Update [2008-2-26 15:30:42 by susanhu]: Jeralyn at TalkLeft writes up the Rezko trial today (and she is going to cover the trial, which is terrific since she is an attorney and has covered trials for the 'net many times - subscribe to their RSS feed): "Rezko Trial Set to Begin: Implications for Barack Obama." Jeralyn covers some of what I have below, and also reviews a NY Sun article that is substantive, saying "as the Post points out, while the Rezko trial is occurring too late to help Hillary Clinton, it may be good fodder for John McCain."

"Experience": Via Taylor Marsh, Obama questioning his own experience to run for president when asked in 2004:

Experiences (he's had a few): The Chicago Tribune reports that "Obama's name likely to come up at Rezko trial" (prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald):

The name of Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama is likely to brush up against the impending federal corruption trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko as the result of a judge's ruling Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve, who is presiding over Rezko's trial, told prosecutors they could introduce evidence to support allegations that Rezko used straw men to make political contributions on his behalf.

Prosecutors have alleged that the money came from fees Rezko illegally siphoned from a state pension board.  [Someone I know is researching the "coincidence" that during the three-plus months that Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama was appointed to the senate's pension committee -- just three months -- the senate prevented the consolidation of state pensions, which would have adversely affected Rezko's pensions schemes, that bilked millions from the state pensions.  The bald facts are there, but my friend is still digging for details. - SusanUnPC]

There are new developments regarding the Obamas' home purchase ...

There's more...

In one word - Rezko. And this is how McCain and the Republicans are going to try to beat Obama if he is the Democrat's nominee.

On 10/23/06, the Chicago Tribune reported that Assistant U.S. Atty. Christopher Niewoehner said:

Rezko has significant ties to the Middle East, and his wife and daughter met him in Damascus recently. He [Rezko] has transferred money around the world, Niewoehner said, including $400,000 to Beirut in 2004.

On 1/29/08, the Associated Press reported that:

An FBI affidavit said Rezko actually received $3.5 million from a Lebanon-based bank account of General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxembourg company owned by London-based Iraqi billionaire Adhmi Auchi. Rezko's attorney said Rezko has had business dealings with Auchi.
Source: Bond Denied for Charged Obama Fundraiser, The Associated Press, 1/29/08

It wont matter that "Obama's campaign...was giving to charity more than $70,000 in additional contributions linked to Rezko. That brings the total given to charity to nearly $150,000 in contributions received by the candidate's House and Senate campaigns that came from Rezko, his employees, his associates and his family." (from AP cite above) Unfortunately Obama, through his dealings with Rezko, has made his campaign and fund-raising a likely hot topic for Republicans in the fall. My concern is that McCain and the Republicans will win in the general election with a few short leaps by tying Obama (B..."Hussein" O... who is tied to Rezko, Rezko who is tied to the Middle East) to the place Americans fear most. This is all voters will need to hear and they'll vote for McCain.

Forget what the polls say now about Obama beating McCain for two very obvious reasons. The polls in this election have proven to be somewhat poor measures of what people are doing in the voting booth. Also, these polls reflect feelings about a candidate before high negatives are introduced. Obama has not had the Republican hit squad aimed at him and why Obama's Rezko connection should be very troubling for Democrats. I like Obama, I support Hillary, but most of all I want to win back the White House.

Is this a sign of more troubling news for Obama ahead? More below the fold.

There's more...

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) consistently gets credit for his reservations about the United States pre-emptively going to war with Iraq in 2003. In a single speech delivered October 26, 2002, at a Chicago anti-war rally, Obama said

I don't oppose all wars. ... And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

This is the part of his anti-war speech that anyone with access to media has heard. It is the part of his speech upon which Obama has based his run for the presidency, the highest office in the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. But there is within this October 2002 speech, the very next paragraph, in fact, a commentary which begs explanation.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

There's more...