Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, March 2, 2008 06:05 AM

  @katetex: it's okay for Clinton, but it's a deal breaker for Obama

  I don't mean to be snippy, but this is starting to get ridiculous.

  Your entire argument for why Clinton should win the nomination now boils down to Obama's relationship with Rezko. You've abandoned all of your other arguments about why Clinton is the better candidate and instead are now simply accusing Obama of not being a viable candidate because he knew Rezko, and Rezko is bad, bad, bad.

  However, you conveniently ignore all of the evidence (refusing to release tax returns, the awarding of mining contracts to Kazakhstani business men while large donations from Kazakhstanis were coming into Bill Clinton's non-profits, refusing to release papers from the Clinton library, convictions of perjury) that, at best, prove that the Clintons have a very fluid understanding of right and wrong, and that there is much, much more dirt to dig up on them.

  I read the SunTimes column you reference -- it is by the way, an opinion column, not a news article. In it, Lynn Sweet, just flat out lies about Obama having ever answered questions about his relationship with Rezko. Over a year earlier, in 2006, Obama sat down WITH A SUNTIMES REPORTER and discussed his relationship to Rezko. He clearly explains his relationship to the man, including the amount of time they have known each other and the extent of Rezko's financial involvement in the purchase of Obama's house and the adjacent lot. You can read it (again) here:

  http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

  I know that Hillary's campaign and Hillary supporters think that if they keep bringing up Rezko people will just assume that Obama must have some illegal association with him and that it will become his Achilles heel. I don't begrudge you that this is a classic Rovian tactic: keep repeating the falsehood until it enough people have heard it that it becomes truth. This is just another example of the short-sightedness, the scorched earth, and the small picture strategies, of Hillary's campaign and supporters.

  The truth is, Rezko PALES in comparison to some of the characters that the Clintons have closely aligned themselves with over the years; Mark Rich comes to mind. If we are now refusing to take Obama at his word; if we are assigning guilt and blame on the basis of associations, then the Clintons are just begging for condemnation. And you should be condemning them as vociferously as you are trying to condemn Obama.

  I really would like to hear from you about this double standard. I can only assume that you remain silent on this point because you know that your position is indefensible. As I said many posts ago, I sincerely believe that there are many reasons to support Hillary. Obama's relationship with Rezko is not one of them.

  —little lord baltimore Read little lord baltimore's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel