Obama's Rezko problem; it's about judgment

Barack has Rezko. The Queen B has Norman Hsu, Johnny Chang, Marc Rich, Gary Winnick and a host of other characters. The Clintoons are the head of a corrupt mafia, actually.

While Obama is slightly cleaner than the Queen B, neither has any qualification whatsoever to be president.

I'll save all of the Obamabots the effort and post their talking point for them:

Barack hasn't been convicted of anything. [nudge, wink]

Please Hillary, you opened a can of worms on yourself. Why...WHITE WATERS?

Are we so stupid that we would believe that Obama just happened to coincidentally write a letter on behalf of Rezkos co. so that co. could get publiv funding for their business? All that we know of IL and Cook COunty politics. Do people really think that we are that stupid. Also helping Obama pay $300,000 less for his house, my question is what did Obama do for Rezko in order to get that "help". Also now looking at how Obama used his PAC to buy support in Iowa and NH really makes me wonder how anyone could support this corrupt Cook County Hack.

Has Rezko been convicted?

Obama should have pointed out to Hillary during the debate that if anyone should be careful about "a rush to judgement," it should be Hill and Bill.

Obama's failure to seize on that moment may have cost him the election.

There's something to be said about standing by your friends in times of trouble, too. It appears to be in the Dem DNA that most of them scurry like rats at the first sign of trouble. With friends like that, it is no wonder that most businessmen are Repubs.

Obama needs to bring up this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

and thishttp://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2010

Rezko is nothing compared to what the Clinton's have their closet!!

Hillary,be careful on what subjects you want to discuss.Obama might just have to bring up Mon.........................?????????????????????????

Hsu Headed to Prison
By PAUL ELIAS – Jan 4, 2008

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — Disgraced political donor Norman Hsu was sentenced Friday to three years in prison after a judge refused to throw out his 1992 no-contest plea to fraud.

Hsu's lawyers had asked Judge Stephen Hall to dismiss his 16-year-old plea, arguing that Hsu's right to speedy justice was violated because authorities were not actively pursuing him during his years as a fugitive. They could easily have arrested Hsu, his lawyers argued, at one of the fundraisers he hosted in California for prominent local politicians.

Hsu also faces federal fraud charges in New York.

His troubles began dogging Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big-name Democrats last summer when news reports revealed he was a fugitive who fled the state before he was sentenced for the 1992 fraud conviction for scamming investors out of $1 million.

Seems to me like trying to make a big deal out of nothing. If this Rezko chap has been dodgy - then it's on him - not on Obama. It wouldn't be the first time someone has known someone then has been surprised to find out what they've been up to.

The editorial board of South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, has endorsed Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary election (see below)

The State's Editorial Board endorses Barack Obama

Opinion
Posted on Tue, Jan. 22, 2008

Obama most likely Democrat to unify America
Andrew Haworth / The State
Sen. Barack Obama speaks to members of The State's Editorial Board on Monday.

 The State's Editorial Board endorses Barack Obama

- The State editorial board's Democratic presidential primary endorsement
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.
Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is an odd fit for us and for many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.
On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.
The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.
Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.
But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.
Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.
He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.
Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.
And America certainly has things to get done.
From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary. (End of Endorsement)

Yeah, this is nothing. It has already been proven that he was not involved in any way. And any funds excepted were returned right away to charties for children when he found out were it came from. Hillary, should not have brought it up, because it made me recall the White Water situation and Monica Lewinsky.

I feel that the Rezko issue pales in comparison with the to-date unexplained situation in which Sen. Clinton's relatives are alleged to have taken (and then given back) large payments in exchange for pardons at the end of the Clinton second term. I continue to feel mystified that neither Obama nor the press question Sen. Clinton on why her relatives felt they could deliver pardons.

Rezko is not an issue. This is ne more dirty tactic on behalf of the Clintons and thepress should be ashamed of itself for trying to make it an issue again and again. The money was given to charity as soon as Obama found out who this guy was and what he was up to. Can we please stop perpeuating the mudslinging. I don't think Clinton wants us to start digging her dirt, does she?

Obama should tell the whole truth and move on. Stop the song and dance. If he's clean, and I believe he is, It'll pass.

The Clintons are the biggest crooks in the history of the White House.

As Hillary would say, "This will be fun."

Thank you John D. Rezco is NOTHING compared to the ties the Clintons have. Please! They have the dirtiest hands in Washington.

Both Obama and Clinton are corrupt, as are most politicians, but with regards to Obama we should forget these petty money laundering charges and concern ourselves with why he would want to invade our nuclear ally, Pakistan.
Also, we should get a full disclosure of what type of illegal drugs he took and for how long...America needs to know!

Paulo

Didnt your mama tell you that "two wrongs dont make a right". For all of you still living in the Clintons over investigated past should not use this as a threshold to support your denials. Obama is offering himself as the holy one. You do rememeber when he said "I will never lie to you." Well Mr. Obama certainly skirted the truth the other night at the debate. And when asked about the vote on the credit card interset cap, I for one am still waiting for an answer.

Well Mr. Obama when we elect president we are allowed to asked questions about your record or the lack thereof. And you Mr. Obama owe us answers that are not prefaced with "you see this is just the type of politics that America is sick and tired of". This is not Hardball and we are not Chris Matthews --- we are the people that are going to decide who we want to clean up the mess in Washington.

The Rezko matter is proof positive that Obama is nothing more than an Illinois machine politician and not the "standard bearer of change" he claims to be.

He's also endorsed party hacks like Toddler Stroger and Alexi Giannoulos. Where's the "change" here in Illinois, Barack? You know, the state you're SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING!

Both Obama and Clinton are corrupt, as are most politicians, but with regards to Obama we should forget these petty money laundering charges and concern ourselves with why he would want to invade our nuclear ally, Pakistan.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2008 11:17 AM

----

Ah, little Paulo the traitor.

Obama said he would take out Bin Laden if he had actionable intelligence, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I know you Repubs like to burp Bin Laden and put him safely to bed every night, but many of us think he's a menace who should be taken out.

Vote China! Vote for a Clinton!

Bill Clinton's U.S. China Relations Act of 2000 and Walmart are a match made in heaven--for the Waltons and the Chinese! Of course, it's no accident that the Clintons secretly made use of their Arkansas and Chinese allies to gain the presidency. With USCRA, the Clintons set our country up for a trade imbalance that made the Waltons even richer. Bottom line: a vote for Clinton is a vote for the People's Republic of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_ campaign_finance_controversy

No this is not really a big deal.

What is a BIG deal, is that Obama seeks to paint himself as an elegant uniter, bringing 'change to Washington', above "politics as usual", while he is clearly of the same cloth as every other candidate. That's not a problem - it just sort of takes the 'hope' and 'change' wind out of the sails for some of us.

Hey, I'd much rather someone who messes up on real estate, than a leader who misjudges a WAR.

Obama has my vote any day over Hillary.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree with the conservatives that the issues with Clinton and Obama ought to be investigated fully. Oh, wait (I just love it when conservatives throw that around!)-- The Clintons WERE investigated, and pretty exhaustively. Whatever charges you're going to get on either or both of them are long since got or gone. Are you NEVER going to get over this? Oh, never mind -- "Ted Kennedy." Enough said.

Obama's Rezko dealings HAVE ALSO been looked into, and Obama cleared -- but I wouldn't be against bringing them up again IF A RESULTING CLEARING OF HIM WOULD SHUT YOU ALL UP. Or if a resulting indictment would result in charges that would drop him out of the race, maybe put him in jail, and -- oh, by the way -- SHUT YOU ALL UP.

And, while we're talking investigations, WHAT ABOUT all those emails the White House deleted? WHAT ABOUT the ethics of firing district attorneys because they wouldn't go after Democrats while leaving Republicans alone? WHAT ABOUT the lies and misdirection Bushco has been throwing around ever since he's been in office? WHAT ABOUT investigating Bush's drinking and drug problems ever since 1970 or so to determine his fitness for office? WHAT ABOUT putting Cheney on the stand and grilling him like a pork chop for, say 2 or 3 months about outing Valerie Plame? WHAT ABOUT doing that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

As a Republican, I tell you straight-forwardly that if Obama gets the nod for the Democratic ticket, I'll be voting for him. If Hillary gets it, I'll vote Republican. She is one of the most despised politicians of our time and her policies will bring our country to the brink of something very bad. For the benefit of the country, keep this in mind. Many of my Republican friends feel the same way. Hillary would be a total disaster for our country.

As much as I like Obama, Ron Paul is a much better bid to save the economy, look at his solid voting record or go on youtube. If you like Obama you'll like Ron Paul. I'll vote for either one.

Has anyone from the Illinois journalistic community scrutinized Barack Obama's years as a community organizer? He talks about it in his book, but what do others say NOW? I would like to know whether he played hardball for structural reforms or softball for crumbs from the big table.

The media and the Clintons try real hard to make this an issue. Look how many corrupt donors the Clintons took money from throughout their campaigns as they later said they 'had no idea' they were corrupt, the latest being Norman Hsu who's now in jail. Rezko has contributed to his campaign like so many many others, and he doesn't know the background of others, they could also be corrupt. So to keep headlining this is just showing how the media and Clintons want to bring Obama down, even though it won't. And judgment? How can he have judgment over this when he didn't know this guy was involved in anything. That's like saying the Clintons knew Norman Hsu was a criminal and they went ahead to let him donate to their campaign. Headline: Clintons knew Norman Hsu was criminal and still took campaign money from him. Judgment? Where were the Clinton's judgment here?

What do you mean "OF COURSE ANTOIN "TONY REZKO" The main stream media hasn't covered this at all! Not a peep! She had to bring this to the peoples attention since NONE of the major TV personalties did. It is a matter of judgment and Chicago politics as usual not that of the Fairy Tale candidate Barack portrays himself as being.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32956

Angry Hillary

Obama 08'!!

Senator Clinton (btw, that is the proper way to address her whether you like her or not, not as "Queen B" as a previous misogynist commenter wrote)
did not throw the first punch at Monday's debate.

The only reason she mentioned Barack's slumlord affiliations was in response to Barack attacking her for being on the Walmart board (gasp, what a crime!)

NO OBAMA.

Is it just me or does anyone relize that there is another candidate running that has not had all of the skeletons in his closet. Yes Edwards is a trial attorney. But so is every other politician in Washington. It really gets my dander up at how successful the media and special interest groups have been in pushing the only honest hardworking candidate running for president to the bottom of the pack. Does straight talk and a positive direction not mean anything in this country. Other countries around the world do not trust or believe in America because of lies, deceit, and back room deals that go on in Washington. American citizens need to wake up and realize that honesty is the best policy, and until this happens in this country we will fall further and further behind as a country to look up to and trust.

Obama is a divider rather than an uniter.
His is not qulified for a US President.

Does it strike anyone as odd that, although this Rezko thing has been public knowledge for a few years (yeah, it is the undereducated who flock to the Clinton's en masse. Hey don't blame me, read your exit polls!) she is just now coming up with it? Give me a little Whitewater break will'ya Hill?

The Clintons have an edge over Obama since the Rezko problem is certified by Federal indictments. However, the Clinton’s (and others) are standing on top of mountains of more serious problems that have been and are currently protected from surfacing. It’s sad for all of us since our Election process isn’t being allowed to display the needed honesty as it should and thus giving us “planned” outcomes rather than “The People’s Choice”. I don’t feel it’s necessary for me to offer details here since most of this has been in the news.

However the Rezko problem is personal to me since it involves my ex-wife’s family along with my second son. I have three children in the middle of this mess. And there are mountains more that link them to others all the way up the line. Since the news has been surfacing scandals and problems that I know includes the family, I’ve been desperately trying to encourage them to get out of this mess. This mess also includes many others including Clyde O’Connor’s family. Clyde was one of the pilots flying the Drug Jets carrying TON’S of cocaine that was busted in Mexico last year. Clyde’s family is linked by marriage to my ex-wife’s family and I’ve been desperately trying to get them out of this mess also.

Guess who also is involved in this mess? Believe me as Obama’s problem is nothing compared to someone else’s problem!

The issue with Hilliary is that she thinks she is entitled to be the next President, without questions and concerns from anyone much less the media, other candidates the voters or the Democratic Party. Afterall her interest in the past and now is about Hillary not the nations issues as she suggest.She is good at talking the talk,as she will tell you she has been doing this for thirty-five years. but take a listen to her and you hear her I,I,I,I,I, me, me,me, on and on. Hillary is a woman that could not keep her house, the White House, in order regarding her letrous husban, Bill and the other woman, Monica, the first time around.Rather than denounce Bill's actions, she partner with Bill and went along with his lies, that he "did not have sex with Monica" and his lies to congress and the nation disgracing the office and the USA. She went along then because of her need of acceptance from Bill and her political asperations and she contiues today because of her need of acceptance from Bill and her political asperations.It is all about Bill and Hillary, not the nation. Even now she thinks and talks like everyone is to stand and salute what ever she says about anything and about anyone or any issue.
Her I,I,I, me,me, entitlement attitude and approach will get us the same result it got the nation the first time around in the White House.

In there entitled minds it is all about Hillary and Bill and they dare any challenge afterall they have gotten away with this entitlement so far, so why not continue

I agree these are reasonable questions:

Are we so stupid that we would believe that Obama just happened to coincidentally write a letter on behalf of Rezkos co. so that co. could get publiv funding for their business? All that we know of IL and Cook COunty politics. Do people really think that we are that stupid. Also helping Obama pay $300,000 less for his house, my question is what did Obama do for Rezko in order to get that "help". Also now looking at how Obama used his PAC to buy support in Iowa and NH really makes me wonder how anyone could support this corrupt Cook County Hack.

Posted by: Vinny | January 23, 2008 9:26 AM

These are from Los Angeles Times:

The Times arrived at the total of more than $200,000 by reviewing donations
dating back to 1995, primarily looking at people who had business relationships
with Rezko.

...

But in 1998, then-state Sen. Obama wrote to state and city officials urging
them to provide funding for New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and
Allison Davis. Obama wrote the letters, first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times,
on Illinois Senate stationery, saying: "This project will provide much
needed housing for 4th Ward citizens."
...

In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama
and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the
day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent
lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.

Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas
successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the
asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Obama says there was nothing improper in these transactions. The housing
deal came after it was known that Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities.

Obama has said that, in retrospect, the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created.
...

Today, Obama campaigns for president as a new kind of politician, less beholden
to special interests than his opponents. He and his staff regularly contrast
his policy of refusing to accept donations from lobbyists with Clinton's
practices. His relationship with Rezko may undermine the power of that claim.

Hmmm Steven, seems you have been doing some selective editing. Let's set that record straight.

I'll leave it to the readers to read the articles themselves to understand that this is just Hillary's smoke.

In fact, when one reads the articles, Obama comes out incredibly clean.

From:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-rezko-clinton-080122,0,5430503.story?page=2&coll=chi_tab01_layout

A Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm. Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm.

Obama, as a State Senator, was interested in improving the housing conditions for the poor.

In the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets that relied on tax credits and other government assistance.

As a state senator in 1998, Obama wrote two letters to city and state officials to support a Rezko/Davis senior housing project...

He was one of several political and community leaders who pushed for funding for the project. Among those sending similar letters of support were Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), then-state Rep. Lou Jones (D-Chicago) and Robert Grossman, head of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Conservation Community Council.

Obama press secretary Bill Burton said Rezko never asked Obama to send a letter having anything to do with that project. And Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Rezko "never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Sen. Obama in connection with that project."

These letters were an effort to get housing for the poor.

At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004.

Let's see, Hillary brought us kindergate. Now, she brings us fencegate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1

This one discusses the adjacent plots purchased at the same time. I'm not sure what happened, but Obama and Rezco offered the highest bids. Obama got a home, and Rezco got a piece of property to develop in an area he was already working in. Everyone won, there was nothing tricky.

The city required that a fence be built between the two properties. Rezko sold Obama 10 more feet. And they split to cost of building the fence.
"I told them if you can spare another 5 or 10 feet, I'd be happy to purchase it from you," Obama said. "They came back and said they could sell us up to 10 feet."

Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006.

Obama was aware that Rezko was under investigation and didn't want anything to be questioned.

October 2007 Rezko was indicted, a full year the fence.

Guilt by association only. All politicians know someone, or have had money contributed by someone who turns out to have done something wrong. Hillary too.

Just another tactic to distract us, she's given us lots of them. Good to get it out and past.

This business of Rezko is important, there are many unanswered questions that go to judgement. Senator Obama's purchase of his house on the same day as Mrs. Rezko's purchase of the side lot at a time it was well known that Mr. Rezko was under investigation is more than just 'boneheaded'. Mr. Rezko was indicted October 2006, why did it take Senator Obama until January 2008 to donate this money from Rezko? He has known Mr Rezko for well over 17 years, why give the impression it was just '5 hours' of work during the debate?

A reader tossed out Norman Hsu's donations to Senator Clinton. you might want to read up, Mr. Hsu has donated money to many Democrats and the Democratic Party as well as Senator Obama.

Then there is the matter of his early political years. The Chicago Tribune has an article "Obama Knows his way Around a Ballot". His challenges to the other candidates signatures to get on the ballot, leaving him as the only candidate, gives me great pause. It may have indeed been, as he claimed, his legal right, but it certainly was not fair, it certainly wasn't the image of a candidate who claims to be above it all.

There was another candidate not to long ago, who also talked of unity, changing Washington, he was like able we were told, in fact, they told us he was the kind of guy you could have a beer with, many people voted for him his name is President Bush.

Obama has answered the Rezko allegations sufficiently. His "lack of judgment" in the land deal pales by comparison to Hillary's lack of judgment in voting for the War in Iraq and for her own questionable fundraising activities. If you want to be reminded of Clinton's fundraising improprieties, read the following:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E1DB1631F93AA25751C1A960958260

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/howl

http://deathofnation.blogspot.com/2007/08/clinton-dirty-money.html

Clinton's attacks against Obama are patently false, including the ridiculous charges that he praised Reagan or said that the Republicans had all the good ideas. Clinton is good at fighting her enemies, which is good because she is good at making enemies. If she is the nominee, she will not win against McCain and even if she does we will have 4 years of watching all her enemies attack her in the White House and she will not accomplish anything.

Obama was a good friend of Rezko and probably Obama connections will be uncovered during the trial. Hillary did not know Norman Hsu he just was a donator. WhiteWater is old news and did not involve Hillary and was just a allegation never proven

What's the deal with Obama getting his house for $300k less than market value (that's a lot of money to people like me) from that slumlord???

Isn't there some kind of ethical violation there, taking money while you're a senator??

Uhm......John Edwards? Anyone remember him? The ONLY one in the race well-qualified to be President! Edwards/Richardson 2008....that's what I want to see.
I'm tired of being presented with celebrities as my only choice. I don't want someone famous or infamous. I want someone qualified to do the job. Obama? Hasn't the last 8 years taught us anything about putting an untried, untested and unqualified person in office? Clinton? May I remind you that the country ousted a democratic congress and senate BECAUSE of the Clintons? Personally, I don't really care that he got personal attention from an intern in the oval office (like THAT'S never happened before). I do care that he lied to a Grand Jury. I do care about his questionable relationship to China. Why do we want anything even remotely resembling that again?

Edwards, people, take another good look at Edwards.

Why is everyone so angery at hillary for brining it up? She went there because Obama started the accudations in the debate...she followed suite. We should be glad the the info is coming out to investigate. Why be angry at Clinton for Obamas "lack in judgement?" His superior judgement is what he is claiming that he has....more and more will come out. Why is it up to Clinton to bring this up? Why hasn't the media brought it up on their own? It is talking facts that is all. Oh and by the way, on top of all of his "not present votes" he didn't bother ot show up in the US Senate to vote for the Iran Resolution, such an important vote that he condemns Hillary for, yet he didn't even vote. Why? Because there isn't a chance to vote "Present" and not have to put on record your vote? And the "oops" I made a mistake and pushed the wrong button 6 times in the Illinois Senate? Isn't your only job in the moment to push the right button? Or ... did yoiu really want to change your vote because it was not popular. We are choosing a President....and he have to make sure that he can push the button he intends on pushing.

Obama gave Rezko a contract to build a power station in Iraq

What part of any politician doesn't have some element of corruption. Look at the way congress acts and today the 28 reps walk out in a fit over the majority wanting an indictment on the Bush Mafia. All politicians are at a minimum 60 percent corrupt and that is how and why they get in and how they continue to grt away with it. History continues to prove over and over that greed and power = corruption. NoVOTE

Barack Hussein Obama, did write letters in his State Senate stationery. It was seen on Fox News Chicago, www.myfoxchicago.com