted to violating campaign finance laws: see here.

                          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

                          •  I don't think any of them are clean.

                            It is impossible in politics - the biz attracts too many operators to avoid them.

                            I don't have quite the expectation of purity that many people do.  What I am tough about is whether or not a candidate can deal with their issues - they all have them - Obama has this one - I want to see his camp prevail on this front.  I think it is in the best interest of the party for him to succeed here.  So that is all I'm saying - I think the current meme "The Clintons did it too!" is a poor strategy - and if he wins as I said - they won't be around to serve as cover for him - so they better figure out a strategy that can carry them through the general election.

                            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM PDT

                            •  asdf

                              "think the current meme "The Clintons did it too!" is a poor strategy - and if he wins as I said - they won't be around to serve as cover for him - so they better figure out a strategy that can carry them through the general election."

                              But, when the Clinton camp pushes it for political gain, it is more than legitimate to point out the voluminous pile of baggage the Clintons carry, while, at the same time, expecting Obama camp to clear this up properly.

                              Even taking Obama completely out of the picture, it is a very serious concern of mine that Bill Clinton's sex life is always a ticking time bomb. As someone that happened to have examined  (in the recent years) the severe impact the Lewinsky scandal had in handicapping Gore in 2000, to see Democratic party's fate (not to mention climate change and other presssing concerns) left at the mercy of Clinton's sex life (knowing as facts that he has done this and got caught before), to me, is a major risk for the party to take.

                              by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

                    •  BTW,

                      I am a "more facts, the merrier" type of person.

                      But, as of now, many third parties have looked into this matter and haven't been able to show wrongdoing on Obama's part.

                      by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

                      •  He should have sold that mansion.

                        The appearance of impropriety is almost worse than impropriety itself in national politics.

                        I am not saying that any of this is "fair" either - simply that it is becoming more and more of a story and potentially a big problem for Obama.  The campaign seems to be a bit lead footed in their response to the story's momentum.

                        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM PDT

                        •  asdf

                          I agree with you that he should have sold the house. If you ask me, he should never have bought it. Maybe he can still sell it and clear this up in a reasonable fashion?

                          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:30:35 AM PDT

                          •  That is all I am encouraging him and his

                            supporters to do.  I don't want him buried by this story - I want him to deal with it and make it go away.

                            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

          •  Wow

            Do you go out of your way to stay uninformed?

            The photo was taken at an event in support of Sen. Carol Mosley Braun.

            Geez

            by BRockNYLA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:24 AM PDT

          •  Rezko was involved in lots of fund raising....

            including Richard Daley, Jim Edgar and George Bush. The picture does not indicate any relationship with the Clintons. What is does point out very clearly is that Rezko was a long-time fixture in political circles in Illinois. And it also shows how these guys work---mr clean upfront with the pols and use that exposure and those relationships as "street cred" to do the underhanded stuff with developers and lower-level pols.

            by Azdak on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:04:04 AM PDT

          •  I saw a list of Rezko contributions

            to politicians recently.  Hillary wasn't on it. I thought I saved the link but I didn't and I can't find it.  It may have been on Open Left.  

            by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM PDT

        •  Was Rezko a 'bundler' for the Clintons

          at any time?

          It doesn't appear that he made an individual contribution, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that he was a bundler (fund-raiser) for them in some campaign of the other.

          Do you know anything about this?

          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:33:26 AM PDT

      •  Evidence please

        That Rezko contributed to Clinton.  I thought I'd had seen the opposite, but I could be wrong.

        Do you have a link?

        by dcg2 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:18:00 AM PDT

      •  According to a diary the other day by

        Turkana, Rezko actually never gave any money to the Clintons.  That is thing one.  Thing two is this:  Why in the world do you think that if Clinton "did it too" is a good answer to any questions on this front?  If Clinton is the "wicked witch of the west" in this race, then how in the world could you possibily think that your candidate doing the same thing is going to help him?

        I think this Rezko thing is something that team Obama needs to deal with now and I think they should offer up something better than "well, she did it too" as their response - especially given the fact that Obama is running on a purity platform.  Associations with bad actors will hurt him much more than they will Clinton primarily because no one thinks the Clintons are pure - Obama on the other hand has a very passionate following that could turn on him quickly if they are disappointed.

        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM PDT

        •  Turkana was wrong.

          At the time of the photo the FEC wasn't tracking donations like they track them now.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:24:07 AM PDT

          •  Tell us exactly what the event was

            and for whom it was held when that photo was taken of the Clintons - and while you're at it why don't you give us a comprehensive list of all of the functions where Rezko and Obama were photographed together - just so we can do a fair comparison on this front.

            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:27:35 AM PDT

        •  Exactly

          I think the story can be handled properly. But it sure isn't now.

          by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM PDT

          •  In a perfect world...

            a sound-bite explanation would be nice. Something witty and dismissive and utterly unassailable. I appreciate your trying to find it and am  surprised with you that no one seems to even be testing one.

            by blueteam on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM PDT

            •  Me too.

              It either belies a sense of arrogance or deeper trouble than they are trying to simply wish away - neither are unusual responses from candidates who are on the hot seat - but they better deal with it with something more than a photo of the Clintons.

              by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM PDT

        •  FWIW, from wikipedia....

          Rezko has raised funds for many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. These include Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich,[4] Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Comptroller Dan Hynes, former Cook County Board President John Stroger, and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger.[citation needed] Rezko has also raised money for former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar and co-chaired a megamillion-dollar fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in 2003.[5]

          The Clinton reference is new--I cited this article a week ago and it wasn't there.

          by Azdak on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM PDT

          •  Turkana provided FEC records from

            Open Secrets which I would probably take over wiki as a source on this front.

            In any case, the apparent patronage relationship between Rezko and Obama will not be diminished by a donation to the Clintons from a highly active Dem donor.  There would be only a few big donors who would not have donated to Clinton's campaign in 1996.  Maybe Rezko was one of them, but even if he did - I don't think that is going to really help Obama for a whole host of reasons I've already stated in my comments in this thread.

            The thing is that people are so busy "defending" Obama around here, that they are essentially being totally ineffective - because the questions I am posing are really basic compared to what the media will do once they sink their teeth into this story.  There is just too much grist for the mill for them not to dive in and I think the Obama campaign would be wise to get it all over with now rather than later.

            by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

            •  You're doing a really good job too.

              I've been trying to ask about this here recently, but have gotten nowhere.  I've been researching it myself, and I'm worried.  I think Obama is going to have to deal with this as well as the Giannoulias connection.

              Source Watch

              by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:13:38 AM PDT

    •  Shouldn't you prove he did something wrong?

      Last time I checked paying less than the asking price of a house isn't illegal.  In fact most houses being sold right now are going for less than the asking price.

      by Dr Colossus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:13:12 AM PDT

      •  I don't really know this story,

        but isn't the question whether Rezko bought it from Obama for an inflated price?  

        by burrow owl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM PDT

        •  No, he bought the property from the seller at

          full price- not inflated. Then he sold 1/5 later on back to Obama at 1/5 of the price of the full lot.

          by blueintheface on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:18:16 AM PDT

          •  This info is important

            do you have a link to confirm?

            by ManahManah on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:20:47 AM PDT

            •  Here's one

              link

              by burrow owl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:23:18 AM PDT

          •  Would Rezko's portion have gone

            for 625k on the open market, I wonder?  

            by burrow owl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:59 AM PDT

            •  And

              Would Obama's have gone for $1,605,000 without Rezko paying full price for the side yard.

              If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then Obama is guilty of bad judgment in going to a political patron for this kind of a deal.  If the answer is no, then Obama will have a real problem.

              I really hope the answer is yes.

              by dcg2 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM PDT

            •  Probably not in Hyde Park

              This isn't the North Shore we are talking about.  Obama actually bought his house on auction - that should tell you about the neighborhood he was buying in.

              by Yoshimi on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:26:19 AM PDT

              •  According to the link,

                the house was bought through a real estate agent transaction. Two bids were on the house, Obama's was the higher bid, according to his answers in the SunTimes article.

                by blueintheface on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

            •  That's exactly the question, isn't it?

              You hit the nail on the head, thanks.

              by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:26:29 AM PDT

            •  Rezko Already Sold It

              A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000 (and is planning to build condos), resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

              by JohnKWilson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM PDT

          •  You're offering a third story on what happened

            Maybe your right

            by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM PDT

            •  I got part of it wrong, it was 1/6, not 1/5.

              What are the other two stories?

              by blueintheface on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:33:46 AM PDT

              •  I've seen stories that

                Rezko owned the whole section, a doctor owned the whole section, and stories that Obama owned it all at one time. With all sorts of variations of who sold what to whom.

                by kkjohnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

                •  This is not rocket science.

                  Google or the search function at The Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun-Times is your friend:

                  Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price.

                  Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

                  "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else," Obama said, "to believe that he had done me a favor."

                  There is no mystery here.

                  by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM PDT

                •  The doctor was the seller

                  Obama told Rezko about the house and the lot. Rezko was interested in the lot. The lot had previously been listed and sold as one unit, but in 2005 was listed separately.

                  The seller's agent and Obama's agent negotiated the price (which was higher than another bidder's offer). Separately, the seller's agent and Rezko (or a representative, I don't couldn't find the details) determined their price.

                  Sixteen months after the initial purchase, Obama approached Rezko about buying a portion of his yard to have some space between his house and a fence:

                  To preserve the aesthetic balance, Obama also wanted to put some space between his house and the proposed fence, so he personally asked Tony Rezko if they would sell a portion of their lot wit