- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The commenter that talked about the Sun-Times being the Windy City equivalent of the NY Post is absolutely correct. It's a rag that's two steps above a tabloid when it comes to actually reporting news. And it's owned by Conrad Black, one of the most corrupt right wing news moguls in the country. So please, anything the Sun-Times reports, take it with a grain of skepticism. They're out to destroy any democratic candidate for President.
The reality is Chicago politics is awash with dirty money, and there's no way for politicians to know who is or isn't dirty until someone gets indicted. I've heard every explanation Obama's given for his relationship with Rezko, since this started, and he's been very forthcoming about how he views it. He returned the money. He ended his professional relationship with the guy. It's what we expect our senators and representatives to do. He's not taking money now. What more of an explanation do you want? He's admitted (in previous interviews) that he was friends and professional acquaintances with the guy, and when the indictments were handed down he promptly stopped doing business. Did he give contracts to Rezko's company? was he one of many Illinois reps to do so? Is Rezko one of many sleazy dirtbags milking Illinois taxpayers for their money? Yes to all of the above. But, he RETURNED THE MONEY. What else is he supposed to do? Provide phone records and transcripts of every conversation he had with the guy?
What you didn't publish was that the Sun-Times ran an article several days ago linking Hillary to Rezko. Now, maybe they were using the same photo Lauer used (which is bupkus), but if the Sun-Times reported it, doesn't that make it just as valid as their reporting on Obama?
You want to solve this problem? Vote for public financing of elections.
