Obama did have a questionable relationship with Rezko. This doesn't take anything away from the fact that Republicans (and other Democrats) have far bigger and dirtier skeletons in the closet that are never so much as mentioned. As I've said a few times today already, there was an excellent article in the Chicago Sun Times detailing allegations that will be submitted by prosecutors that Obama received donations from Rezko that were funneled through subordinates and associates so that he could supercede the donation limits. It has nothing to do with the house deal, which I find to be unworthy of discussion. But it does seem likely that Obama had a very lucrative relationship with Rezko--WHICH I WILL EMPHASIZE IS A VERY NORMAL AS WELL AS UNETHICAL ONE TO HAVE FOR A POLITICIAN.

Here is the story.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/812715,CST-NWS-rezko26.article

Please feel free to take any of my comments out of context while insulting me.

"Just because you support one candidate, is that really a reason to completely cede your critical skills?"

This seems to be the point I was making, yet you vilified me for it in several posts.

I haven't read the posts you're speaking of, but I don't want to get into a long protracted feud in this letters page. I read Glenn's stuff, because I think he's brilliant and I learn a lot. I write here to offer my viewpoints, and to hone my own thinking by discussing issues with others. But you seem to be suffering from a condition that has even affected Mr. Greenwald lately. You don't read my posts carefully, you take one or two things out of context and then insist that we debate only them, and not the substance of my argument. I'm just not here to do that. You can insult me all you like.

Suddenly there is a pretty high threshold of proof before you form an opinion about somebody who is about to be president. Go your own way with that one, but excuse me if I let real-world experience and judgement be the basis for my opinions.

What is my case? Here it is, very simply stated. I don't plan to take this to court, nor do I believe that Obama is even one fifth as corrupt as any of his competitors: Rezko had a long and intimate relationship with Obama that involved financial dealings and campaign financing. Rezko is about to stand trial for fraud. Obama is running for president. Call it circumstancial if you like, this isn't a courthouse.

Since you seem obsessed with that remark I made, and have since made in larger context and more fully, here is my reasoning:

There is little political difference between Obama and Clinton, and I am certainly not going to vote for a Republican. I have no doubt that we will be in Iraq for many years to come no matter who is president. Based on that knowledge, the fact that Obama is a person of color (black) and has a foreign born father and a muslim name is the greatest SYMBOLIC repudiation of everything the current administration has stood for in the last 8 years.

Do you get it now? I can write in all caps if you like.

Please.

Its real world stuff indeed, and that is why it should be openly discussed. If we discuss all of these real world things equally, then out of a month, we might discuss Obama on one day--Bush, McCain, Clinton and others would take up the rest of the time easily. But on the day we discuss Obama, lets do it right. Get the info out there, in context, and then move on without being accused of having it out for Obama. Obama is a politician not the marketing brand that he has cocooned himself with; he's done plenty of unethical things, and hasn't been indicted for anything as you observe. So what's wrong with saying it just that way?

questionable: 1. Open to doubt or challenge; problematic.

You reduce my argument to a simple fault in logic, but you are mistaken. To clarify, I have no opinion about the land sale to the Obama's--that would certainly be a low threshold of proof to show that Obama got dirty from his relationship with Rezko. But the prosecution in the Rezko case has received permission from the judge to submit that Rezko funneled illegally acquired money to a candidate through a third party. That candidate is most likely Obama, given Rezko's long-standing ties with him. That is a reasonable standard of proof to think that their relationship is questionable. It is also reasonable to assume that something unethical went down there.

Meanwhile, the US is ordering Turkey to stop going after Kurdish militias in Iraq. Nice.

What a wonderfully bland and opinion-free statement from Obama. Why did he bother to comment at all?

This is the main reason why I can't stand her. She's made these same kind of reactionary PAX USA statements in the past regarding Israel and the Palestinians. Trying to out-right the right on jingoist facades of offense. But I'm half Palestinian AND half Colombian, so now she's really gotten on my bad side(s).

Utter confusion.

I don't spend the hours you do scouring the posts for something to comment on.

I tend to focus on the article by Glenn, and then whatever is pertinent on the page I'm looking at. Since you asked.

As a Colombian, I can tell you that the FARC is universally reviled. Older people remember a time when they were socially relevant and ideologically motivated--but that was a long, long time ago. Most people think they are just mafia.

The government is none too popular either, and neither is the US, for that matter. But as far as hating-the-guts-of, FARC hands down wins that contest.