It doesn't qualify as flat out lying because according to his firm's legal records, that's the extent of work he did for Rezko. If you have evidence that he did more, please tell us.

Also the Clintons--why have they not released their taxes? I know that they have been busy on the campaign trail...but if there is nothing to speculate about, they have tossed a bone to their detractors. If Bill has been making financial deals with overseas people, who have made huge financial contributions to his library, while his wife is about to become president, this also seems "bone-headed."

Apparently there are no saints in politics. Which is too bad for all of us.

I didn't see anything in the article about a 13 year close relationship, or about how Obama owes his entire poltical career to the man, or about how Obama is entirely the product of a corrupted Chicago political system. The article does mention that he has given to charity the $160,000 that Rezko donated to his campaign. Again, I just don't see a smoking gun here. I'm sure that people, maybe even Hillary's people -- which I think is just tragic, will keep trying to find some evidence of illegal activity or corruption on Obama's part. Until then, yes, I have to take him at his word.

You write:

"Tell me this: how can Obama possibly pass himself off as a break from the sordid political past he loves to preach about in ringing phrases, when his whole political career sprang from that past and he benefited hugely from it? His whole flipping campaign has been BASED on his being the candidate who represents a complete departure from that past. Meanwhile, Obama hasn't even come close to admitting where and how he came from politically, and few have seemed to care - something which I've found utterly depressing."

I honestly think this is why we will never see eye to eye on this, why I expect that you will be one of the Hillary supporters who votes for McCain if Obama gets the nomination and why nothing I say will change your mind. I know that this is hard for Hillary's campaign to understand, but I don't think that Obama is perfect. I've never felt that I should vote for him because he is somehow better or above the realities of politics in America. I don't believe that when he gets to the White House everything will be different and rosy, and I expect that he stumbled, and will stumble, along the way. I know that he will have to make unpleasant compromises. I know that he already has. Nevertheless, with everything I have read, seen and heard from both him and Hillary, I still think he is the better candidate and that he will be a better President. There is no magic here.

I also find it a little peculiar that you can support Hillary and the Clintons with their long and sordid history of secrecy, shady deals, witness intimidation, and perjury, yet you are deeply depressed by the suggestion that Obama may have had an entirely legal association with someone accused of corruption. If the Clinton's were judged and condemned because of associations with corrupted and shady business men, they would both be already buried under the jail by now, not considered respected elders of the Democratic party.

There is an article in the NYT that goes much further and does a better job of explaining Rezko and Obama's history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print

It does suggest that Rezko and Obama concocted a plan so that Obama and his family could have a bigger back yard for their dream house.

Sorry, I do give you credit for posting the link, but this story goes WAY beyond Obama and his wife wanting a bigger yard. It clearly demonstrates that Obama has been associated with Rezko for a very long time, that Rezko has been a major fundraiser for Obama, and that Obama has apparently lied outright about (at the very least, completely misrepresented) the nature and duration of his relationship with Rezko. I have sat back for some time now, wondering how on earth Obama expected to keep this story under wraps in perpetuity, wondering why on earth no major media had put any effort into investigating it. After all, the Rezko story goes to the very heart of Obama's campaign - his claim to represent an entirely new kind of politics. I get no joy from this, believe me. But I am relieved to see a measure of my faith restored in the Fourth Estate. At least for today.

Thanks cecilbeanie. People do read what they want to in order to support their choices and make a case to knock those who do not follow their prescriptions. I was not aware that the good doc has been obssessing about my posts. I am glad that you had a chance to read through them and set the record straight. I did state why I changed my position on Hillary and trust me, it was not easy.

We have lived through 8 years of the Clinton administration that was mired in one contraversy after another, whether self inflicted or inflicted by the media or the vast right wing conspiracy. I happen to believe that it was a little bit of all 3. The media has been hard on Hillary and I have always said that. But Hillary wants us to swallow her 8 years in the White House as her years of experience and if that's the case, then she needs to own up to a lot of the right wing shift of the Democratic party during the Clintons' watch.

Hillary loves to invoke the "middle class" as much as she can, a code that shuts off the vast numbers of Americans who fall below the poverty lines. People can read my posts about the many many sell outs and compromises that the Clintons made in order to corporatize the Democratic Party and marginalize the poor amongst us.

Hillary supporters on this forum give me the impression that McCain would be a better choice in the general elections should Obama win the nomination. So much for getting the GOP out of the White House. That says a lot about how Hillary has run her campaign - very Rovian and very divisive. The massive shift of voters from Hillary to Obama speaks to a particular dissatisfaction on how Hillary is once again triangulating with the Republicans in the way she keeps providing the fodder for defeating Obama. Here is a good and thoughtful article

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/01/7397/

There is another article by Naomi Wolf on how and why rendition was the product of the Clintons and why she is voting for Obama.

Also, how can she tout her experience over his judgement when we know that she has squandered $138 million just in the last 4 months and is now practically running on empty. Where was the organization and where is the management skill that she keeps boasting about? Is she a uniter or a divider? hell, she cannot even unite her own party. For the first time I am now understanding Clinton fatigue. I hope sincerely that if she loses by whatever margin, she will have the grace and wisdom to withdraw from the race and not drag the party into a dirty floor fight in the Democratic National Convention.