Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I hate to keep repeating this, but I really don't care about the nitpicky details of all of this. I care about the fact that our country is in shambles.
Barack Obama said, during the last debate, that nobody's hands are completely clean in politics. God knows, there were plenty of "scandals" about Clinton fund-raising in his elections, not to mention the Chinese contributor to Hillary who turned out to be a fugitive from the law. Fund-raising is hard; rich contributors are not always perfect people; politicians have to deal with it the best they can, which I think both Hillary and Barack have done. BFD. We should have public financing of elections and we should stop forcing people to raise gazillions of dollars to run for president. If all the money that has been blown on ridiculous campaign ads and so on were donated to charity, it would be a nicer world.
So, can we please get back to what matters to us, the people, who don't have any rich contributors in our lives and are trying to scrape by in a rotten economy brought about by a terrible administration that needs to be replaced.
Was going to write a post. Heyjude wrote it for me.
Perhaps we should then allow the New York Sun to shape out discussion of matters pertaining to the Clintons! These two papers specialize in yellow journalism. The least you could do is cite a reputable source.
Matt Lauer is a dickhead, and he's representative of big media: Show the picture...go for the headline...leave nuance out...are the Clintons playing the race card?
What horseshit.
Tucker Carlson (a bowtie-wearing dickhead) just pulled the same shit. Look, there's Bill and Hill with Rezko! Look there's Bill and Hill with scumbag #1...there they are again with scumbag #2!
Sometimes I wonder why I watch news shows at all.
Er... maybe I'm missing something here, but let's bring out our Scandal Scale (tm) and in one cup put Obama's "relationship" with this Rezko dude, and on the other put... oh, let's say George W.'s "fortuitous" insider stock dump that nobody really talked about during the 2000 campaign. How do they compare?
Let's see. Obama is associated with a guy who turned out to be a scumbag and is indicted on charges, correct me if I'm wrong, that are unrelated to anything Obama has done in office. George W. did something for which a less privileged citizen (e.g. Martha Stewart) would end up in jail. Uh huh.
A Republican candidate brazenly breaks the law because he can and the press is mum. A Democratic candidate has a connection to a shady character that may or may not mean anything, and oy gevalt, it's a scandal! Am I reading liberal blogs too much, or is there a liberal bias in the media?
That post, a page back, said, "The Mob owns Illinois."
This is NOT TRUE. This is the old-time, Gangster movie, Al Capone stereotype thing.
My Spanish teacher, Joan Gilabert, told the Spanish class that when he came to America in the 1960s, and visited Chicago, he expected to see mobsters with fedoras and violin cases, because he had seen all those old movies. And we cracked up, and he laughed.
Mayor Richard J. Daley's group cut off the Mob in Chicago forty years ago. The Mob is not even in control of Cicero anymore, even though Cicero has grown its own corrupt politicians. And the Mob NEVER had control of the rest of Illinois.
Who wrote that silly post? Some dipstick Anonymous. Slink back, twit.
We may never know all the details of the transaction since the real estate agents and prior owners are playing mum. Good for them, they are under no compuncton to speak to anyone about legal private matters.
Here's what I think we do know.
~ Obama and Rezco got a package deal on a adjacent lots and a house.
~ Obama gets the lot with the house
~ Obama buys a strip of land from Rezco.
~ Rezco lot remains empty
The real estate transaction can be construed as a "favor" from Rezco, and Rezcos indictment showing his attempted influence on an Illinois governor certainly shows a predilication on his part to collect on his favors.
So:
Did Obama do something illegal. No.
Was Obama naive and stupid? Maybe.
Is there anything good that could come out of his Rezco relationship? No.
Is Lauer a pathetic shithead? Yes.
I was beginning to think I would never see a fair reading of this issue. Living in Chicago, I don't think there is anyone that didnot know Rezko was a crook and for Obama to say he
didn't know is pure farce. Last week the Sun Times told us
that Obama has been named in the corruption case starting Feb 26. This is not to accuse him of anything but this is Patrick Fitzgerald handling this case and you can guarentee if something is wrong he will find out. When I saw the story with Hillary and the picture today on television, I thought how interesting, the Rezko story with Obama has been in the press for months in Chicago and never made it into the mainstream press and one picture of Hillary and Bill that had to be years ago......look at the hair, the dress and the youth on their face.....it's on one of the major networks this morning. Well at least now we know the story will get a look.....the Clintons have been dragged in and that is like dragging a crate of beer in front of the press.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
If you really want to do "fair" reporting here...talk about this with regards to Hillary Clinton..two words: Peter Paul!
Why do Hillary’s numbers remain strong across the country despite the accusations that the Clintons are liars? Democrats are bloodhounds for the truth and hate propaganda, that’s why. The biggest propaganda campaign this year is the Obama campaign. The press is complicit in this propaganda and America knows it. For example, during the last debate, Obama said: “I spent a total of five hours representing Rezco, that was the extent of it.” The truth is Obama got his house deal brokered by Rezco and paid about 300 thousand dollars below market value for it. Funny thing is, on the Today show later that week, the big story was a picture of Hillary and Bill with Rezco back in the early 1990’s. No discussion at all about Obama’s partial truth. Another example, Obama explained his COO comments (“I need someone to organize my papers. I am not a COO”) from the last debate by explaining “I’m just a regular guy and gave a real answer.” Bullshit. Any high school graduate knows to prepare the “what are your three weaknesses and three strengths” question before an interview. The real reason for his comments? I think he was trying to say that Hillary is a bureaucrat and he is a visionary by making this comment. When he realized he made himself look like an incompetent, he tried to fix it later that week in an interview with the Reno Gazette. He compared himself to Reagan who many believe was more of a visionary than a manager. When the Clintons called him to task on the comments he made to the Reno Gazette, Obama and his surrogates retorted that the Clintons are liars about his comments about Reagan. I listened to the clip, the Clintons told the truth. The press is in a frenzy about Bill Clinton’s participation in the campaign because Bill is calling Obama on Obama’s propaganda. For example, last night, I watched The MacNeil Lehrerer New Hour with David Brooks and the other guy. Their propaganda spew was unbelievable. The old guy even accused the Clintons of injecting the race question into the campaign. What I remember about the race card was that every single pundit decried Clinton for questioning Obama’s stated ideas about Iraq and then uttering the horrible racially charged invective “fairytale” about how Obama had mischaracterized his position over the years. I also remember a clip of Michelle Obama telling a black audience that calling the Obama campaign (not his past behavior as a politician) a fairytale was to crush the aspirations of African Americans. Who was mischaracterizing what, Michelle? I for one am glad that Hillary and Bill are making the country take a good hard look at Obama. Obama, quit lying!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
