OBAMA FUCKING WON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Platinum Pete

Obama had to win SC, but the way he nuked Hilary will have a carry over effect going in to 2/5. Further, look at how the polls moved when Obama won Iowa - sue that didn't lock up NH for him, but it chipped away a hell of a lot of her lead. Now he's back on momentum and that putts those states you listed back in play. Hilary's boat is sinking, the only question is if she can keep bailing fast enough to survive to the nomination she had locked up months ago.

People without hope don't vote. These people who are choosing between food and medicine are poor, and thus less likely to vote. The biggest number of people who are struggling economically are the middle class and most of us are either suckers for the best slogan or ready to vote on fear. Obama wins as a pitchman for hope, McCain beats everyone on fear (especially if there is a serious terror issue in the lead up to the Nov. election).

---

Sounds like it changes everyone so you may as well vote for the least corrupt and factor in that the dude's gonna get burnt by the job.[/QUOTE]

Pete, I generally agree with you, but you are way off base in your assertion that poor people don't vote. I was in charge of Northern NH for the Clinton Campaign, which is a was one of the most economically depressed regions of New England, and we beat the living crap out of Obama and Edwards there. Now, I would like to think that this was due to my prowess as a Field Operative, but in reality, it was due to the fact that Hillary's economic policies resonated while Obama's lofty rhetoric fell flat. Hell, MSNBC wrote an article about it:

NBC ARTICLE

As for momentum. SC will give him a huge bump in the southern states of February 5th, but it will not be enough of overtake Hillary in CA, NY, NJ or MA, states which Clinton has a huge lead as well as a comprehensive field program which will maintain her large lead in delegates there. I hate to say it, but Obama's grassroots organization is vastly inferior to Clinton's. One of the reasons (asides from Bill's wreckless campaigning) that we lost by such a large margin is that we pulled much of our field staff and relocated them to states with more delegates to give.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ja...dems-j28.shtml

excerpt:
.....
Within the Democratic Party itself, the contest between Clinton and Obama—for all its acrimony—has no clear political lines of differentiation. Obama criticizes Clinton over her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq, but both advocate only a limited drawdown of US forces in the context of indefinite US occupation of that country. On domestic policy, both adhere to the line first established in Bill Clinton’s presidency, that all social and economic initiatives must be subordinated to reassuring the financial markets of the fiscal responsibility of the Democratic Party.

The overwhelming margin for Obama among black voters (81 percent) and sizeable lead among younger white voters (52 percent among those under 30) reveal widespread illusions—heavily promoted by the media—that the election of an African-American president, regardless of his policies and program, would represent a step forward for the American people.

Obama sought to capitalize on such illusions in his victory speech on the night of the primary, in which he cited the transformation of race relations in South Carolina, the state which sent diehard segregationist Strom Thurmond to the US Senate for 50 years.

There is no doubt that many of those voting for Obama believe they are dealing a blow to the race-based politics which have been the foundation for Republican Party electoral victories, particularly in the South, for the past three decades.

But the fundamental divide in American life is class, not race: the colossal social gulf between the vast majority who work for a living and struggle to survive—black, white, Hispanic, Native American and Asian—and the financial aristocracy, the top one percent (or less) of the population, who dominate the economy and political structure of the United States.

The Democrats and Republicans, whatever their differences on particular issues, are both political instruments of the financial oligarchy, defending the profit system and the “right” of the multi-millionaires to call the shots in American society. In that respect, Obama is just one more representative of this corporate elite, differing only in the color of his skin and his ancestry.

His victory speech Saturday night was a clear testimonial to this fact. In one key passage, Obama declared his opposition to “a politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon, a politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us, the assumption that young people are apathetic, the assumption that Republicans won’t cross over, the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor and that the poor don’t vote, the assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate, whites can’t support the African-American candidate, blacks and Latinos cannot come together.”

In the midst of this vague rhetoric of national unity comes the real message: Obama rebuts “the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor.” He added later that his campaign was “not about rich versus the poor.” Given that he has the enthusiastic support of Warren Buffett, the second-wealthiest capitalist in America, and has raised more money on Wall Street than any other candidate, he could say nothing less.

Equally significant were his repeated efforts to extend an olive branch to the Republican Party. Clearly distinguishing himself from the Clintons, without referring to them by name, Obama claimed to reject “bitter partisanship that causes politicians to demonize their opponents... It’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party. It is bad for our country. And this is our chance to end it once and for all.”

This was a reference to Obama’s by-now-notorious comment on Ronald Reagan, first reported in an interview with a Reno, Nevada newspaper during that state’s caucus campaign. The Democratic candidate went beyond noting that Reagan’s presidency marked a qualitative change in American politics—something no objective analyst would dispute—to praise Reagan as someone who “put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

This paean to Reagan demonstrates that Obama embraces one of the stupidest nostrums of official American politics: the alleged political genius of the former movie actor turned ad pitchman for big business. The Clintons have made their own comments along the same lines. Indeed, the thrust of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council, which he headed at the time, was to revamp the Democratic Party along the lines of the new political universe supposedly created by Reagan.
.....

Masslib - what's your insider view on the Kennedy's endorsement of Obama? Sounds like here were some heated coversations between them and the Clintons over the past few days.

Quote:

---

theres no greater myth than the idea of change as a result of either of the two party's getting elected.

---

This is so wrong. You must have your head up your ass for the last 8 years. sure the dems can't bring down corporate america, but they can royally change things from the way they've been this century.


ML-

I don't buy the argument that Hillary's specifics are better than Obama's rhetoric. Once i n front of congress, the specifics will get thrown to the curb, but Obama's message will bring the pressure of the medi/public like GWB and iraq or the tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupendous man

ML-

I don't buy the argument that Hillary's specifics are better than Obama's rhetoric. Once i n front of congress, the specifics will get thrown to the curb, but Obama's message will bring the pressure of the medi/public like GWB and iraq or the tax cuts.

---

I don't think you necessarily need to buy it. There are two different methods to the Presidency, the first is to use rhetoric and have a generally hands off approach to policy matters, leaving it to their cabinet to craft the actually policy (example: Teddy R.; George W, Reagan), Others are more suited to be involved in the policy process and are well suited to fighting the political battles that their stances usually produce. (Clinton, FDR, LBJ, Nixon)

It all depends on what type of President you feel is best for the moment. I personally feel that with the institutions in tatters after eight years of Bush, that it is important to have a president that can manage the bureaucracy effectively, and that candidate, for me, Hillary. Candidates that are of the first variety generally have a rough adjustment time in the first year or so before they figure out how to best drive their agenda (Bill Clinton, JFK, W, etc), and I don't think we can afford that adjustment period.

I do think Obama would make an excellent President, but I think his greatness will not surface until the second or third year of his term.

Wow, I saw a link to this on another forum and just sat down and watched the whole thing.

Obama Interview with Reno Gazette Journal

It's 49 minutes long and worth every second of your time. For those who say Obama doesn't have any substance, this totally blows that theory out of the water. In addition, I've never heard a candidate talk so succinctly about their strengths and weaknesses. Most people aren't this honest in job interviews, and running for president is pretty much the ultimate job interview.

Knowing your strengths and weaknesses is such a critical part of any job. No one is capable of running everything themselves. So you have to recognize what you're truly good at, apply your talents there, and then surround yourself with people who will compliment both your strengths and weaknesses and also challenge you along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloudpeak

Is anyone else troubled by Senator Obama's long association with the slimy Rezko guy?

---

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...../holds hands over ears


In related news: Rezko put in jail; bail is revoked

So Rezko is a native of Syria, eh? Tres interressant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

I don't think you necessarily need to buy it. There are two different methods to the Presidency, the first is to use rhetoric and have a generally hands off approach to policy matters, leaving it to their cabinet to craft the actually policy (example: Teddy R.; George W, Reagan), Others are more suited to be involved in the policy process and are well suited to fighting the political battles that their stances usually produce. (Clinton, FDR, LBJ, Nixon)

It all depends on what type of President you feel is best for the moment. I personally feel that with the institutions in tatters after eight years of Bush, that it is important to have a president that can manage the bureaucracy effectively, and that candidate, for me, Hillary. Candidates that are of the first variety generally have a rough adjustment time in the first year or so before they figure out how to best drive their agenda (Bill Clinton, JFK, W, etc), and I don't think we can afford that adjustment period.

I do think Obama would make an excellent President, but I think his greatness will not surface until the second or third year of his term.

---

as a serious, non-aggro question: do you think h-bomb would be able to pass her precise legislation if elected? to me, she seems the most polarizing, unappealing (to republicans) candidate in politics today. plus, her rhetoric of "the republicans (r's not bush) do this, i'm going to do that" to get dem support only widens this gap IMO. i haven't been tracking her alot, but i seem to remember many cases in the debates when she would say the this/that rhetoric and i would cringe.


also i think theres a difference between a policy president, (former) clinton, and a micromanger, lbj/ike. given the control-oriented secrecy around her biggest policy failure i sort of see her as a micromanager. thats a weak opinion and probably unfair though. frankly, i'm puzzled she doesn't get called out for the health care blunder more (in a response to lack of barack's experience).



sorry if that came out a little harsh, but i'm very curious in your response.

You didn't come off harsh at all. Those questions are completely fair, and to be honest, I'm surprised that the Obama campaign hasn't raised them already.

As for the health care issue, I'm completely comfortable with her failure to enact Universal Health coverage, every single POTUS that tried to enact meaningful HC reform (FDR, Truman, LBJ) failed miserably, and the issue eventually became a "third rail" that no politician dared to touch.

When Hillary looked at the issue, she decided to approach it in the same manner that she enacted reforms of the Arkansas school system while she was First Lady there (those reforms successfully raised AR schools from 50th place nationally to 31st within three years). In order to be successful, she needed to fight for every vote, and ensure that her reforms made through the state legislature unchanged. Unfortunately, the same methodology didn't work in Washington, as she was up against entrenched interests (healthcare companies, lobbyists, Senators on the take, etc), and as a result, she failed.

One of the things I have found impressive about HRC, is that she didn't fade into the background after this fight, as most would have. Instead, she learned from her mistake, and worked in a bi-partisan manner to pass the State's Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and did so without the micromanaging that helped kill her first attempt at health care reform.

Obama has yet to be tested in this manner, so I have no idea what his ability to regroup and change course is, and that fact worries me a little. Again, I don't think it disqualifies Barack Obama from being President, but I'd rather have a person who has made errors, and corrected them, than someone who has not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Obama has yet to be tested in this manner, so I have no idea what his ability to regroup and change course is, and that fact worries me a little.

---

Well, Obama did a lot in IL, and by all accounts, it was because he was able to bring the other side to the table and compromise a little but primarily, he was able to sell his vision to people who might not have normally gone along with him.

This is the exact same quality that attracts independents and even republicans to his side: he can sell progressive politics in a nonthreatening manner, something it seems Hillary is wholly incapable of...not that it is all her fault, but hyperpartisanship's day has come and gone. Or at least I hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arty

For those who say Obama doesn't have any substance, this totally blows that theory out of the water.

---

The only people who say that are either

a) liars
b) too lazy to pay attention

I don't personally care for HRC's candidacy but for those who think she is some kind of ultrapolarizing agent I would suggest that while it may be true for some % of the populous a fair review of her legislative time will reveal that she is quite collegial with most of the members of congress and has a fair to middling track record of working with them. Sure, it'd be a different scene if she's president but that doesn't change the fact that she can work with republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Well, Obama did a lot in IL, and by all accounts, it was because he was able to bring the other side to the table and compromise a little but primarily, he was able to sell his vision to people who might not have normally gone along with him.

This is the exact same quality that attracts independents and even republicans to his side: he can sell progressive politics in a nonthreatening manner, something it seems Hillary is wholly incapable of...not that it is all her fault, but hyperpartisanship's day has come and gone. Or at least I hope so.



The only people who say that are either

a) liars
b) too lazy to pay attention

---

Obama, has substance that's for sure. But his actual accomplishments while a legislator are pretty run of the mill. There are some victories that he can point to while in Illinois, but in DC, he has been a little lackluster, as the game is totally different there.

I honestly doubt that anyone can be all that transformative and work past partisanship in DC. Look at the way the republicans have acted over the past 20+ years, what makes you think that the party has anything to gain by helping a Democrat achieve legislative victories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...../holds hands over ears


In related news: Rezko put in jail; bail is revoked

So Rezko is a native of Syria, eh? Tres interressant.

---

Are you guys talking about this Tony Rezko:

http://rawstory.com/images/new/rezkoclinton.jpg

awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Obama, has substance that's for sure. But his actual accomplishments while a legislator are pretty run of the mill. There are some victories that he can point to while in Illinois, but in DC, he has been a little lackluster, as the game is totally different there.

---

he was like 99th out of 100 in terms of seniority i believe, so its kind of unfair to expect a greenback to get anythign done without being on any important committees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

Are you guys talking about this Tony Rezko:

http://rawstory.com/images/new/rezkoclinton.jpg

---

You are either ignorant (I actually mean this in a non-judgmental way) or being deliberately disingenuous.

It would behoove people to understand this picture. That is a standard photo op shot. Whenever a big deal person or set of people show up for a political fundraising event, there is the requisite large donor photo gig (in fact, it is often the incentive for getting people to buy into bigger donor status). So if you drop a couple or five grand a plate, or are a "table captain", or whatever - you get to hop on the receiving line with 50 or a hundred or a couple hundred people & get your highly regulated 10 seconds of picture shooting time with the celeb. Especially if the high profile celebs are doing the event for someone else, they likely have no clue who is who. It is just a line of people to be photographed with. And we have no idea what event this was from or who they were fundraising for. It could even have been one for Obama if the Clintons ever stumped for him. Or not... So the pic above is just more FOX News, Drudge, etc. style diversionary BS.

What we have here is an attempt to use a very standard pic that could have come from any fundraising event being trumped up to be played off as equivalent to a sitting U.S. Senator having a crook he's had a 17 year relationship with put hundreds of thousands of dollars in play to help said Senator buy a very nice house. And then people dump on the Clintons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lax

he was like 99th out of 100 in terms of seniority i believe, so its kind of unfair to expect a greenback to get anythign done without being on any important committees.

---

Not on any important committees? He's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hell he's the chair of the European Research Sub Committee. Do you know how many hearings he convened??? 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

Are you guys talking about this Tony Rezko:

http://rawstory.com/images/new/rezkoclinton.jpg

---

Norman Hsu ring a bell to anyone. This morning I heard Obama's response to the Rezko situation. He was an associate at the law firm and worked for a couple of hours on a case involving Rezko. Hardly a best buddy situation. Also, who is so naive to think that any politician has not, at some time in their past, been involved with a white collar criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

Norman Hsu ring a bell to anyone. This morning I heard Obama's response to the Rezko situation. He was an associate at the law firm and worked for a couple of hours on a case involving Rezko. Hardly a best buddy situation. Also, who is so naive to think that any politician has not, at some time in their past, been involved with a white collar criminal.

---

Obama's statement isn't entirely true, his relationship with Rezko stretched well beyond five hours of work.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lax

...do you think h-bomb would be able to pass her precise legislation if elected? to me, she seems the most polarizing, unappealing (to republicans) candidate in politics today. plus, her rhetoric of "the republicans (r's not bush) do this, i'm going to do that" to get dem support only widens this gap IMO...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

I don't personally care for HRC's candidacy but for those who think she is some kind of ultrapolarizing agent I would suggest that while it may be true for some % of the populous a fair review of her legislative time will reveal that she is quite collegial with most of the members of congress and has a fair to middling track record of working with them. Sure, it'd be a different scene if she's president but that doesn't change the fact that she can work with republicans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

...I honestly doubt that anyone can be all that transformative and work past partisanship in DC. Look at the way the republicans have acted over the past 20+ years, what makes you think that the party has anything to gain by helping a Democrat achieve legislative victories?

---

Of course this is assuming that the Republicans have 41 or more seats in that next Senate. :D I haven't started watching the individual House or Senate races yet, but do expect the Dems will pick up some seats on both sides. I do really doubt there's any chance for them to get up to 60 seats in the Senate though. But even if they picked up 5 or 6 more there, there are moderate Republicans (like Lieberman :rolleyes2) that could help on many issues. Any Mags up to speed on this, what are the early early calls on how many more seats switch sides? "Range" guesstimates are acceptable.

Also, ANY ONE really think a Republican President for the next term is in the realm of possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spindrift

You are either ignorant (I actually mean this in a non-judgmental way) or being deliberately disingenuous.

It would behoove people to understand this picture. That is a standard photo op shot. Whenever a big deal person or set of people show up for a political fundraising event, there is the requisite large donor photo gig (in fact, it is often the incentive for getting people to buy into bigger donor status). So if you drop a couple or five grand a plate, or are a "table captain", or whatever - you get to hop on the receiving line with 50 or a hundred or a couple hundred people & get your highly regulated 10 seconds of picture shooting time with the celeb. Especially if the high profile celebs are doing the event for someone else, they likely have no clue who is who. It is just a line of people to be photographed with. And we have no idea what event this was from or who they were fundraising for. It could even have been one for Obama if the Clintons ever stumped for him. Or not... So the pic above is just more FOX News, Drudge, etc. style diversionary BS.

What we have here is an attempt to use a very standard pic that could have come from any fundraising event being trumped up to be played off as equivalent to a sitting U.S. Senator having a crook he's had a 17 year relationship with put hundreds of thousands of dollars in play to help said Senator buy a very nice house. And then people dump on the Clintons?

---

It's just a picture, so take it for what it's worth. Bottom line is he donated a bunch of money to get that picture with them. Chances are that money went directly to them, or maybe it didn't. But they put themselves up for sale to ANYONE with money, and Rezko was one of those people.

As for the ABC article, big deal. The guy dealt with Rezko to help him buy a house. I know some very good and honest people who did a similar thing (with someone who wasn't shady) and even ended up saving a bit of money themselves. Buying a house is probably the most expensive thing most people will ever purchase in their lives. Who wouldn't contact someone else with experience in that field to either get their foot in the door ahead of others and/or save some money on the deal?

Until someone comes up with something more substantive here (like Obama using political influence to help Rezko pull a shady deal), this is a non story.

Otherwise, if you're going to condemn him based purely on guilt by association then the Clintons' list is much longer and much shadier. Like concretejungle said...Norman Hsu... Having Hillary talk about this is like having Hitler call a 3rd grade bully a fascist tyrant.

Wow. It must be nice going through life with blinders on. Just a few quick points:

1) First, you are grasping at straws to make any odds on that picture being from a fundraiser for either Clinton. In fact, the way these things work, I'd guess that the odds are better that it was taken at an event where the Clintons were appearing on behalf of someone else - in exactly the same way that virtually every single major political figure from both parties does. I am not aware of Rezko having made any meaningful donations to either Clinton. If you are, I'd love to see that info (I confess, I'm too lazy to dig through all the old cycle donation stuff).

2) "Dealt with Rezko to buy a house" --- "Dealt" , is that what you call it when an influence peddler effectively drops a non-recoverable half million bucks (give or take) to conclude a purchase by a sitting U.S. Senator???? Who, by the way, has written letters supporting Rezkos businesses geting government contracts... Follow the trail the Chicago papers have been trying to trace on this for a couple of years. It is mind blowing that Obama has been given such a pass to date. You should check even the most rudimentary facts about the situation.

3) Maybe I don't know enough about the Hsu thing. But from what I do know - it is not even close to the league the Rezko thing seems to be. Lots of people insinuate themselves into the fundraising game. Everything from basic table captains to people like Bush's "Rangers". But the house thing is shocking when you look at the details - and unlike fundraising, was something of an "off the books" transaction if you know what I mean. Also, whether or not Sen Clinton has issues (most of which seem to be overplayed IMO, but ignore that for a moment), why would you close your eyes to Obama's actions if there are real issues there?

Your comments make it pretty clear you either are not aware of the real history of the Rezko thing or you want to see it covered up...

edit: one more thing- virtually every single elected official, public corporation or non-profit board member on the planet worth discussing (notice hedge ;) ) has been run through the "conflict of interest" thing. And that discussion always focuses not just on "impropriety", but also on "the appearance" of impropriety." And the Harvard trained attorneys I know are familiar with that stuff inside and out. So draw what conclusions you want from that...

It's sad but funny to see everyone suddenly discover that Obama, just like all the other "mainstream" candidates, is 100% financed by Wall Street, and has the same ugly influence-peddling skeletons in his closet.

NEWS FLASH: that's why he's a "mainstream" candidate...because he's a pawn of the rich. That is the qualification to become a mainstream candidate.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only two candidates in the race that stand for meaningful change and stick by their principles. Since they cannot be bought, they are marginalized by epithets such as "second-tier", "dark horse", and "unelectable".

The tragedy here is that you keep falling for this trick. Over and over and over. And that's why the rich will continue to get richer and richer, and you will continue to get poorer and poorer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

It's sad but funny to see everyone suddenly discover that Obama, just like all the other "mainstream" candidates, is 100% financed by Wall Street, and has the same ugly influence-peddling skeletons in his closet.

NEWS FLASH: that's why he's a "mainstream" candidate...because he's a pawn of the rich. That is the qualification to become a mainstream candidate.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only two candidates in the race that stand for meaningful change and stick by their principles. Since they cannot be bought, they are marginalized by epithets such as "second-tier", "dark horse", and "unelectable".

The tragedy here is that you keep falling for this trick. Over and over and over. And that's why the rich will continue to get richer and richer, and you will continue to get poorer and poorer.

---

Hey Spats, I am going to the R.P. rally in Simi Valley tomorrow after the debate. I will post a T.R.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spindrift

Wow. It must be nice going through life with blinders on. Just a few quick points:

1) First, you are grasping at straws to make any odds on that picture being from a fundraiser for either Clinton. In fact, the way these things work, I'd guess that the odds are better that it was taken at an event where the Clintons were appearing on behalf of someone else - in exactly the same way that virtually every single major political figure from both parties does. I am not aware of Rezko having made any meaningful donations to either Clinton. If you are, I'd love to see that info (I confess, I'm too lazy to dig through all the old cycle donation stuff).

2) "Dealt with Rezko to buy a house" --- "Dealt" , is that what you call it when an influence peddler effectively drops a non-recoverable half million bucks (give or take) to conclude a purchase by a sitting U.S. Senator???? Who, by the way, has written letters supporting Rezkos businesses geting government contracts... Follow the trail the Chicago papers have been trying to trace on this for a couple of years. It is mind blowing that Obama has been given such a pass to date. You should check even the most rudimentary facts about the situation.

3) Maybe I don't know enough about the Hsu thing. But from what I do know - it is not even close to the league the Rezko thing seems to be. Lots of people insinuate themselves into the fundraising game. Everything from basic table captains to people like Bush's "Rangers". But the house thing is shocking when you look at the details - and unlike fundraising, was something of an "off the books" transaction if you know what I mean. Also, whether or not Sen Clinton has issues (most of which seem to be overplayed IMO, but ignore that for a moment), why would you close your eyes to Obama's actions if there are real issues there?

Your comments make it pretty clear you either are not aware of the real history of the Rezko thing or you want to see it covered up...

edit: one more thing- virtually every single elected official, public corporation or non-profit board member on the planet worth discussing (notice hedge ;) ) has been run through the "conflict of interest" thing. And that discussion always focuses not just on "impropriety", but also on "the appearance" of impropriety." And the Harvard trained attorneys I know are familiar with that stuff inside and out. So draw what conclusions you want from that...

---

Blinders? You keep talking about facts, but from what I've researched there isn't much to the story. The facts I've found so far are that he did about 5 hours of legal work for Rezko, Rezko has donated somewhere between 80-168k for him over the years (it's also a known fact that he's donated money to the Clintons), and Rezko was involved in the house deal. That's it. No one in the media knows any more than that. Everything else is pure speculation. If you have more info, I'd love to see it.

Here's a pretty good site that sums it all up and removes the media hype:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...015/838/445627

Cross check that with any major "reputable" media outlet and you'll find the same info.

As for Hsu...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118920845515221199.html

From a monetary standpoint, Hillary gave back $850k this summer (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14330109), and that's not counting all the money he's raised for them in the past. He's raised millions for them over the years, and his legal issues aren't anything new. His shadiness has been known for a long time and yet the Clintons still took money from him up to this summer.

Look, I'm not exonerating Obama here. He picked a bad person to associate himself with. If you want to criticize him for that, be my guest. He admits as much himself. But for Hillary to open her mouth on this subject is just downright ludicrous. That's my main point on this.