The Audacity of Hate

[Mr. Peabody]

Rezko's around the corner. Obama revealed on Friday that Rezko and he were more involved than previous admitted. It's just that Rev. "I-hate-white-people" Wright ate the news cycle.

He revealed it on Friday during a 90 minute sit down with Chicago Tribune journalists who asked anything and everything of Obama regarding the Rezko situation.

chicagotribune.com
Editorials
Obama's Rezko narrative

March 16, 2008

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.

Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko's wife subtly subsidized the Obamas' purchase of their home on Chicago's South Side. "This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true ... simply, factually, incorrect," Obama said Friday, adding that he didn't need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house.

Having said that, Obama also admitted, "You can back up and say the red light should have gone off."

No argument here. The red light would have warned Obama that Rezko might want to own property adjoining his in order to tighten their relationship -- or that Rezko might be prepping to ask Obama for a favor at some later date. Instead, Obama now acknowledges that he was drawing too close to a campaign contributor and political player whose name was cropping up in articles about the Illinois culture of political sleaze.

***

Obama said he hadn't suspected Rezko of wrongdoing, or of scheming to exploit their friendship: They were friends who occasionally socialized; Rezko had been a loyal supporter; and, Obama says, Rezko had never asked him for anything in the many years they'd known one another. Rezko always had been above board with him, Obama explained, so "my instinct was to believe him" when Rezko said the talk of illicit dealings on his part was untrue.

For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.

Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing su ion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."

To be precise about that: Obama contends that all of his Rezko-related transactions were lawful and above reproach, but he didn't keep a prudent distance from Rezko.

***

So what really happened Friday when Obama detailed his Obama connection? And will his attempt to exorcise Rezko keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign from exploiting that connection?

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

***

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don't know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing ... and who they can trust." Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by "high ethical standards," he said. Although "that doesn't excuse the mistake I made here."

Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

[Holt's Cat]

So Obama attended a 'black church' and had a sleazeball as one of his donors.

The other Democratic candidate would never do either, that's for certain.

Again, the Fed is invoking rules not used since the Depression to stave off a meltdown of the US financial system, the US is still stuck in Iraq, and this is what cons utes important political discussion?

[jochhejaam]

And keep in mind that at no time, that I am aware of, has Obama ever made any type of statement or remarks such as Rev. Wright's. And his message since his 2004 break out speech has always been about unity.

And therein lies the problem. Obama is running, in part, on the platform of being the Great Unifier, while simultaneously (for 20 years) sitting dutifully under his beloved Pastor who is the Great Divider. <Houston, we have a problem!>

They're philosophies are as different as night and day and no "major speech on race", regardless of how poetic or oratorically aesthetic it may be, will bring reconciliation to that fact.



This is a non-issue to the blind followers of Obama and for those that are willfully ignorant. Those that fall into this category would have you believe that Obama's debacle prevents discussion about solutions to the problems facing our Country.
While it is indeed a major distraction for Obama, rest assured that the Country's efforts to right itself from her problems are ongoing, and are not similary distracted because of one man's problems.

[Yonivore]

what I mean't to say was this is right of the GOP playbook..

see the smear vets...

You say that as if the actions by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were somehow dishonest or dishonorable.

[Yonivore]

He revealed it on Friday during a 90 minute sit down with Chicago Tribune journalists who asked anything and everything of Obama regarding the Rezko situation.

In the news business, Friday is "bury-it" day. All politicians release hurtful information on Friday with the hope it will a) be ignored as we all go about our merry Friday evening ways, b) will be swallowed by some other news event, or c) be forgotten by Monday.

Well, it wasn't exactly a) ignored and, unfortunately for Obama, it was b) swallowed by a negative news event that also involved him, but maybe he'll luck out and c) it was forgotten by Monday.

Incidentally, if you think bringing in 1,000 journalists from a single newspaper, from your hometown, is somehow akin to opening up the kitchen cabinets for all journalists, you're delusional.

[Yonivore]

joe chalupa is about to go semperfi on yoni's chickenhawk ass

Oh gosh!

[peewee's lovechild]

Because her nuts are bigger than anyone who hails from Argentina..Ole!

[peewee's lovechild]

Yeah, I've heard about that too. But nothing has been proven he did anything illegal. The Chicago media has been investigating it for almost 2 years now. But I could be wrong.

The fact that he's been investigated for two years implies that he may very well have done something illegal.

And, if he's been investigated for two years, why didn't Obama catch this?

[peewee's lovechild]

And keep in mind that at no time, that I am aware of, has Obama ever made any type of statement or remarks such as Rev. Wright's. And his message since his 2004 break out speech has always been about unity.

And yet, he's attended a church for over two decades that preaches about disunity.

If he's all about unity, as he swears he is, why has he stayed in a church where the minister spews hatred towards another race?

[peewee's lovechild]

It could also be that he truly feels that way. I may dislike Bush and McCain's political beliefs but I don't question that they truly believe they are doing what they feel is best for the country.
Of course he had political aspirations. Don't they all?

But, he's not an old school politician!!!

He promised!!!

[smeagol]

Pewee and GGA love Hillary but hate Obama. If Obama wins, they will vote McCain : ingrolleyeyes

Some Dems are really stupid . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

Pewee and GGA love Hillary but hate Obama. If Obama wins, they will vote McCain : ingrolleyeyes

Some Dems are really stupid . . .

Argentinans cows and shove soccer balls up thier asses.

But, anyway, if Obama wins . . . I won't be voting.
I can't in good conscience vote for McCain and I don't believe in Obama.

[smeagol]

if Obama wins . . . I won't be voting. I can't in good conscience vote for McCain and I don't believe in Obama.

You are too stupid to see that if you don't go to vote, you're helping the Republicans

Argentinans cows and shove soccer balls up thier asses.

On second thought, somebody this immature should not be allowed to vote.

Maybe you are not even old enough to vote . . . which would explain many of your posts.

[peewee's lovechild]

You are too stupid to see that if you don't go to vote, you're helping the Republicans

You're too stupid to understand that I wouldn't care either way.

I'm not a "vote blindly for one party" type of person. If you're that way, then you're part of the problem.

I'm a truly independent voter.

I choose to back Hillary Clinton because I believe in her.

If I believed in McCain, I would back him, same goes with Obama.

If Obama wins the Dem nomination, I honestly won't care who takes the Presidency. I don't believe in either one.

As for your "helping Republicans" comment:

I'm hurt.

Really.

[smeagol]

If Obama wins the Dem nomination, I honestly won't care who takes the Presidency. I don't believe in either one.

Why can't you vote in good conscience for McCain?

I thought you had nor problems with the Republicans.

And McCain is probably the most "Democrat-like" Republican who will run for the Presidency in years . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

Why can't you vote in good conscience for McCain?

I thought you had nor problems with the Republicans.

And McCain is probably the most "Democrat-like" Republican who will run for the Presidency in years . . .

Because he want's to continue with the Iraq occupancy.
He sees no end to it.

And, he'll likely push for a confilict with Iran.

[smeagol]

Because he want's to continue with the Iraq occupancy.
He sees no end to it.

And, he'll likely push for a confilict with Iran.

That is what almost every Republiucan, with the exception of Ron Paul, wants to do.

[JoeChalupa]

I respect Peewee's and GGA's support of Hillary. I just happen to support Obama and I believe his words more than I do Hillary's. That is just me but noway I'm not voting in November. Staying home, IMO, because your candidate didn't get the nomination is not the answer.

BARACK ON!!

[peewee's lovechild]

That is what almost every Republiucan, with the exception of Ron Paul, wants to do.

Which would be the reason why I wouldn't vote for McCain.

[JoeChalupa]

The fact that he's been investigated for two years implies that he may very well have done something illegal.

And, if he's been investigated for two years, why didn't Obama catch this?

Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land. You'd think that after two years of investigations they would have already charged him with a crime.

[peewee's lovechild]

Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land. You'd think that after two years of investigations they would have already charged him with a crime.

They took more than that to bring a RICO case against John Gotti.

The same can be said about Al Capone and several others.

However, I do agree with the innocent until proven guilty.

But, try telling that to Barry Bonds, Roger Clements, etc.

[JoeChalupa]

They took more than that to bring a RICO case against John Gotti.

The same can be said about Al Capone and several others.

However, I do agree with the innocent until proven guilty.

But, try telling that to Barry Bonds, Roger Clements, etc.

I agree. As yonivore said it matters more in the court of public opinion.

Obama did a good job today but it will not undo any of the damage that has already been done. He just needs to get out and talk to the people and let the chips fall where they may.

[JoeChalupa]

And therein lies the problem. Obama is running, in part, on the platform of being the Great Unifier, while simultaneously (for 20 years) sitting dutifully under his beloved Pastor who is the Great Divider. <Houston, we have a problem!>

They're philosophies are as different as night and day and no "major speech on race", regardless of how poetic or oratorically aesthetic it may be, will bring reconciliation to that fact.



This is a non-issue to the blind followers of Obama and for those that are willfully ignorant. Those that fall into this category would have you believe that Obama's debacle prevents discussion about solutions to the problems facing our Country.
While it is indeed a major distraction for Obama, rest assured that the Country's efforts to right itself from her problems are ongoing, and are not similary distracted because of one man's problems.

Exactly, their philosophies ARE different. I think those who are making this more of an issue than it should be are also showing ignorance.
As Bill O'Reilley stated there is NO evidence of Obama making such stupid statements like Wright has and I believe him.

[word]

Though the democratic primary has been interesting it's over and so is the general election. It will be close in the popular vote but a landslide for McCain in the electoral college. Hillary's base is older white female voters. 10% of those defect and it's disaster for Obama in places like California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin... pretty much everywhere but he loses the big hitters in the EC and it's over. I suspect that is just what is going to happen. It's going to look like 1988. Close popular vote, EC blowout. If McCain takes JC Watts as a VP, he'll sick him on Obama and keep him on the ropes. The only hope for the Dems is an Obama/Clinton ticket and I just don't think she'll go for it. If she does, landslide for Obama. Either way, this election is in the hands of middle aged white females.

Just my two cents

[peewee's lovechild]

Though the democratic primary has been interesting it's over and so is the general election. It will be close in the popular vote but a landslide for McCain in the electoral college. Hillary's base is older white female voters. 10% of those defect and it's disaster for Obama in places like California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin... pretty much everywhere but he loses the big hitters in the EC and it's over. I suspect that is just what is going to happen. It's going to look like 1988. Close popular vote, EC blowout. If McCain takes JC Watts as a VP, he'll sick him on Obama and keep him on the ropes. The only hope for the Dems is an Obama/Clinton ticket and I just don't think she'll go for it. If she does, landslide for Obama. Either way, this election is in the hands of middle aged white females.

Just my two cents

Soccer Grannies?