(Politics) Chicago Trib exonerates Obama on Rezko, 100%

[paularoid]

(emphasis added)

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/publish-sunday-am-chicago-trib.html


Chicago Trib exonerates Obama on Rezko, 100%
by John Aravosis (DC) · 3/16/2008 08:38:00 AM ET

As Joe noted last night (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/obama-answers-rezko-questions-in.html), the Chicago Tribune editorial board has exonerated Obama 100% regarding his involvement in the so-called Rezko scandal. This is no small feat, as the Trib has a conservative editorial board, and the Trib is the paper that broke the Rezko story in the first place. Who'd have ever imagined that sitting down and candidly telling the truth could get you out of a pickle? There is now nothing more of substance that the Republicans (or Hillary) can throw at Obama. We may have our first Teflon Democrat in a very long time. And that's a quality the Clintons will never be able to claim.

[Wildflower Fever]

(emphasis added)

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/publish-sunday-am-chicago-trib.html


Chicago Trib exonerates Obama on Rezko, 100%
by John Aravosis (DC) · 3/16/2008 08:38:00 AM ET

As Joe noted last night (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/obama-answers-rezko-questions-in.html), the Chicago Tribune editorial board has exonerated Obama 100% regarding his involvement in the so-called Rezko scandal. This is no small feat, as the Trib has a conservative editorial board, and the Trib is the paper that broke the Rezko story in the first place. Who'd have ever imagined that sitting down and candidly telling the truth could get you out of a pickle? There is now nothing more of substance that the Republicans (or Hillary) can throw at Obama. We may have our first Teflon Democrat in a very long time. And that's a quality the Clintons will never be able to claim.

Good on him. Nobody is perfect, but I think he's still a class individual, and still hasn't shown that he'd do anything to win, like- ummm.... some candidates have.:p

[paularoid]

Good on him. Nobody is perfect, but I think he's still a class individual, and still hasn't shown that he'd do anything to win, like- ummm.... some candidates have.:p
To quote the last two paragraphs of the article linked within (in the first sentence) the article above:

Let's do what the Chicago Tribune suggests and judge the other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries by the "standard for candor" set by Obama. Hillary, you're up. After all, the Clinton campaign sure likes to raise issue about disclosures from other campaigns. Now, it's her turn. Can Hillary Clinton meet Obama's standard for candor?

And for all those who think this is piling on, keep in mind that if Hillary somehow manages to get the nomination (as unlikely as that is), she will be forced to release info. during the general election. The Republicans probably already know the stuff she's hiding. So if she is able to steal the nomination, we'll all be forced to defend what she kept hidden from Democrats during the nomination process. Think about it -- if Hillary has nothing to hide, why is she being so secretive and evasive?

[paularoid]

I still think of Clinton as "Bu$h-lite" - BUT - as always there are at least two sides of the story, and BOTH sides are making sense in some of their criticisms of the other side.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/16/233031/191

Obama-Wright, Obama-Rezko: It's All About Judgment
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:31 PM EST

A few days ago, when writing about Barack Obama's recent interviews with staff members of the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times about his involvement with Tony Rezko, I quoted this segment of the Chicago Sun Times interview:

Is Rezko still a friend? "Yes,'' Obama said, "with the caveat if it turns out the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was, and I'd be very disappointed with that.''

And it's that friendship, Obama said, that probably kept him from realizing it was a mistake to enter into a real estate deal with Rezko.

"Probably because I'd known him for a long time, and he'd acted in an aboveboard manner with me," he said. "And I considered him a friend. ... It's further evidence that I'm not perfect.''
Obama had a 17 year friendship with Rezko but never saw any signals or flags that Rezko might be unsavory, to put it politely.

Now we have Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, the man who married him, baptized his children and whose sermons he attended as a member of the Church. Obama was so taken with one of Wright's sermons he titled his book "Audacity of Hope" after it. But Obama now says he had no idea about the inflammatory nature of Wright's sermons that came to light this week and he never attended any. [More...]


This is a second significant, almost 20 year long relationship in Barack Obama's relatively short adult life in which he now says he was clueless about things that should have leapt out at him.

It's a problem of judgment. And, to some extent, arrogance. He knew about Rezko being a problem for him before he announced his presidential bid. But it took 15 months to agree to answer his hometown papers' questions about him. He also knew Wright would be a problem, but instead of addressing it, until this week he intentionally swept Wright under the rug:

Obama campaign advisor David Axlerod today acknowledged that the Obama campaign knew Wright was going to be a problem from the get-go and it's why Wright dis-invited to Obama's launch of his presidential campaign.

the Obama campaign had a sense that Wright's sharp tongue might spell trouble for the Illinois senator. (For a sermon sample, click on the Read more line below.)

That was the word anyway Sunday from Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who acknowledged during a conference call with reporters that Wright was disinvited from Obama's official candidacy announcement on Feb. 10, 2007, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Wright had been expected to lead an invocation of some kind, but never appeared. “There was no doubt that there was controversy surrounding him,” Axelrod said Sunday. “And we didn’t want to expose him … [or] make him the target and a distraction on a day when Sen. Obama was going to announce his candidacy.”

The Obama campaign first said the weather prevented Wright's appearance. Today's statement by Axelrod shows that wasn't true. They were trying to hide him.

So, two significant relationships of almost 20 years in Obama's life. Two cases of bad judgment, of his having to renounce (but not reject) a person close to him. Two cases of waiting more than a year to fully answer questions about the relationship. As I wrote here last week:

I've consistently maintained there's no indication Obama did anything legally improper in his Rezko dealings. Rezko is presumed innocent -- his criminal trial is only a few weeks old and scheduled to last months. Obama is not a player in any of the alleged misconduct.

But it's hard to say he didn't exercise poor judgment and it's fair to ask whether it might happen again, whether he's too naive and whether personal loyalties might again impair his judgment on some issue.

While I don't believe Obama subscribes to Wright's views and I believe his heart is in the right place and he wants what's best for the country, I think we've just seen another case of his poor judgment and his tendency to put blinders on when when it comes to his loyalty to his friends and his choice of associates.

If Obama is elected President, we'll be relying on his judgment in choosing high level advisors and policy makers. His track record with Rezko and Wright, particularly his insistence he saw no red flags, gives me pause.

Obama seems less about hope and change and more about inexperience and naivite.

I'll take a gamble if Obama's the nominee, for sure. Anything but another 4 years of Republican rule But he isn't the nominee yet. And we have a much less risky option at hand in Hillary.