Letters to the Editor
-
LJ - In fact...
I'll go so far as to rebuke Senator Obama (as if my doing so means anything) for missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran last year. Though I understand senators were assured that the measure would not be coming up for a vote, he should have dropped whatever he was doing, wherever he was doing it, to race back to D.C. and vote against it.
That was the vote, by the way, where Senator Clinton lost me as a supporter. Iraq? Perhaps she believed the administration and the intelligence. But Iran? Fool me once, shame on you, Mr. President. Fool me twice...
As I say, Senator Obama should have worked to be present. Though he came out against the bill when it was proposed, he would be in a much stronger position now had he not been out kissing babies.
As I recently wrote about Senator Clinton, you should do the job you have before you get the job you want.
-
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy recycled by Hillary Clinton
The Clintons are doing to Barack Obama what the Republicans did to the Clintons. They learned well from their oppressors. Throw them molotov cocktails of half truths and smear Obama every chance you get and see what sticks. Then they say, we are the truth and we say the truth and we speak to the truth as Miss Walker claims over and over again.
-
@D. Blixt: Obama did sit down and answer questions about Rezko
Hi David,
I'm not from Chicago and I've learned from some of the posts today that the Sun Times may not be the most respected newspaper in your fair city. Nevertheless, Obama did sit down with a Sun Times reporter in November of 2006. He answered questions about Rezko, about their relationship, and about the real estate deal involving his house and the adjacent lot.
The link is:http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
I've posted it numerous times and, strangely, all the Hillary supporters seem to ignore it. I agree with you that it is ironic that the Hillary is so enthusiastically trying to create a suspicion of wrong doing in connection with Obama and Rezko. The saddest and most surreal moment was when she accused Obama of being worse than Ken Starr.
-
I have to agree with Joe-
- on half of this story. The Obama- Rezco connection is a non story. It's been done to death in IL, and there really is nothing new about it that Obama has to deal with. I assume the reason that he doesn't talk about it anymore is because in his mind they're just isn't anything more to say about it that he hasn't already said. If the Tribune does indeed have unanswered questions, they might be the only ones, and I would in fact be interested in seeing what they are.
But I do agree with Joe about not going too far on the taxes bit. I've said so before and I mean it. It's not so much that I think their won't be anything in them that is problematic for Clinton, but that if there is it would likely be so obscure or hidden as to be too obtuse for anyone to truly grasp.
There's plenty of things that the Obama campaign can talk about if they really want to start hitting back at her negative campaigning. I would rather see Obama start to talk about how Clinton has not authored a single major piece of legislation in seven years in the Senate. Or how it seems it was actually her campaign that told the Canadians that her NAFTA talk was just political posturing, not Obama's, and how strange it is that the story got switched around with such impeccable timing. And yes, I still believe her campaign altered Obama's image in the attack ad to make him look more black (actually chatted with a friend of mine who is a professional videographer about it, and he confirmed my thinking).
I really hope that Obama doesn't waste too much time on taxes. It's been said, it's out there, from now on mention it once and a while to keep it alive, but move on. If she stalls on it after April 15th, maybe then you go after it hard, but keep it on the back burner right now, and focus on other things.
P.S. -Don't leave AKA Smith. I'm not sure what the hell was wrong with you last night, but you're one of the more sane people around.
-
@ David Blixt: To Answer Your Question...
I'll elaborate a bit.
When Sen. Clinton kept silent on Whitewater I also found it perturbing and frustrating.
When Ken Starr and Republicans went on what I considered to be a "witchhunt" against both Clintons, dragging this and other financial issues on and on, I joined MoveOn.org to signify that enough was enough.
All I am saying is that Sen. Obama needs to sit down and answer these questions so that the matter can be put to rest. He is acting much like Sen. Clinton did during the Whitewater investigation, which isn't reassuring.
Rezko has not reached anywhere near the level of a "witchhunt," but it will not go away until he provides full and transparent answers. I would rather he do that now than later, especially if he is on the Democratic ticket in November.
-
Please
Please Joe, why don't you pose a single "unanswered" question about Obama and Rezko? Oh, that's because there aren't any. There's not a single allegation or hint of one that Obama did anything wrong, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out.
The Clinton campaign made a big issue of out of Rick Lazio's tax returns in 2000, I don't know why she's taking so long in releasing them. It's just a bad political decision, she should have released them in January and we'd not be talking about it at all.
-
Little Lord B.
Thanks for the link. I knew he had answered them somewhere. And you will never hear me overtly bad-mouth the Sun-Times, or the Tribune for that matter. The Sun-Times ran a lovely review of my book last fall, and I've had good theatrical reviews from the Trib.
But I will admit, though it pains me, that the new wrinkle in the Rezko saga - the likely corruption in the Governor's mansion - does provide a few new questions for the Trib to explore. I think, for the simple desire to get past it, that Senator Obama should sit down for an hour with reporters from both papers and walk through it. Let them declare the story over and move on.
Again, it isn't that there is any wrongdoing. All Senator Clinton requires to cast mud is the appearance of it. Evasiveness only feeds the beast - as the Clintons themselves know all too well.