BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko Land Swap

Cross-posted at DailyObama

This is for all those who have not yet been infected with the PLAGUE that is Obamamania...  Yes, for those REAL DEMOCRATS out there who want the real news.

I fully expect to be flamed, drawn, and quartered for this, but there's been a brand new disclosure in the Rezko/Obama front that demands attention.

We all remember Tony Rezko, right?  The indicted former "Friend of Barack" who, while under indictment, just so happened to go splitsies on a land purchase with the Obamas in 2005.  Rezko (through his wife, Rita), bought a vacant parcel of land for full price - $625,000 - while the Obamas bought the adjacent house for $1.65 million - a full $300,000 off of the asking price!!!  

We also remember how quickly Obamabots POUNCE on any mention of Rezko's name or any suggestion of any impropriety in this deal...  How quickly they suggest that Obama's huge discount simply reflected real estate economics.

Well, well, well...  Guess who decided to show up late to the party with a story to tell?   The Sellers

That's right, America is about to become intimately acquainted with the names, Frederic Wondisford and Sally Radovick.  An intrepid journalist tracked them down and asked them whether Obama received a favorable price because of the involvement of Rezko and his wife in the purchase of the vacant, adjacent parcel for full price.  They were also asked whether Obama paid less than the next highest offer for the house.

What did they say?  

The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e- mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller.

Bloomberg - the Sellers Speak

That's right - read it and weep.  Becasue of Rezko's involvement, the Obamas received a ZERO dollar discount from the price they would have paid from the market.  Because of the Rezko's purchase of the adjoining plot, the Obamas beat out ZERO other bidders on the same property!

This is HUGE!  Why did the Sellers come forward?

The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign. They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said.

And check this out:  how did they reach the sales price?

It also says that ``in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,'' Obama and his wife, Michelle, ``made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.''

Wondisford has declined to talk directly about the matter.

The Obamas submitted three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15, 2005; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23, according to a copy of the sale contract shown to Bloomberg News. Obama received more than $1.2 million in book royalties and a book advance in 2005, the year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate, his financial disclosure statement shows.

I think this is very telling about how the Obamas do business in general:  they are clearly NEGOTIATORS who will COMPROMISE on price points in order to close a deal.  Why didn't they stick to their demand of $1.3 million?   Where is their backbone?   And do we really want to elect a President who is able to negotiate a good deal on a piece of real estate without receiving financial favors?

Finally, check out this damning admission of how Rezko DIRECTLY helped Obama purchase the property:

Burton said Obama toured the property with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes at some point before the purchase. Burton said Obama wanted Rezko's opinion of the property because Rezko was a real- estate developer in the area. Burton said he didn't know when the pre-sale tour occurred.

Wow.  Just shocking.  An admission that Rezko directly assisted Obama in purchasing the property with 15 to up to 30 minutes of assistance and "free," undisclosed, professional advice as to whether the Obamas should buy the property or not, and whether the Rezkos were going to purchase the adjacent parcel.  

Imagine that:  a politician with a friend in the real estate business asks his friend for advice as to a real estate purchase.  And the friend gives that advice without receiving anything in return.  

Is this the man we want to elect as President?  Someone who asks questions before taking decisive action?  Someone who negotiates to a more favorable price and backs down from an initial demand?  

I think not.  I rest my case.

Tags: Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Land Deal; Snark, obama supporters are so many easily duped drones, Obamabot, Recommended, Troll Diary (all tags)

Comments

136 Comments

Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Well, if this doesn't do it, nothing will.

by Drummond 2008-02-18 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Well, so far not much luck.  But I recommended it.

by dogman 2008-02-18 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

yay, on the rec list!

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-18 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

How dumb are you guys on MyDD? This is a snarky article - a total put on and a first-rate fabrication - first posted on Daily Kos two days ago...

To be placed on the recommended list here was an egregious mistake on someone's part.

by mobiusein 2008-02-19 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Actually no it isn't..

Goto www.archpundit.com  He has many areticles about Rezko.  This is about as much a scandal as Hillary's scandal in White Water.  It won't amount to anything but a bunch of unfounded lies.  Too bad they are comming from Democrats.

by Delver Rootnose 2008-02-19 01:56PM | 0 recs
Wait! Wait! Wait!

Were the sellers muslims? Did the sellers ever know any muslims? Did the sellers every have contact with any muslims at any point in their lives?

This scandal is just getting started. Once we find out about the sellers obvious muslim connections then it will break wide open!

;)

by Mystylplx 2008-02-18 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait! Wait! Wait!

No They were terrorists who were close to Ahmedinajad. They also killed babies and ate puppies.

This isn't going to pacify the insane Republican-sleaze-artists-in-training over here.

by crazymoloch 2008-02-18 07:29AM | 0 recs
The dirty business comes later

... from Obama's purchase of land from Rezko.

... And from Obama being the "un-named political candidate" in the Rezko indictment.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-18 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty business comes later

Uh huh. He also killed Vince Foster and ran a cocaine trafficking business at Mena Airport and strangled Kathleen Willey's cat.

Oh, no, wait... that made up shit was about some other politician. Who was that again?

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 07:20AM | 0 recs
LOL, your allegations not MINE!

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty business comes later

Please supply proof of the dirty business. Something that would stand up in court. Otherwise I can tie Clinton to a lot more "dirty business" and you wouldn't want that.

by illlaw1 2008-02-18 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty business comes later

Are you implying that Obama is a crook like Clinton?

by Sandeep 2008-02-18 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty business comes later

The un-named candidate is accused of no wrongdoing.  You know that.

And since when is paying 1/6 of a property's sale price for 1/6 of the property considered scandalous?  

by Adam B 2008-02-18 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty business comes later

You really know nothing about Illinois don't you.  The unnamed person is our dear governor Blagojevich, Who is a real blemish on the Democratic Party.

by Delver Rootnose 2008-02-19 02:02PM | 0 recs
I have recommended this diary

and suggest others do the same.

Well done.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-18 07:03AM | 0 recs
Recommended diary

I've recommended this diary and suggest others do the same.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-18 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

And how does this explain michelle obama's position on the chicago commission of landmarks?  the deal was fraudulent, and the obama campaign is attempting to justify an ethical lapse.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-18 07:05AM | 0 recs
ethical lapse
EXACTLY.  It WAS a huge ethical lapse, and Obama has SAID as much.  But anything to give Obama apologists like Greuben a chance to gloat prematurely.  He's over at dailykos languishing in the echo-chamber's praise of his masterpiece, blustering with bravado about how he's expecting to see 'heads explode' at MyDD because of his breathtakingly important reporting of this story.....
Please.  This isn't over, and the Republicans aren't going to accept this pathetic attempt at the justification of the deal, nor will most people who hear their inevitable swift boating of Obama on this issue.
by Maole 2008-02-18 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: ethical lapse

Okay so according to you there was an ethical lapse that Obama admitted (I know nothing about this specific scandal you are referring to.)

What I do know is this- it is a bit hypocritical for Clinton supporters to pounce of anything in Obama's life that isn't 100% pure. People, you are supporting the CLINTONS, and I love the Clinton's for their hard work in advancing the Democratic party and our country as much as the next guy. They have done a ton of good and will continue to do so- but they are not pure. And yes, neither is Obama. And yes, neither is any other politician. Thats the way of the world folks. Love it or hate it, we all have to live with it.

by JDF 2008-02-18 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: ethical lapse

Are implying that Obama is a crook like Clinton? He is a same old politician like Clinton?

by Sandeep 2008-02-18 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: ethical lapse

I am implying that people are people. THere is dirt on everyone and nobody is perfectly clean. This is especially true in politics.

If anything it is refreshing (again, I do not know the details) that Obama admitted to an ethical lapse. We all have them and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Bush I had them, Clinton had them, I have them, you have them, Hillary has them, and Bush II lives by them. We are not electing someone for Sainthood we are electing them to the Presidency.

by JDF 2008-02-18 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: ethical lapse

JDF wrote:

"Okay so according to you there was an ethical lapse that Obama admitted (I know nothing about this specific scandal you are referring to.)"

ANOTHER obama scandal?

I am so tired of Obama scandals, my GOD, when does it STOP?!!!!!

He's worse than Bush...

by Marsha1 2008-02-18 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: ethical lapse

"Pathetic attempt at justification"?

Are you simple?

THE SELLERS HAVE SAID THAT NOTHING HAPPENED.

Christ, what more do you people NEED?

by theblaz 2008-02-18 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

I've always wondered how people believed ANY garbage theory about the Clintons. From the Vince Foster 'murder' to Bill running  drug trafficking business in Arkansas. How do bring themselves to see the most most heinous possible (possible implies a connection to reality and the laws of physics) explanation in EVERY circumstance?

I GUESS THE DISEASE CAN INFECT DEMOCRATS TOO. Time to find out how long someone can be a Democrat with this infection. How long before truthteller and his cohort become zealous Republicans? A few weeks? A month? A year? This is why older people are more Republican.

Can you use the same handle when you join LGF or redstate? That we we can see how long it took from infection to conversion?

by crazymoloch 2008-02-18 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Desperation and incompetence

Its sad watching the birth of a mud slinging Republican.

by crazymoloch 2008-02-18 07:50AM | 0 recs
Nothing new under the sun

Rick Perlstein had a piece this weekend about how Humphrey, Scoop Jackson (of "Joe Lieberman is a Democrat in the great tradition of Scoop Jackson!" fame)and a bunch of other Democrats undermined McGovern in '72. The only thing Democrats hate more than a Republican, as pretty much every post and comment on this site proves nowadays,  is a Democrat who beats their preferred Democrat in a primary.

http://www.democracyjournal.org/printfri endly.php?ID=6572

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Desperation and incompetence

Right, because as Democrats we NEVER sling mud?

Get over it, this is politics. It is never civil and rarely nice. For people who, in theory, should be better informed than the average voter I sure feel like a lot of people here like to ignore reality.

by JDF 2008-02-18 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

Huh?  You have been asked to provide evidence that the site was a designated landmark; you have consistently failed to do so.  It's a canard.

by Adam B 2008-02-18 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Plz rec. this diary, well done

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-18 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Can there be

S. N. A. R. K.

by recusancy 2008-02-18 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Memo to self

Sound advice.

by mhojo 2008-02-18 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, there may have been something a bit fishier going on.  Would the seller have an interest in disclosing that (thus exposing themselves to not only negative publicity but possible legal ramifications) or to tell a nice story about how everything was on the up and up?

by markjay 2008-02-18 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

You'd need some evidence...

Well no you wouldn't but if you didn't want to be like a Republican you would. Just sayin.

by illlaw1 2008-02-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
Funniest diary in ages!

Well done dude

by daveholden 2008-02-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
No News - Obama still benefitted from deal

The "revelation" from the sellers completely misses the point of criticism on this deal.  No one ever said that the part of the lot that Obama paid for was itself a below-market deal.

The scandalous part is that Rezco basically bought the front yard of the lot for $600,000 on the same day that Obama bought the part of the lot that contained the house.

Obama could not afford to buy both the house at the full asking price. Someone came up with the brilliant idea that if Rezco paid for a "separate lot" then Obama could afford the rest.  

The scandal is not in how much the seller charged Obama, the scandal is that Rezco bought the "front yard" to reduce the overall price of the property.

by steveinohio 2008-02-18 07:59AM | 0 recs
"adjacent land"

Not "front yard". Please stop it now, it's getting embarrassing.

That land is up for sale for over a $1.5 million now. Kind of proves nobody was doing anyone a favor. It's called business.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: "adjacent land"
I think the question is "What did Rezko get?", and until you can offer some evidence of a quid pro quo, maybe you could stop and think about the fact that the person you're getting all Ken Starr on has a better than even chance of being the Democratic nominee against John McCain.
Or are you one of those cool, level-headed non-cultists who have decided to let McCain pack the Supreme Court if your pea pod candidate doesn't get the nomination?
by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 08:58AM | 0 recs
Obama said that he only did....

"5 hours of legal" work for the guy (in the debate in which he was asked about Rezko).

NOW, you're talking about them being friends.  Which is it, Mr. Obama?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 08:41AM | 0 recs
if they start asking...

...for Obama to produce the Billing Records, and still can't see the dark irony of all this, my head just may explode.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:05AM | 0 recs
Because when he was asked about...

that relationship in the debate, he said it was only 5 hours of legal work.  When I saw that, I was left to feel that there was "no there there".

But since then I've learned of the full extent of his relationship and that relationship certainly lends itself to the possibility of something improper.  

But that's certainly not what Obama "implied" when directly asked the question about his relationship.

I'd like to know the relationship between Michelle Obama and both of the Rezkos, too.  She was on some land board at the time.  How many times did she have  contacts with the Rezkos and what were those contacts?  She was the one who got the original subdivision in the first place.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, both are true

delusional and decepttvde.

obama represented the "non profits" in rezko deals, so he said he never "directly" worked for rezko beod these  5 hours...

what bs.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, both are true

delusional and deceptive.

obama represented the "non profits" in rezko deals, so he said he never "directly" worked for rezko beod these  5 hours...

what bs.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: First - it's not the "front yard"

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: First - it's not the "front yard"

The OP was right, heads would explode.

by ficus1 2008-02-18 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Because Rezko bought a vacant lot

. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Because Rezko bought a vacant lot

1. cleaner?  that is so ridic!

if there actually were 2 lots, there is no way a seller would ever try such crap.

the reason these "two" properties were never listed separately is because they were never separate to begin with.

2. look at the air view from myers video.
this is utter rubbish.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Because Rezko bought a vacant lot

1.  The two lots were listed separately.  Look at the article.

2.  The vacant lot is still buildable even after the 1/6 strip was sold off.

3.  The vacant lot is a corner lot which actually is more preferable to the lot which has the house.

4. Rezko netted $54,500 on the deal.

by Piuma 2008-02-18 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Because Rezko bought a vacant lot
1  wrong, never "listed" seperately
2 wrong
3 oh puleze
4 now why was that?
by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 11:11AM | 0 recs
The Rezko's lot started at 7500sf

And ended up at about 6150sf. Given that it is a corner lot it is typically subject to setbacks from both roads. Moreover most jurisdictions I am aware of have lot coverage restrictions. By a rough calculation Rezko cannot have a building footprint of much more than 2800sf. I am sorry but you don't put a 'very large, single house' within a 2800sf footprint.

It would be interesting to know how many houses in that neighborhood were in fact built on a single lot if the typical lot size is 7500sf. That would seem quite unusual in an older neighborhood, 7200-7500 sf were quite typical minimum lot sizes for suburban jurisdictions and would more typically be sold to build more modest structures than the ones we seem to be talking about.

by Bruce Webb 2008-02-19 10:26AM | 0 recs
Oops. Maybe not.

Now the paper is saying it is really a 750,000sf lot which would make it 17acres. Well that can't be right either just from looking at the picture. Does anyone know what the real size is or whether this land is actually zoned for townhouses?

And it looks like the Rezko's sold the property to their attorney and came out $50,000 ahead.

by Bruce Webb 2008-02-19 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

This isn't over by a long shot. Mark Penn has an ace up his sleeve. You'll see.  Wait until everyone hears about how Obama secretly sold out this country to aliens.  Not illegal Mexican immigrants, mind you, but ACTUAL ALIENS! FROM MARS!

We'll see how long that Obama shine last when the Republicans get a whiff of that.  

by DemonBlue 2008-02-18 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

LOL indeed

1. Maybe you haven't heard but buying land in Chicago is a GOOD INVESTMENT.

2. The seller is always right --- in Real Estate.

3. Read the diary again. Separate negotiations.

Seller answers all the questions. Deal with it.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 08:12AM | 0 recs
Separate negotiations

As far as the seller knew. . . .

by Trickster 2008-02-18 08:14AM | 0 recs
Our son has property in Chicago....

that has NOT been a good investment in that the market there sucks.

Your diary doesn't address the issues related to Obama and Rezko -  apparently the sellers would only sell the house separately if the other lot was also purchased (they didn't want to get left holding the bag on that one), and surprise, Rita Rezko jumps up and buys it.

Sorry - according to Obama he only "did about 5 hours of legal work" for Rezko (Obama's own words when asked about it in a debate), so how in the hell did they work out this deal?  I've done 5 hours (and more) of legal work for many people and none have offered such a deal!  And, I'm quite likeable!

by Shazone 2008-02-18 08:38AM | 0 recs
you are confusing ...

smear campaigns now.

Obama never did legal work FOR Rezko . Obama worked at a firm that did legal work for a firm that Rezko was involved with. Looking through records it has been discovered that Obama did 5hrs of work that involved Rezko's company.

After Obama got involved in politics (later) he had a personnel relationship with Rezko who was a frequent contributor to a lot of Illinois politicians.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 08:53AM | 0 recs
It's the new Clinton rules

Clinton supporters are now allowed to use the guilt-by-assocation and smear-tactics that Republicans used on the Clintons on people that Clinton supporters don't like.
It's really very simple.

And if you can't see that, you're a sad, naïve cultist.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:04AM | 0 recs
But he's only "admitted" to

doing 5 hours of legal services.  At least that's all he admitted to when asked the question in the debate.

Why didn't he add that he later became friends (certainly friendly enough for the guy to help him out with a real estate deal)?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: But he's only "admitted" to

Because in the debate, Hillary accused him of "representing a slumlord". She didn't accuse him of being friends with a slumlord.

by dantes 2008-02-18 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: But he's only "admitted" to

Wrong, the 5 hour estimate came from Obama's old law firm.

Suntimes  1/24/08

Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments.

Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 10:35AM | 0 recs
Why was Obama his purchase with a man of fraud?

I wish only to ask this question as of right now: Why was Obama checking a house with a fradulent man for 15 to 30 minutes?

This still does not make Obama look good.

by HillaryKnight08 2008-02-18 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why was Obama his purchase with a man of fraud

Hillary has never had any dealings with the "ethically challenged?"

C'mon?

Get over it. We all have friends that are less than savory; or at least I know I do.

by JDF 2008-02-18 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Why was Obama his purchase with a man of fraud

That wasn't the point of my question. I am sincerely sorry if I confused you. I was merely pointing out that the fact that Rezko's involvement in the purchase of the house is not weakened by the above diary. The fact that Rezko, a known criminal, would help Obama purchase his house has always been the "potential" scandal of this story.

by HillaryKnight08 2008-02-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why was Obama his purchase with a man of fraud

Has Rezko been convicted of anything yet, or in the past?

If not than he isn't a "known" criminal. He would be a suspected criminal.

As it is, even if Rezko is indicted I don't see this as being the sort of thing that brings a person like Obama down.

by JDF 2008-02-18 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why was Obama his purchase with a man of fraud

And I wasn't confused by your question... I was choosing not to answer it as I didn't find it to be particularly relevant.

by JDF 2008-02-18 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New

like all of your other diaries... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

by IowaCubs 2008-02-18 08:24AM | 0 recs
This is just silliness

And all your coyness and snark just makes you look sillier.

You have chosen to focus on an aspect of the deal that was never thought to be scandalous and was never claimed by anyone to be scandalous and declared with great fanfare that there is no evidence that that aspect is scandalous.

Please allow me to learn you up on this.  The scandal does not and never has involved the original innocent owners, and nobody has ever claimed they were trying to do any kind of favor for Obama, Rezko, or anyone else.  The scandal is that a sitting U.S. Senator went to a well-known political fixer who was already under investigation and asked for help in purchasing a home which the Senator could not afford.  And that the fixer then purchased the adjacent vacant lot which is apparently absolutely worthless as a separate property because it is completely walled off from the street by a wall that local zoning ordinances forbid tearing down.  And that, at the time of the purchase, Obama could only drive on to his own property through Rezko's property.  And that, although that little perception problem was repaired when Obama purchased 1/6 of Rezko's property from him, including the strip containing the only entrance to the two properties that a car can drive in through, now nobody can drive onto Rezko's property unless they enter through Obama's property.

So now Rezko's lawyer owns the yard next to the house where Barack and Michelle lay their weary heads at night, and he refuses to comment on how and why he purchased it (from Mrs. Rezko, Obama's original co-purchaser).

So go ahead, snarkily explain that away with much ridicule for the paranoid Clinton supporters who think there might just possibly be a there there.

by Trickster 2008-02-18 08:25AM | 0 recs
worthless lot?

LOL. Check it out...
Worthless lot asking price: $1.5million

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.  

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 08:29AM | 0 recs
Hey, I'll sell you my house for $10 million...

but that doesn't mean it's worth it.

Personally, if I were a player in this caper, you'd better believe I'd set a high price just to get my buddy off the hook.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:48AM | 0 recs
Listen to what you're saying

Just on the hypothetical that Rezko were doing this to curry favor with a Senator and Presidential candidate, do you think he'd be willing to sell the lot to just anybody off the street?  After all, the person off the street could then begin to hassle Obama about the joint easement that Rezko never uses.

Of course not.  The only thing consistent with the hypothetical that this is a dirty influence-currying deal would be for Rezko to set an unrealistically high price on the lot so that it remains frozen and Obama gets to keep his driveway just for himself.

The lot is worthless because it may only be reached across somebody else's property.  You'd best explain that before you waste too much of your time trying to ridicule somebody else.

by Trickster 2008-02-18 11:30AM | 0 recs
Why did Rezko pay fair market value....

- he's a real estate wheeler-dealer who should have been able to "negotiate" a better price...after all, the sellers just negotiated with the Obama's...so why did Rezko not?

Remember....the sellers insisted on selling both parcels - not just the house by itself (they didn't want to be left holding the other parcel).  Now, how did Rezko just happen to volunteer for that part of the deal?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 08:44AM | 0 recs
WRONG!

My husband and I were in the same position as the Obama sellers - a house plus a vacant lot right next door.  We sold the house (for a negotiated price) and the land was sold separately - also for a negotiated price.

We didn't break any laws.  We sold it for what we could get for it.  And that was below what we were asking.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG!

Yep, and that is exactly what Obamas sellers did. Sell their lot, and their house, for an amount lower than what they were asking. Obama was still the highest bidder on the house.

It's okay if you don't like Obama. Nobody is saying you HAVE to like him. But quit making shit up.

by dantes 2008-02-18 10:09AM | 0 recs
I was responding the clearly wrong...

statement above that land can't have a negotiated price.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:12AM | 0 recs
Really dude

Read up on the story before you go around trying to explain it everybody else.  I "asserted" that Obama couldn't afford it because that's what he told the Chicago Tribune.

You should step back and stop making assertions you know nothing about and silly arguments about why a parcel's not "worthless."  Of course it wasn't "worthless" previously when it was the yard to a $1.6 million lot/house.  It's only now, when it can't be reached except through the other person's property that it becomes close enough to worthless that nobody would possibly pay $600K for it unless there was an Obama-related reason.

by Trickster 2008-02-18 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

I really think you people are slow on purpose.  I mean, really?  The scandal (besides Obama's affiliation with the slumlord in the first place) is  in the fact that the seller wanted to sell the house and the land together.  Obama couldn't afford both and his best buddy, Rezko, bought the lot next the house for him.

Stinking Crook!

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 08:33AM | 0 recs
lower expectations

Stinking Crook?

Obama acknowledged that it LOOKS bad but all the diaries have insisted that Obama benefited financially on the deal. THAT was the only way this is a scandal. Otherwise it's kind of like .... what was it called? .... oh yeah ... Whitewater.  

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-18 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

I'll see your lot and raise you cattle futures

I'll see your slumlord and raise you Sam Walton and Tyson Chicken.

We can all go 'round and 'round in circular firing squads Bombs Away McCain names Joe Lieberman to the Supreme Court.

After how many years of Whitewater, Clinton supporters are now trying to gin up a real estate scandal out of innuendo and guilt by association? Unbelievable.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 08:46AM | 0 recs
You don't get it..

There was nothing to Whitewater.  There is probably nothing here either.  But, you people seem to think the Republicans can  not run with this story.  It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

When "Democrats" start spouting Republican spin you know something is wrong.

Pathetic.

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

You don't get it.. (none / 0)

There was nothing to Whitewater.  There is probably nothing here either.

Um... that's my point.

But, you people seem to think the Republicans can  not run with this story.

They don't have to. You're doing it for them.

When "Democrats" start spouting Republican spin you know something is wrong.

Again, Genius, that's my fucking point.

Pathetic

And, a third time, that's my fucking point.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

My point, genius: Closing your eyes and making believe this is not an issue/will not be an issue is a mistake.

I'd rather take him out now for his rookie moves than to have the Republicans take him out in November.

Giving him a pass now will only come back to haunt us later.

Rezko's trial starts next week.  Get your popcorn ready.

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

and if that trial doesn't offer conclusive proof of Obama being a "stinking crook", as you put it, you and all the other people stoking this fire are going to come back here, apologize, and donate money and volunteer for the Obama campaign, right?

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

If he is the nominee I will vote for him.

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

That makes you a rarity here. Sonofdonkeykong is going to actively campaign for McCain.

by dantes 2008-02-18 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

Believe me, I've thought about the same thing. It really is the Obama fans that turn me off.  How many of them spew hatred and refuse to vote for Sen. Clinton if she gets the nomination?  They can't seem to support/defend him without using a Republican smear to trash Sen. Clinton.  I find it repulsive, personally.  I refuse to read DailyKos anymore for that very reason.  It turns my stomach to see Democrats in the gutter.  So, I often feel like I don't want to be a part of his "movement", but at the end of the day I will never vote for a Republican and I will never not vote.  As a black man I'd like to be excited to vote for Obama, but at this stage of the game it would only be out of habit.  Of course, I don't think it will come to that.  The "movement" is slowing down.

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

What did you expect from sonofadonkeykong?  He's a essentially a 12 year old.  

by oaksmarts 2008-02-18 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

...and if there's "probably nothing here", why did you call Obama a "stinking crook"?

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

clue: it was a joke.

No, I don't really think he is a crook. I just don't like or trust the guy.

Do you think Hillary Clinton is a crook?

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

Do you think Hillary Clinton is a crook?

No. But I don't think she has as good a chance against McCain as Obama does. And he and his little 527 friends will smear her with the same sort of garbage, guilt by association and inuendo as you are doing here with Obama.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it..

Exactly.

But, I already know what they are going to try to smear her with.  And I know she knows how to fight against it.  Obama, on the other hand, is a great opportunity for them to define a candidate for the general public.  Whats more, we have no idea how he will survive the mud.  If his handling of the Rezko matter is any indication...well, color me nervous if he gets the nomination.

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Again - what evidence is there that Barack c

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s

by BRockNYC 2008-02-18 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Again - what evidence is there that Barack c

. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 09:15AM | 0 recs
It was not a separate lot until...

Michelle Obama, through her work with the city, got it declared a separate lot.  Until that time, it was  the yard to the house - in fact, the property line apparently goes up directly to the side of the structure.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: It was not a separate lot until...

Have you ever been to Chicago? Houses are built right up to property lines all of the time. Even in ritzier areas, it's not unusual to have HUGE houses right on top of each other. That's what happens when land is so expensive. Like the lot next door to Obama's house, which is currently selling for $1.5 million.

by dantes 2008-02-18 10:14AM | 0 recs
And your proof of all of this...

as it relates to what you are claiming is what?

Have you ever bought/sold property before?  If Michelle Obama was on any city commission her request would carry a lot of weight - especially because she is the wife of a politician.

Second, while it was not Michelle's to subdivide, she had an interest in getting that done and she was plenty that she could have done...phone calls, discussions, requests.

Variances are, indeed granted all of the time.  Where are the records on Rezko getting a variance so that he can now build something on it?  

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

Anyone who has ever sold or bought a house knows that you rarely get the asking price. Why is it a big deal that Obama paid some amount below the asking price?

by JDF 2008-02-18 08:51AM | 0 recs
Rezko paid full price

Was he just doing a huge favor to the SELLERS?

Obama gets a fenced yard and an assurance that no one will build on it. Rezko ends up with a 6500sf corner lot with no access. Are residential bare lots in Chicago typically selling for this kind of money? The house is described variously but is obviously very nice. If the ground underneath it was really worth $625,000 this suggests that the structure itself was only valued at $625,000 to get the $1.3 million total sales price. Is that really a typical structure value for a top end residential property in Chicago?

These aren't hard questions to answer, to any real estate professional this deal shows all kinds of warning signs, if you strip the names off, depoliticize the context and show this particular sequence of property transactions to a real estate broker the whole thing screams 'sham buyer'. This comes into real focus when you realize that Rezko has relatively little skin in the game. He financed the lot with a $500,000 loan and sold a sixth of it to Obama for somewhat over $100,000 and so is only out of pocket some closing costs and interest on the loan.

by Bruce Webb 2008-02-19 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

The "politics as usual" mudslinging isn't working this year. The Clinton folks would be wise to pick up on that by this afternoon if they really want her to win.

by Mike Chapman 2008-02-18 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

2. Why was it required that both Rezko and Obama's purchase close on the same day?

3. Why did Rezko pay full price for his clearly unusable lot

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 09:06AM | 0 recs
bs

stop being such a faker.

look at the lisa myers msnbc clip and you will see that theres no "separate lot' and that obamss driveway clearly IS the strip of land he was forced to purchase.

the cult continues in its false ways....

youre not 'bamboozling" anyone bub with your old "okey doke"..

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 09:26AM | 0 recs
And easement devalues property.

Who wants to buy vacant land when a neighbor has an access easement on it?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:56AM | 0 recs
It runs along the back...of the

property?  As in a roadway access from street to Obama's house?  And you equate that to a pipline underground?

Gee, I'd love to build a new house and have my neighbor driving back and forth next to it - or parking cars along it.  

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:21AM | 0 recs
You're missing the major point...

Obama did get a benefit...the sellers sold him the house lot BECAUSE they were, at the same time, able to sell the separate lot - which, by some strange coincidence, was bought by his buddy Rezko for the difference between the total package and the $1.6 that Obama offered to pay.

The sellers got their deal and their price.  And Obama for a deal, too...because his pals had his back on the separate lot.

Curious...how long the Obama negotiations went on...it would not be out of the question that the request for subdivision started in before March, 2005 and the closing wasn't until June of that year.  I've had longer processes when I've closed transactions.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 11:01AM | 0 recs
I'm saying that the full price that...

Rezko paid conveniently corresponded to the difference in the price that Obama paid to get the sellers to their package price.

Rezko did not negotiate.  That's pretty remarkable for a real estate mogul, isn't it?

If Rezko hadn't been there....what would have happened?  So very unlikely that the other parcel would have sold and closed - again, very conveniently - on the exact same day.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm saying that the full price that...

What did Obama give Reszko? What is the quid pro quo?

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 12:07PM | 0 recs
That's the scary part.

What did Rezko expect (before his career went into the tubes)?

I'm sure he expected something.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: That's the scary part.

He's a pretty lousy wheeler-dealer then, isn't he?

Jesus, this is unbelievable. You want to convict Obama for something that Reszko just might have wanted Obama to do for him someday.

Seriously, do you people not see the grotesque parallels between you flogging this story and the New York Times flogging Whitewater? That's what's scary to me.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 12:19PM | 0 recs
Rezko got caught too quickly to reap...

the benefits of his deal.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 01:31PM | 0 recs
You're wrong.

There are more ways to benefit than just price.  Hell, the fact that Obama got the house he wanted was enough of a benefit.  According to press reports, the sellers didn't want to sell the house without also selling the lot.  

by Shazone 2008-02-18 01:33PM | 0 recs
The seller may have destroyed a....

conclusion that you drew - but that I never drew.

And, time will tell about how closely Mr. Obama and Mr. Rezko are tied.

Hopefully before the convention so we don't have to hear it from the Repugs.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 01:45PM | 0 recs
BTW, you said....

"Obama would have an easement by prescription running over the Rezko parcel".

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:25AM | 0 recs
And if he had an easement, why'd...

he have to buy any of it at all?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:57AM | 0 recs
There's another piece of property involved?

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Driveway is not on the Rezko Parcel

no,im insuating that the myers video shows both you and your argument are full of crap.

this was no "parcel' or "lot"...it was he f-ing driveway.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-18 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING:

Well, it's all going to be in court in a few weeks.

An email between the campaign and the sellers? LOL. Yeah, that's the ticket.

And the problem wasn't that Obama paid too much for his portion so much as he couldn't afford the house without Rezko's wife buying part of the land.

It's not an adjacent lot according to the report by NBC news. You can't access the "adjacent lot" unless you go through the Obama's property. NBC even had a picture of the house from the sky.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-18 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re:

Yes, it will according to the Chicago Sun Times. The FBI had a mole that was going to all the Rezko/Obama and Rezko/Blago meetings and is going to testify about said meetings.

Fitzgerald has kept a tight lid on things as usual but the mole went public

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-18 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean the guy who was convicted of fraud

That's not what the story said. I said nothing about a wire, just that the guy went to the meetings and is testifying about blago and Obama.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-20 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't hold your breath

Obama is not named in the indictment.

by Piuma 2008-02-18 08:34PM | 0 recs
NO, the sellers wanted to sell...

their house and land.  Michelle Obama pulled the strings to get the subdivision so that they could buy one part of it.

Since the sellers wanted to see the whole thing, buddy Rezko (and wife) ride into the picture with their wallets bulging and pay the full "asking" price without negotiating.

It smells.  And it doesn't smell nice.

by Shazone 2008-02-18 09:50AM | 0 recs
The problem here is...

that that's not the issue with Obama.  The issue is how his buddy Rezko got into the picture, made up the difference between the sale of the house alone and the full asking price for the package deal, and what Obama's relationship is to this guy.

That's the problem.

The sellers mean nothing!

by Shazone 2008-02-18 10:16AM | 0 recs
"many hits at his website"!!!!!!!!!!

Well, that is conclusive!

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:53AM | 0 recs
"slope forheads" [sic]

Yeah, let's keep things classy, not like those childish naïve cultist name-callers at dKos!

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

I, too, support ridding this site of all that don't grovel at the feet of the Clinton royalty.

Here, here!

by DemonBlue 2008-02-18 11:51AM | 0 recs
Misspoke

"That statement is no longer operable."

by Trickster 2008-02-18 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

Or how about the one from last week that linked him to Muslim terrorists?

That was very "intelligent."

by DoubleDs 2008-02-18 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Hillaroids are as fond of land deal smears as Republicans!

But it never hurt the Clintons and it won't hurt Obama.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-02-18 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay - let me take this slowly

and you have yet to answer this one: How is Obama responsible for what Rezko wanted?

The question is: What did Rezko get? But you don't want to deal with that question because then your whole dishonest smear campaign would fall apart.

In a bloodless way, I do kind of admire how careful you are to word your (unanswerable), so that you can keep slinging mud even while tacitly admitting there is no scandal here.

You could have worked for the RNC during the Whitewater days. You would have been Tweety's favorite guest, no doubt.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-18 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You win MyDD for the day

Having your picture taken with someone while NOT receiving any donations from them is far different then Obama's situation: Rezco, an indicted Fixer, has financially supported Obama's political career and well as helping him out with a sweetheart deal that benefited the Obama's personally. Shameful!

by mmorang 2008-02-18 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why am I smelling Daily Kos here?

And the award for batshit crazy conspiracy theories goes to you.

by X Stryker 2008-02-18 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Hmmmm.  I wonder if this thread got rec'd because people didn't pick up the snark.

by Drummond 2008-02-18 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Rezko

Gosh.. you still don't answer the question about why Obama is doing the "Ken Lay, I hardly knew the guy" with Rezko, who he's been involved with for years, and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it.

by Catriley sez 2008-02-18 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why am I smelling Daily Kos here?

Staircased hu?  Why don't you reply to me and we can keep it going.  That way nobody will every read the posts below because that scroll bar to the right is just too darn hard to pull.

2. the writer is an idiot.
My DD diaries are generally well thought-out, and intelligent.

You can't get more well thought out then that line right there.  The brilliant writing and mastery of the English language combined with hard hitting news and reasoned opinions is why I frequent this site.  MyDD is the gold standard of the blogonation.  And this diary is a pox on it all and must be taken down because it is hurting my feelings.

I'm waiting for Jerome to come write something bad about Obama so the world can be right again and I can sleep tonight.

by recusancy 2008-02-18 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

"They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said."

Sorta makes you wonder what's in the chute, if they've been holding onto this for 15 months.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-18 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Trust me, the taint of this relationship will not go away. Check out this Chicago Tribune article about how basically Obama lied about how involved Rezko was in the purchase of that home.

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicag o-tribune/TJFP86I1OFMKG742K

This is the problem. It's not even about whether some illegal happened, it's about how you respond to queries about the situation. Obama basically lied. He tried to pass it off as  "Yeah, I saw Rezko at a social event and asked him about it and then I never dealt with him again about the house" vs "Yes, I asked him to walk through the house and it so happens he bought the adjoining lot." The more he fibs, the worse it is. Obama keeps acting and saying things that indicate that he has but passing acquaintance with this guy but Rezko was a political patron to him. The more he tries to misrepresent the relationship, the worse it looks. And remember, the problem for Obama is that this will not go away in the news. Rezko was indicted and will stand trial in March for allegedly exacting a "fee" from potential government contractors. The indictment actually mentions an Illinois politician that insiders say is Obama. And yeah, that pretty thin air right now, but once the trial starts up, there'll be a lot more info out there. Even if Hillary doesn't make a to-do about this, you can bet your life that the Repubs will.

by Primary Tortoise 2008-02-19 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

The only thing "huge" about Hillary is her loving heart. She has done so much for us...for me.

by HillaryKnight08 2008-02-19 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: the LAND isn't the problem! This is:

A lot of people thought Rezko was a great guy when he started.  He was trying to redevelope poor areas.  It is not surprising that Obama who was working on Poverty and civil rights issues at the time would know him or recommend him.  It was only later that Rezko go a bad name.

by Delver Rootnose 2008-02-19 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Huge New Disclosure in Obama/Rezko

Whitewater Redux!!!

Calling Ken Starr!
Calling Ken Starr!
Yawn.

Does anyone else think it sad and bad that Camp Clinton has nothing but the GOP playbook that was used against them in the 90s -- and the fear card that Bush has been playing since 2001?

A few months ago I wanted to see this thing go to the last primary. But now I'm so sick of the Clintons'scurrilous campaign that I hope Obama crushes them once and for virtually for all on Tuesday.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

by Kobi 2008-03-01 08:30PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------