Barack Obama's ties to Al Capone can finally be revealed! We've got the real yuck on the best muck! Hot, Sensational, it'll make you positively perspirational!

The ground swell of the movement is the rise of the left wing of the Democratic party that Hillary cannot stomach much less acknowledge. The downfall of Hillary Clinton is the rise of the people that she so gleefully left behind. Obama is reaping the rich rewards for speaking to the dreams and desires of this electorate that has been marginalized for over 30 years in this ocuntry.

Obama will win the primaries and the general election. He will bring with him the truest cornerstone of democracy, for the people, by the people and of the people, and not by, of and for dynasties, moneyed interests and carpetbaggers where corporate welfare bloomed as welfare for the poor got demonized.

The "left wing of the Democratic party that Hillary Clinton cannot stomach much less acknowledge" doesn't represent the MAJORITY of the Democratic Party.

And if you sincerely believe that Barack Obama represents the "truest cornerstone of democracy..." then perhaps you'll explain why he bowed to the "moneyed interests" to pass anti-consumer legislation that limits class action lawsuits against corporations, like Enron? Or why he bowed to "corporate welfare" to water down a consumer notification to residents about toxic leaks into their communities?

Perhaps, too, you'll explain why he didn't even bother to vote for the "people's interests" to implement recommendations of the 911 Commission? Or on the "No Confidence" vote in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

Maybe you'll be able to explain why he voted "NO" on a bill sponsored by Sen. Clinton to provide grants to low-income college students eligible for PELL grants?

And I'm dying to hear an explanation of why he vetoed two SIGNIFICANT amendments to war funding bills that a) established a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and b) that urged President Bush to begin withdrawing troops at the end of 2006.

Finally, regarding those "...interests" he'll fight against if elected, I probably shouldn't hold my breath for an explanation about why Sen. Obama has taken $91,646,221 from some of the largest Wall Street firms, financial institutions and lobbyists.(*)(**)

I haven't fallen under his spell but it must be really something, given that so many "smart" people buy and believe every single thing he says.

Some of us would call that either magical thinking...or denial.

(*) SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

(**) The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

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.

Either that or she's completely psychotic.

First of all he was supposed to be representing the poorest slums of Chicago, not securing a Beverly Hills style mansion with a well-known schister and arranging raises for his wife.

His long history with Rezko is indeed troubling to put it lightly. It doesn't just crack through this facade of altruism he's tried to present, but actually NUKES it.

Add to that all during this time he and Mrs. Proud to be American for the First time in her life were let's say doing a major upgrade on their lifestyle, not one single new job was brought into South Chicago.

While I think Mrs. Clinton's done an admirable job of patience with this section the fact is not only AREN'T they the Democratic majority, but they've been instrumental in Democratic losses for 30 years.

They held out because Hubert Humprhrey was just too damned typical a Democrat and gave us Nixon instead (and all of his rightwing appointments and creations not the least of which was HMO's).

Then they scared off our working and elderly populist vote by insisting the Democratic party grandstand for every unsavory divisive issue from abortion to flag burning and gay marriage.

Hence Ronald Reagan and George Bush the 1st for 12 years.

When the Clinton's/Gore finally got in they griped and bitched incessently he wasn't liberal enough all while ironically the right was doing the exact opposite. Meanwhile the important thing was the Administration brought the best economy of our lifetimes and closed the hemmoraghes of red ink that had been incurred for 30 years. We actually had a bright future in 1999.

But when that was up they decided Gore just was too much like George W. Bush. Or something, and fell for the GOP's trap of Nader.

And now it's this clown, the Obamateur, who is more ego than substance and obviously isn't what he claims.

Who 'needs em I say. The Dem Party is in fact better off without the "leftwing". It's definitely past time to tell moveon.org to moveon.OUT While it was once a useful organization during the Clinton Kangaroo Court Impeachment, since then it's become a liability in the form of letting a very small number of voters yield far too much influence on the Party direction which has consistently led to big losses.