Letters to the Editor
-
@ Liberty or Death
I agree and three pages ago suggested that we begin to DO SOMETHING about this - we the people can send a message to the candidates that they BOTH a responsibility to the party and we can urge them to work this out in a way that doesn't destroy the party in the interest of the final goal (beating McCain).
So much for reason. No one seems to even care about that. People are still fussing about bullshit. Seems to me everyone has made up their minds who they will vote for (which is fine) but its more important to be right than to do anything else.
This really sucks. Grow up everybody and lets do something productive!
-
@littlelordbaltimore -- Both Obamas made boneheaded mistake? Michelle didn't say what's up with Rezko
1)TWO HARVARD GRADS MAKE BONEHEADED MISTAKE -- HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN???? I note that you did not directly respond to how two educated people made a "boneheaded" mistake -- Barack and Michelle. The point is Obama is not a moral compass for a "movement" and is someone willing to do a deal with anyone even if they are under investigation for buying political favors and had walked out on millions of $ of debt. Also, the Chicago Tribune on March 4, 2008 (today) ran a story that Obama will not (and there are numerous references over the past weeks that show he would not) answer pointed questions about his relationship with Rezko. Also, keep in mind the letters of support Obama wrote for Rezko were during his time in the State Senate. Obama for some reason did not maintain most of his State Senate records. That was another of his judgment calls.
2) WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE HAS BEEN WITHHELD BY OBAMA -- As you may also be aware, Obama usually reveals more information after someone comes up with uncontroverted evidence does Obama let out more information that was previously not disclosed -- e.g., Nafta Memo; Rezko toured the home before Obama purchased it. . .Having dealt with reporters before, I am aware that many (can't speak of the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times reporters) are not very well-versed in how to use legal research services to piece together connections that are not readily apparent. However, in time the information usually surfaces. I hope, as do you, that Obama simply made a boneheaded mistake.
3) ISSUE IS ETHICS/PROFESSIONALISM - NOT LEGAL/ILLEGAL -- Think more in terms of ethics and professionalism, as opposed to illegal or legal. As lawyers, the Obamas are completely familiar with the ethics/professionalism rules -- hence, Obama's declaration that his Rezko deal was a "boneheaded" mistake. There are plenty of people that were not convicted of a crime they were charged with that you or anyone would think twice about doing a deal with, e.g., -- O.J. Simpson; John Mark Carr (JonBenet Ramsy case); insert name of any known drug dealer; insert name of any slumlord; etc.
4) WHY DID OBAMA DONATE ALL MONEY TO CHARITY - WHAT ABOUT REZKO'S CREDITORS -- Why was the money that Rezko contributed directly to Obama given to charities instead of notifying Rezko's creditors that the money was being "disgorged" or put in a Court registry (out of professionalism and civic responsibility)? This isn't legally required but would be appropriate for someone familiar with the law to follow this approach -- especially when it was widely reported that Rezko had creditor problems.
5) OBAMA CALLED IT A BONEHEADED MISTAKE -- NOT ANYONE ELSE -- Remember, it is Obama that uses the term "boneheaded". Maybe, it was boneheaded to admit the deal was a boneheaded mistake. It only recently came out that Rezko actually toured the property before the purchase. We may never know if the deal was a "payback" for Obama's letters of support when Obama was a State Senator, consideration for a future favors for Rezko or Rezko's Iraqi businessman friends (see my prior posts for cites), or simply Obama seeking out the "richest" guy he knew so he and his family could have a grandiose home they could not afford on their own accord. None of those scenarios resonate as good "excuses" for me. Without an explanation that makes sense and jives with Obama's campaign message, I am left in a bad position if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
6) IF IT IS ABOUT JUDGMENT, THEN THE QUESTIONS ARE FAIR -- I never suggested the Obamas did anything illegal (if I had the time, I would do the cross-reference research for Rezko's creditors to see if there are any ties a couple steps removed -- this is detailed oriented time consuming research), and until research suggests otherwise I have no reason to think they did something illegal. O.J. was never convicted of killing Nicole either, but I wouldn't buy a knife from him.
If Obama, because of his lack of experience, is going to run his campaign on the message that he has better judgment, then he cannot simply gloss over issues where he admitted his judgment failed him. He should be sitting down and answering the probing questions. Especially when his judgment failed him on something so intimately connected to him and his family -- the family home.
As an aside, you will note that the Obama campaign will not let the advisor that spoke to Canadian officials talk directly with the press. . . Hmm. Does Obama not trust the judgment of his advisors? If Obama admits judgment issues and his advisors have judgment issues, why does Obama claim he will have better judgment than other candidates.
Finally, for anyone else with questions about Obama as the nominee against McCain -- one important consideration is the Federal Judiciary and what will happen if McCain keeps his neo-Bush connections.
-
hey brother brown
didn't you hear? nafta gate is over, nada, finis.
-
Wait what?
Isn't she done? Isn't it over for her?
I mean how many failures = give up? Guiliani is done and he had far fewer defeats than this old hag...er I mean this previous First Lady.
I mean Bob Dole has a better shot at the democratic nominee than her.
-
@Evan Sternberg
_____I mean how many failures = give up? Guiliani is done and he had far fewer defeats than this old hag...er I mean this previous First Lady.______
I am an Obama supporter and I find this reference to Hillary as an old hag, quite offensive.