I guess Senator Obama was just too busy working for the poor and homeless in Chicago to take time to watch the Tom Cruise movie, The Firm. Because if he had the Tony Rezko case would not be biting him in the ass. In case you forgot, Cruise played a white version of Barack Obama–a charming, up-and-comer fresh out of law school idealist who fell in with a crowd of scalawags who were tied to the mob.
But I digress. Here’s the problem. Why is Barack not coming clean about his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who is facing charges on federal corruption charges? If there really is nothing there, then don’t do the Bill Clinton shuffle. Just tell the truth.
But Obama can’t or won’t do that. And I wonder why? During Monday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton brought up Obama’s past association with Rezko. Wolf Blitzer gave Obama a chance to set the record straight:
BLITZER: I’m going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.
OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.
So he was just associated with a law firm that partnered with Rezko? Just some guy? This is not true. In some circles it is called a lie. Now I don’t know about you, but when someone starts tap dancing about simple, easily investigated facts it means they are covering something up. Obama had more than an incidental relationship with Rezko.
FACT. Obama bought property with Tony Rezko. Here are the facts from Obama’s own mouth:
Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?
A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.
I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?
A: At the time, it didn’t strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.
Doesn’t everybody buy an adjacent piece of property with a casual acquaintance whom you barely know?
FACT. Rezko has been a major contributor to Obama’s political campaigns. According to the Chicago Sun-Times:
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s….Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama….
Tony was one of the biggest fund-raisers.”
FACT. Obama used his political position to lobby on behalf of Rezko’s business interests.
Taylor Marsh provides the details:
There’s also been a lot of back and forth about the letters Obama wrote on behalf of a project that Rezko owned. One story has Rezko’s attorney saying adamantly that his client didn’t ask Obama to write the letters. Obama still wrote them. Another letter written by Obama was on behalf of New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Obama’s former boss, Davis, and Rezko.
“I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC’s proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,” Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. “This project will provide much needed housing for Fourth Ward citizens.”
At the time he wrote the letters, Obama was also a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland, the law firm Davis formerly headed. Among the firm’s clients were several companies owned by Davis and Rezko. The firm did not represent New Kenwood.
Davis and Rezko hired Daley & George, the law firm of the mayor’s brother Michael, to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago. … ..
I am sick and tired of the word parsing. I did not like it when Bill Clinton did it, but at least he could argue he was trying to save his marriage. Hillary took too long to admit her mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution in 2002. And George W. Bush takes the prize. We have had seven, going on eight years, of him flat out lying about terrorism and war, and Americans have died because of it.
So excuse me if you expect me to take Senator Barack Obama seriously while he claims not to know some guy who was his neighbor. Yeah he ate lunch with him but only twice a year for several years. Tony somebody. And then there’s that matter about Rezko giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars for his campaigns. Anyone who has ever run for public office does not give a rats ass about anyone willing to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars for their campaign. And I am sure Obama feels the same way. Why would he remember a generous contributor?
And finally, Senator Obama, you don’t know this guy but you’ll write two letters using your good name to shill for his business enterprises? Cut me a break. If you are going to lie at least do it with some style. You don’t know dick about Tony Rezko? I don’t think so.
What, Larry, is your particular brief with the Rezco stuff? Do you have some special knowledge about this issue? Why bring it up here?
January 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To think there was a time when TPMCafé was about honest, intellectual discussions of public policy and politics. To think that at one point it would have been considered shameful to post campaign oppo research. Note that Obama has been entirely forthright about his dealings with Rezko, has apologized for the appearance of impropriety, even though nothing illegal or unethical ever occured. Clinton's allegation was about him personally representing Rezko, and he answered honestly that he did five hours of legal work for him ages ago. And isn't it funny to hear the Clintons, they of Whitewater, cry foul about supposedly shady real estate deals?
I used to respect you, Larry. I respected you when you talked about the administration's intelligence failing and torture regime with your experience at the CIA as a guide. But now you're not even trying to be a serious policy analyst. And that's sad.
January 22, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this really is becoming an embarrassment to TPM Cafe. And it's not just Larry. A number of posts here recently go beyond spirited, authentic advocacy on behalf of one's favorite candidate, and show all the signs of being cribbed from campaign research memos or daily talking points, with the authors self-evidently disseminating the same message-of-the-day that one can find coming simultaneously from any number of campaign hacks in the media and around the net.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I would say the same thing is true of some of Reed Hundt's recent posts on behalf of Obama. It's an intellectually dishonest, tediously predictable and shallow form of discourse; and it represents an old-fashioned, banal form of politicking that immediately impugns its own interest and credibility through irritating phoniness and transparent shilling. These types of post have all the intellectual interest of a telemarketing pitch.
I make no secret of by disdain for the Clintons and opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But I try to be very frank about my reasons for that opposition: I don't trust Hillary Clinton with the security of the country and the security of my own loved ones because of her record on these issues over the past six years. And I also find Clinton to be an unprincipled, selfish and aimlessly ambitious power-seeker who can't be trusted to do the right thing in any area. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.
But Larry's intense animosity toward Obama is still something of a mystery to us all. None of the things he has posted strike one as significant enough to be the real reason behind his loathing.
It reminds me of Othello. Iago's villainous machinations against Othello are portrayed as mysteriously unmotivated. All we know for sure is that Iago is telling the truth when he says "I hate the Moor." The roots of Larry's feelings are similarly mysterious to me. It looks like he just hates the Moor.
January 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you rather Larry was on the street mugging old ladies rather than just trashing a certified clean black guy - by none other than Joe Biden?
Would Larry now like to explain how the woman running as the white woman candidate against a black guy managed a blizzard of trades of cattle futures with a crooked broker on her first day? Does he think she will not have to answer if she is nominated as a surrogate for Bill Clinton and the DLC? Might be one or two other questions - like for instance running a sexist, racist campaign?
My man John Edwards disgraced himself IMO by not objecting to the mugging of Obama on national TV but rather accusing the victim. I am having a hard time reconciling my support for Edwards with his pathetic response. It is no different with the studied silence of John McCain's opponents as he is Swiftboated.
All JMO. Make no mistake about it. My intention has always been to vote for Hillary when hell freezes over or McCain is nominated against her by the Republicans, whiehever comes first. I don't want another Republican representing us Democrats.
Best, Terry
January 23, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, and here I was casting Obama as Iago.
January 24, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suntimes, November 5, 2006 article interviewing Obama:
Q:. Have you or your wife participated in any other transactions of any kind with Rezko or companies he owns? Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies?
1. A: No.
So how straightforward do you think Obama is?
Oppo research frequently determines the outcome of campaigns rendering all the policy discussion in the world nugatory.
When Hillary's policies are discussed these are frequently dismissed with claims that the reThug attacks will insure that she is not elected. When it is pointed out that the same will be done to Obama, it is met with disbelief. Welcome to the reality-based community.
January 23, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are you saying that Obama is lying, AJM? Or is that information so secret that you can't share it?
Stop the allegations and cough up the data.
January 23, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The data are not precisely secret.
In Larry's post above, Obama this last Monday answers Blitzer as follows:
OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.
So his current answer is that he did five hours of legal work on a joint project between the church and Rezko.
The original question in the Suntimes was
Have you or your wife participated in any other transactions of any kind with Rezko or companies he owns? Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies?
1. A: No.
So compare that to the various letters Obama sent on behalf of the various projects that Obama's boss and Rezko were partners in.
So is Obama's initial answer withing the allowable limits of language -- doing a letter for a project is not precisely a transaction and doing five hours of legal work at one remove from Rezko is debatable and/or forgetable-- or is he attempting to blur the degree to which his law firm and perhaps himself are entertwined with Rezko?
January 24, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buddy, I know you're for Hillary and she's my second choice (after Edwards) and I really don't like Obama, but still...
You're going after Obama for his law firm's relationship with Rezko? And you support Hillary? Really? Because Rose law firm and billing records and Macdougals and Whitewaters and...
You know, we can beat Obama in a better way than this. I can forgive Obama for a casual business relationship with a questionable guy. If I couldn't, it'd be hard to support any politician at all. Hell, even Edwards worked for Fortress and Bill Clinton is buddies with Ron Burkle and Burkle's a union buster.
And give Obama some credit, he's well off but hardly wealthy. The Clintons were like that once. Indeed, they had money problems when Bill was governor of Arkansas, which is one of the reasons they associated with the Macdougals, who were probably people they'd have been better off not knowing, just like with Obama and Rezko.
Obama's a tempting target on this kind of thing since he claims to be some sort of new political paradigm (and he's clearly not) but let's please not get into the business of criticizing Obama for the exact kind of thing we'd defend in our favorite candidates.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't simply dismiss a major campaign contributor, someone he eats lunch with twice a year and someone he bought property with as merely someone who was a client of his law firm for whom he did about 5 billable hours of work. There is more there, and it won't go away just because he dismisses it.
Right now Obama is in the minor leagues and doing poorly trying to handle a mild version of what the Republicans do as a major exercise. The professional descendants of Lee Atwater will have Obama for lunch and then go looking for a sandwich.
It is my impression that for the Democrats to nominate Obama would mean electing a Republican President. Obama just doesn't seem ready for prime time, and all the statements of outrage that people have posted here merely because Larry brought up the issue will not change that. Larry is completely correct to lay out the situation.
January 23, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is "shillicious" a word yet? If not, how can I make it so?
January 22, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a big deal, but Obama is not off to a great start with it. A lot of rising politicians hook onto sugar daddies, who are usually not candidates for sainthood.
So Obama did nothing crooked, but he probably wasn't looking a gift horse in the mouth. That shouldn't be a problem, but he is not handling it well, and it is tougher when you are running as a demigod.
January 22, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not looking a gift horse in the mouth? Just which one of those biannual lunches do you think the matter of the property came up?
Obama acknowledges that he brought the matter to Rezko's attention -- it matters whether this was in casual conversation about Obama's life and Rezko thought up the offer which tempted Obama or whether is was more in the nature of Obama saying."Hey, you could help me out here -- you buy that nice investment property next door and I'll buy a strip at the market price."
Not to mention the fact that the property next door had been discussed for development of townhouses and I have heard nothing about Mrs. Rezko putting up any such thing.
January 23, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you trying to make a point with this drivel?
January 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, do we know whether or not Obama indulged on wishful thinking that it was okay to accept this favor because he paid market price and the whole idea started with Rezko or did Obama deliberately go looking for a favor?
January 24, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how this changes your innuendos and allegations of wrong-doing on Obama's part. Obama bought his house in 2005 and in 2006 bought a 10-foot strip of the adjoining lot, owned by Rezko's wife, for market price. Obama has since said that the 2006 transaction had the appearance of wrong-doing and it was bone-headed of him.
With the continuing bankruptcies with the Rezko properties, maybe the Rezkos needed money. That makes just as much sense as anything else you've said.
Really, get specific here. If you're just seeing smoke then say so. Folks have always seen plenty of smoke around some of the Clinton dealings--even She Who Must Be Voted For In The General Election.
January 24, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, when you claim that you walked the streets of a community, when you have a 17 year relationship with a man you call your political god father, you should know when that man had almost 30 buildings subsidized with federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, local government funds, and Chicago Equity Fund money that were going and went belly up. You should know that the projects were badly structured. That the project developer took out the developer fees, when typically the fees are kept in the projects to cover operating losses. When you eat at the trough with the pigs, you should make sure where the slop is coming from. Most of all, you should not blame the victims the tenants, when the projects fail. This was Obama's response to the Sun Times question:
A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article
Read what he is saying, this is truly horrid. He claims that the tenants and the neighborhood effd up the project. When it was the developer who put a bad deal, milked the project, missmanaged it and no one did anything about it. We are talking for hundreds of affordable rental units. No Mr. Obama, when these projects have good developers, good managers and good attorneys this does not happen.
This better get cleaned up now. This guy is a politician like all others. Not a saviour, not a saint. If he got so tripped up in Chicago politics, how will he handle the White House?
January 22, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Shillary stuff from Larry Johnson is embarrassing...
January 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign and its drones like Larry are really starting to play with fire with these low Atwater-style tactics. There are a lot of things that opponents could be bringing out against the Clintons - I think we all know roughly what they are - but have refrained from using so far in an effort to keep this campaign out of the gutter. But if the Clintons keep it up, eventually these issues are going to be dragged out of the realm of shadows and whispers and obscure web sites, and into the broader public sphere.
And it's not going to be the Obama campaign that uses this stuff; but other Democratic leaders who have decided enough is enough after sixteen years of the Clintons and their insane lust for power. If the Clintons feel the need to drag all of us down into the muck to prove to themselves that everyone else in the world is equally as depraved and compromised as they are, then they are going to expose themselves to the full brunt of the issues that, so far, Democratic opponents have been too decorous to mention.
Perhaps it is time for the Clintons to step aside, and put the future in the hands of some decent human beings. Obama or Edwards - either one would be a breath of fresh air, and a major improvement over the morally sickening miasma that has hovered over the Clintons since they have been on the national scene.
January 22, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes wouldn't that be ever so noble of the Clintons, with their insane lust for power, to step aside.
Since Hillary is merely running for president, and Obama is also running for president, then obviously they both have an insane lust for power.
If you think Hillary and Bill are sinking to Lee Atwater lows, just wait until Obama wins the nomination and goes up against the Republican machine. If he can't weather these minor political primary infarctions without his supports reaching for the fainting couch, what are you, and he, going to do when the entire GOP propaganda machine, with the full support of the mainstream media, start making hay with his past.
They'll turn the Messiah in the Devil quicker than you can say bipartisanship.
January 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The insane lust for power is not manifested simply by the fact that Clinton is running for President. Many people run for President. The insane lust for power is shown in the bodies of the broken, intimidated, ruined and degraded individuals lying in the trail the Clintons have carved through the American political landscape
January 23, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who would those people be, Dan?
January 23, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He means the ones on that video Jerry Falwell was selling.
January 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Pollard, for one.
January 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The spy? That's the name you come up with?
January 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who would those people be, Dan?
Well, for starters just about every one of the women that Bill Clinton ever groped, fondled and harassed - and in a few cases possibly worse - most of whom have subsequently been subjected to public ridicule and Team Clinton intimidation as a consequence of their unfortunate collision with that debauched and abusive Arkansas polecat.
The Clintons also have a rather well-documented pattern of getting other people to take the fall for their misdeeds, as they have scramble upward on behalf of themselves.
The narcissistic Clinton freak show has been a rolling train wreck, and a national embarrassment - particularly for Democrats. Has Bill Clinton ever apologized to Democrats for squandering the administration Democratic voters gave him? Has he ever said, "I'm sorry that I fumbled away all that potential for significant national progress in the 90's because, even in the Oval Office, I couldn't keep my hands out of the pants of the first easy and naive piece of ass that strolled by?"
The man is a pathological liar and comically typical redneck snake-oil peddler. He has all the dignity of a trenchcoated Middle-aged perv sticking his member in some redlight district glory hole. I'm filled with disgust every time I see his face. And the thought of having to endure four more years of that puffy mug, with his lip-biting "feel your pain" cheap seat overacting, literally makes me nauseous.
And he is now the public face of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Brilliant.
January 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read a little bit more about this. Start with Gene Lyons' "Fools For Scandal" and then read Lyons and Conason's "The Hunting of the President" or Toobin's book or any of the other books written about this. We taxpayers spent over 100 million dollars examining and investigating every moment of the Clintons' lives and found nothing.
178 Reagan administration officials were indicted for malfeasance and misfeasance in office - 58 were convicted. How many in the Clinton administration? 0. Zero. Zip. Nada.
But a blow job "disgusts" you. Have the republicans ever apologized for impeaching a president for getting a blow job in office?
Good god, a cockhound in the oval office! Who could have imagined anything like that would ever happen?
January 23, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, I think you are in deep denial about the reality of Bill Clinton's sordid history. It's certainly not just a matter of a blow job, which is at least a consensual act. You know as well as I do that there are a large number of women involved, many of whom have made credible allegations on non-consensual, clearly illegal acts - acts followed up by intimidation on the part of Clinton associates. Perhaps you would like to go through the rather long list and tell me exactly which of these women you think are lying, and which ones are not. And with respect to those who you think are not lying, perhaps you could tell us why you are willing to overlook Clinton's offenses.
And I hardly think a reading list composed only of Clinton partisans like Conason and Toobin is sufficient for a full picture. And the "Republicans are worse" line is hardly a defense. Of course they are. But that has nothing to do with Bill Clinton and what he has done.
January 23, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah you mean the way Obama pushed out all the other Dems from the ballot when he was running for State Senate? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?page=4&ctrack=6&cset=true
Well, imagine this. Everyone steps aside, and the Republicans get the story. Are you willing to lose then? If not then you need to read the Sun Articles and question the saviour. He is a Chicago Politician. He called Rezk his political godfather. 17 year relationship then Rezk is indicted and basically steals the money from 30 affordable housing projects. Obama did not know? He did not wonder? He did not ask? If he got so stupid in little town Chicago, what do you think they will do with him in DC? What will Putin do to him? Are you guys for real? This is really dirty stuff. His incompetence and self promotion hurt a whole lot of people and wasted a lot of Housing resources.
January 22, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
List the facts--supported by TWO sources and not an article from a perhaps dubious reporter. We right now have an ABC news story over on Election Central that should be a cautionary tale about the ethics of some of our journalists.
So spit out two independent sources for each fact and let's talk.
Otherwise, you're engaged in smears and I'll keep calling you on it.
January 23, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again Larry, making people mad because you are tough on Obama.
Folks, let me throw out a different scenario which you may accept or reject as you please, but I do think you're kind of missing Larry's point.
Here's the deal, whether Larry is for Hillary or not is really not relevant other than as a footnote. There is either substance to Larry's points or not. If there is, it doesn't really matter if he's for Hillary. The point he's making is that Obama isn't being honest about his relationship with the Chicago developer. His response in the debate was not good.
I think there is real substance in what Larry is pointing out here and it's very important that people understand the point which is Obama's poor handling of the issue and what it means for his ability to be effective as a candidate in the fall. Obama claimed in the debate that he essentially had little or no relationship with this guy who is under indictment I believe and that claim is clearly and demonstrably untrue. Obama's long term relationship with this guy has been covered and reported on now for a year or more. Yet, when Hillary makes her charge about Obama working for "a slumlord" Obama's response was weak at best and certainly misleading.
I'm not saying Obama is even necessarily damaged by his relationship with the guy, but the fact that he's being less than honest about his relationship with the man is the problem here. Obama will be damaged by appearing to lie about his relationship with the developer. He clearly had a longstanding political and personal relationship with the man. He appeared to be denying that in the debate and that's a very unwise thing to do.
If Obama cannot answer this easy to foresee charge about the Chicago developer in question, he's going to be eaten alive by the Republicans in the fall. Hillary's motivation for using this line of attack is naturally to damage Obama as much as possible. But her use of this attack, beside being the negative tactic it is, highlights something very important which is that Obama has to be able to deflect such attacks deftly and satisfactorily or he's dead meat in the fall.
Hillary, of course, wants people then to conclude that they should vote for her which I think would be far worse than nominating Obama. Hillary and her people seem to think she is a sort of Tony Montana figure who has been in many gun battles and survived them and is consequently tougher and smarter than ever. But methinks Hillary and crew are forgetting the final scene of the picture when we learn that even Tony Montana in all his defiant glory cannot survive the hailstorm of hot lead his enemies rain down upon him. The same is true for her. She is already fatally flawed in the eyes of far too many voters not to be highly vulnerable to ongoing Republican attacks in the fall. They'll relish the opportunity. If Hillary were to be nominated and win the election it would be only by the tiniest of margins and that is a real shame given that 08 ought to be another 1964 for the Democrats. But none of this diminishes the fact that Obama's response to her point about the developer was deceptive and misleading which it was.
I won't vote for Hillary come hell or high water so please don't accuse me of supporting her or doing her dirty work. I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee, but nobody can get around the fact that he's essentially been politically untested at the federal level. This incident pulls back the veil of St. Obama and highlights his genuine lightweight status. His election to the Senate was a joke against Alan Keyes who even the Republicans didn't support. He's never had a difficult race and it shows. His inexperience is self evident. Endearing in some ways perhaps, but still quite apparent. JFK was similar in age to Obama but had been in Congress a considerable amount of time prior to running for President and he was very saavy, agile, and prepared to take on the heavyweights of his party and of the opposition as he demonstrated very well in 1960. Obama doesn't have that same level of experience or saavy.
This attack about his relationship with the developer was easily predicted and may well be easily parried. I don't know because Obama did such a poor job of responding to the charge. Obama clearly was/is not well prepped to answer this charge. If he can't answer the easy ones, how's he gonna handle the unexpected and more difficult ones? The answer is he's going to handle them very poorly.
People need to remember that Obama is just another politician, another human being. He's cool. Everyone seems to like him. But, he is not someone who is all that different from any other politician or any of us for that matter. This whole facade of Obama the political miracle worker, wonderboy, savior of civility in politics is not real and all the PR in the world isn't going to stop the Republicans from going after him on any and everything.
All they need to do to finish off Obama is remove the protective illusion that somehow Obama is different, better, above it all and they can beat him easily. How? By simply painting him as just another "liberal" big-city politician who's in it for himself. That's the Republican's stock in trade. They always want to blur the differences between our candidates and their scumbags. They way it's done is to tarnish the reputation of the good guy to the point where they can credibly claim (in the minds of the average uninformed voter) that they are essentially the same. It's conceivable that he could survive the Republican assault in the fall, but if he were to gain the nomination and then get elected it will be only by the slimmest of margins instead of leading Democrats to the overwhelming, 1964-style, landslide against the GOP.
So folks, look at it from this perspective and I think you'll see that while Larry may make his point in a less than genteel fashion--it's a good and valid point to bring to the fore. If Obama ends up being the nominee then we should all go into the fall with our eyes wide open about his vulnerabilities whether or not we want to think about them.
January 23, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the voice of reason to me.
As for honesty: I thought Obama's weaker responses during the last debate were dwarfed by his honest and admission that that none of the candidates comes to the race with completely clean hands.
But I don't think that Obama is just another politician. He strikes me as more real, modern, and intelligent than most. His current success demonstrates his intelligence. And like Edwards, he's already shown more leadership than I've seen in a long time with his message about empowering and mobilizing voters for change.
I am still waiting for Obama to go on the record with more specifics about the type of changes he would make, but he has already shown himself to be different in a good way.
January 23, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is important not to have blinders on about any candidate, but I find the insistence of many who support Obama on wearing blinders pretty disturbing. I agree with you that the feel one gets from Obama is that he is smarter and certainly more modern. That does not make him anything beyond just another politician. It makes him a pretty good one and I think anyone would acknowledge that. Pointing out that someone is just a good politician and not a messiah is not a criticism, but it does burst the bubble of those who want desperately to believe this is so.
I'm concerned that far too many Democrats have put themselves into some sort of protective fog about the man and are unwilling to recognize that he just isn't all that different or special, etc... It's all hype that he cannot live up to and if you look objectively it is clear he will not live up to. He exhorts people to hope but not specifically which is a great campaign rallying cry but also an indicator that a good politician is manipulating the elctorate for victory. To hope that tis manipulation is more meaningful than it usually is because the man making the statements is smart, good looking and not white is unrealistic. If he were actually proposing some substantial change in anything beyond the tone of political debate and managing political compromises there might be some reason to suspect this hope is well founded, but he isn't proposing anything that is a meaningful change in how the federal government operates, etc...
That's not a criticism of him, it's a plea for people not to be fooled in terms of what they're buying into. Like Hillary, Obama is just a politician and that's all there is too it. It's fine for folks to support him because they prefer him, but to fool one's self into thinking he is more than he really is, is, in my opinion, very unwise.
As evidence that he and she are just typical (though very successful) politicians I look at what's been going on since Iowa. It has struck me, the past three weeks especially, the similarity this "campaign" for President has to a race for Alderman or Mayor in a big city. Both camps are doing little more than playing interest group politics: cultivating wealthy and influential donors especially to the extent possible to raise enough cash to make emotional appeals to the most important blocs of voters based on their demographics. She tends to emphasize the female vote and older, more traditional Democrats. He tends to emphasize African-American voters (as he's clearly been doing especially in SC), the young and independent white, well educated voters looking for something different. She makes vague (and often thinly supported claims) regarding experience, competence, and toughness combined with her constant reminders of gender. He makes vague claims to be an agent of change but proposes little or nothing that is markedly different from any policy she has proposed. They are reduced, as any similar products are, to emphasizing small differences in order to create contrast in the minds of voters (consumers)in hopes of getting them to choose/buy their candidate (product)on election day. The two products (if tested) essentially taste, look, smell and feel the same when used but the packaging is different. Understanding full well that the policy differences between the two candidates are few and far between and that those that do exist are not all that substantial, they and their campaigns have resorted to the typical tactics of Aldermanic and Mayoral candidates across the land: accusations, nasty comments, subtle insults and not so subtle derision toward the opponent personally.
I point this out to highlight that all this is clear evidence that what we're seeing is nothing more than politics as usual. Neither of these two candidates discusses any substantial, important, fundamental changes they will bring to Washington. With both of them it is primarily smoke and mirrors. They are appealing at a very base, emotional level and telling voters what they want to hear. None of this is a sin, but all of it is typical political behavior from typical politicians, not people who are special, different in some way or above the run of the mill. They are playing a major league game and have skills that are commensurate to that level, but the only really different or unique things about either of them is gender for her and race for him. If elected, both will pretty much be standard Washington DC Democrats which means the hopes raised with their election will likely go unfulfilled because they are, in fact, proposing only to change the faces at the top. They are decidedly not proposing to change the balance of power in Washington to put the average American back in charge.
Neither of them speaks with any passion or specificity about the genuine crises we face in the nation after two terms of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history. They could, but they don't. Why? In my opinion, it's because they are typical politicians representing the same things most of them do: the status quo but with a tweak here or there to fine tune what is essentially a system working pretty well. They don't talk about what is going on in our country as a crisis because they don't believe that's what is going on though many of us living out her in the real America are increasingly alarmed about these crises.
Neither of them concede that corporate power and corruption have fundamentally skewed the social contract in our country and that needs to be fixed or we eventually will see our democratic system go by the wayside. Neither of them discuss the importance of putting an immediate end to the police state tactics implemented these past 7 years regarding spying on citizens, torture, habeus corpus, etc... Neither discuss bringing the illegal, immoral war in Iraq to an end as quickly as possible. Neither of them discuss evem taking a look at restoring some responsibility to our financial and banking system. There is no shortage of very critical crises spawned or exacerbated by the crooks in charge of DC since 2000. But they don't talk about any of this as though we face a crisis--not because they are bad or evil but because they are typical, run of the mill politicians.
What neither of them represents is any significant departure from what Democrats have delivered to our citizens in the past generation. Occassionally rousing rhetoric about getting America moving again and putting the government to work for the average person, but because they are not committed to a genuine realignment of the power structure in DC, they will fail to deliver on any of that. The best we can hope from either of them is good appointments, competent adminstration of the government and hopefully not too much capitulation to the corporate power that rules the national government.
Bottom line is: it's important that people have a clear, realistic view of exactly what is going on, who the leading candidates are, their abilities, strengths and weaknesses. In Obama's specific case, he is just another politician. Don't expect more. It isn't realistic or fair either to yourself or to him. If you do, you'll be very disappointed.
January 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's very wearing to have my support of a candidate characterized as putting him on a pedestal and having sky-high and unrealistic expectations. It really is an arrogant characterization. I'm very practical in my support.
It seems very clear to me that the Democratic Party needs a serious shake-up. I suspect that the establishment figures like the Clintons will be not be up to that. I thought Dean might be able to--but that didn't work out because he's simply not a good campaigner or a good manager.
Obama is my choice....but he certainly isn't my god. I do admit to enjoying oratorical skills after years of Bush II mangling of the language. If you want to have at me for that enjoyment, feel free.
January 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb,
You are sooo preaching to the choir if you directed this response to me: "I think it is important not to have blinders on about any candidate, but I find the insistence of many who support Obama on wearing blinders pretty disturbing."
Go see my posts:
Jan 5 (martin luther king)
Jan 6 (what argument can be used)
Jan 9 (if I don't vote for Obama)
Jan 9 (the chicago tribune story)(see the all-out-attack and low rating that just posting a link that put Obama's record in question brought on)
Jan 9 (my highest hopes)
There are probably many more like these if you want to look for them.
A few other things:
I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent who wouldn't dream of voting another Republican into office until somebody with some sense in their head and ability to lead gets hold of that runaway train they call the Republican party.
I am glad you responded as you did though, because what you are saying needs to be said and you said it very well.
Your third paragraph from the bottom lists all the reasons that I feel Edwards is the best choice.
As for this statement you make:
"Neither of them speaks with any passion or specificity about the genuine crises we face in the nation after two terms of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history."
I agree that Obama is not specific enough. But your statement above is not fair to Obama who HAS passionately discussed the need to come together to reduce the power of special interests. Edwards gets credit for leading on this,but Obama has talked plenty about the issue. Nonetheless, for any leader to educate the voters about this problem in a national election is NEW and it's the KEY to resolving ANY of those things you list IF the public is also mobilized to back up leaders who want to resolve this problem. So give Obama credit for this; he earned it.
Obama could have more easily promoted the status quo and placated the special interests as Hillary has done--and many in the public would continue to be half-aware of the problem. Lack of education about the key problems combined with the consequences of voter apathy is a huge part of what got us into such a mess. So again, credit to Obama and especially Edwards.
Edwards led on this issue, but he has no Senate seat to lose. That makes Obama's willingness to make this a part of the national discussion VERY courageous.
Watch Hillary, she acts like THE issue (money in campaigns) is just a pesky fly on the wall. She didn't even use the word special interests until after was clear that Edwards beat her because of his willingness to tell the truth and educate people on the subject. She didn't even use the word until it became clear that Obama was going further on this subject than he had initially and achieving great success because of it. (People aren't stupid. They don't always have the time to see past the smoke and mirrors to the main issues, but they know when somebody is giving them some meat)
On this statement:
"Neither of them concede that corporate power and corruption have fundamentally skewed the social contract in our country and that needs to be fixed or we eventually will see our democratic system go by the wayside."
You hit the nail on the head, and I feel like a broken record I've said similar things so often. But again, I have wondered if Obama is trying to say this in a somewhat general way to avoid unleashing an all out attack against him and also to avoid being labeled as a FEAR monger by the MSM and Republicans. (Imagine how that label would play out in a GE)
Also, is it possible that it's not smart to harp on how bad things really are if that would cause a loss of the very heart needed to mobilize the will to make it better?
I think Obama's, "yes we can" encouragement is the generous gift of a minority kid who grew up with one parent and is intimately familiar with how to beat odds. I think it's very rare for someone to be able to inspire so many in the way Obama does. This is a rare gift that the citizens of this country need if we are going to have the will and the heart to make real changes. He's not your average politician. (well, maybe yours, but not mine)
Finally, in case you didn't read the last part of my post, I concluded with the fact that I am still waiting for Obama to go on the record with more specifics about the type of changes he would make. To date, that's the biggest problem I have with Obama.
January 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand where you're coming from, but I can't give Obama as many passes as you seem willing to.
His entire schitck is not only nothing new, but a kind of standard, moderate Democratic position. The message of this strategy is:
"We need to bring everyone to the table and hash it all out in good faith. We need to expand our coalition to include Republicans and Independents. Only by having this broad coalition can we achieve the real and lasting reforms we seek."
It's been done over and over. The real problem with it is that while it often can succeed in getting a politician elected it is not a strategy for achieving anything beyond half-measures. It almost always fails. This whole line of thinking and strategy is the primary mantra of Democrats in Washington and look what it has gotten us? The truth is all this namby pamby talk of bringing Republicans along is a fantasy many have, but something that is just plain dumb given the circumstances we face today. What is needed is a Democratic majority with enough balls to defy the corporate interest and their Republican puppets and to simply refuse to allow those who've nearly destroyed the nation to derail those efforts.
I just read on the front page of TPM that Reid and the other cowards who call themselves Democrats in the Senate are even now, once again, plotting to let Bush and the telecom companies get away scott free after clearly, knowingly and maliciously breaking our laws and spying on American citizens without any warrant or even probably cause. This is the brand of Democrat Obama is. Many, of those Senators who are going to support this most Un-American of bills are "moderate" Democrats who support Obama. They are capitulationists who serve the interests of their corporate masters'not those of the people. Obama himself may not cast a vote in support of this, but my point is not this bill alone but the entire strategy and approach he claims to want to pursue. Again, it has been tried and tried and tried now for theirty odd years and it is a formula for defeat, not success.
If, as you surmise, Obama is masquerading as a moderate out of fear of attack from the right and the media he will discover (if elected) that once this position is taken he has no possible chance of suddenly becoming who he really is because he will have no mandate to take real action. He will only have any kind of mandate for accomodation and compromise (aka surrender). If you are correct, it is a naive strategy at best. I suspect, however, that you're not correct. Obama has no intention of suddenly becoming what so many of his supporters pray he is despite no evidence at all this is the case. It's genuinely astonishing how many people seem to think he really doesn't mean it when he talks about joining with the Republicans and corporations to get things done and that he'll magically start "taking them on" once elected. this is wishful thinking in the extreme if you ask me. But I've got news for you: he does mean it and he is not going to challenge them. He has only just begun to even say that the corporate lobbyists should be "overcome" as he put it. Again, very naive. Been tried. Doesn't work.
As for his inspirational qualities, again it seems that you (like many others) are projecting much on this man whose existence is inspiring, but when I listen to his words I hear the same platitudes and pablum Democrats have been spouting for decades and upon which they never deliver. He would be a whole lot more inspirational if he were honest with the American people about why their government doesn't work for them which is because of the total imbalance of power. The corporations have nearly all the power now and this has grotesquely distorted our system of government, our economy and our society as a whole. Obama never talks about what must be done only that "we can" do whatever that unspecified somethig is. If he's really interested in accomplishing something significant he needs to be saying what it is "we can" accomplish quite specifically. He doesn't do this because he isn't going to accomplish any real change in anything.
January 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read George Packer's article in The New Yorker on the Clinton v. Obama theories of governing? If you haven't, you might enjoy it, it might help you sort more of your thoughts out along these lines. Some of what you are getting at here reminded me of it.
January 24, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's been done over and over."
"It almost always fails. "
"Again, it has been tried and tried and tried now for theirty odd years and it is a formula for defeat, not success."
"Again, very naive. Been tried. Doesn't work."
I think you are right on about a lot of things, but the border between realism and pessimism is in clear view here.
Should we all just throw in the towel because Oleeb predicts no possibility of anything different from unproven candidates who have not even been elected? Does the past dictate the future? How did man ever make it to the moon? First try successful?
The primary isn't even over yet. The general election hasn't yet begun. Is it possible Obama will find a way to get more specific and preempt attacks?
What would your ideal candidate's strategy be if they were planning to shake up a system in which crooks were about to lose trillions of taxpayer dollars and unwarranted influence?
Maybe all those who failed before Obama--though I disagree that many have tried his exact approach-- have set him up to avoid the same pitfalls?
I hypothesized that Obama might be laying low on specifics to ward off attacks. I agree that Obama does mean that he will sit down and negotiate with corporate interests and everybody else. Knowing a bit about negotiation, I feel confident that If he comes to that old table with the same old players as a new president with a new mandate for change and a mobilized majority of the electorate, we're more likely to see some change. Because if this happens, those on the side of progress and change will have enough leverage to force some real changes. Otherwise, he'd likely go down in flames after one term with the distinction of best con artist.
January 24, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya, the difference between us is really just how much leeway you give Obama vs how much I would. I don't give him much at all because I believe past experience demonstrates just how the results will unfold when you take the approach he's selling voters.
You are right that we're more likely to see change if he comes to the table with a mandate and "those on the side of progress and change" have enough juice in combination with a President you'd have enough leverage.
But, IMHO, the actual forces of progress and change among DC Democrats are much fewer than most people assume. Remember, most of these alleged forces have been rolling over on command their entire congressional careers when it comes to what their corporate owners want. Yes, they'll come up with all kinds of good excuses, but the truth is that Obama coming to the table with the approach he is hawking out there on the campaign trail will find himself a very lonely man indeed.
The only way to line up enough votes to force change in Washington is to understand in advance that the full weight of the Presidency will be necessary to apply maximum force---not to Republicans, but to Democrats in Congress who, at the first sign of displeasure by the corporate interests, will be looking to reach across the aisle and screw the average American big time. It hasn't been Republicans defeating progressive measures in Congress for the better part of the last 30 or so years: it has been Democrats who side with Republicans or capitulate to them in the interest of "compromise" and "bipartisanship". This is a big reason why I am so completely skeptical when I hear or see Obama offering us up this same old song and dance once again.
There's no way to win this fight without understanding you're in a fight and telling the American people that's what it is. Furthermore, you have to tell them who we have to defeat, who is chickening out and so on.
There's no indication at all, no eivdence whatsoever that Obama understands the necessity of this approach. None. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he believes (and many of his supporters do too) that the key is to elect him President so he can work his magic of bringing people together.
And no, I dont' expect anyone to believe this is true just because I say so. But the fact is, I'm not the only one saying so. I'm not saying that an unproven candidate can't succeed. I'm saying that a strategy that has been proven repeatedly to fail will not work just because Obama is trying it. There are plenty of people pointing these same things out, but most folks are so wrapped up hoping Obama is "laying low" or hoping not to draw too much fire, etc... that they are paying no attention to those of us who have seen it all before and understand that the defnition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
January 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the informative exchange, Oleeb.
No doubt plenty on both sides in Congress have so little self-respect that they fraudulently take up seats reserved for public servants. And thus far, the ones who are public servants haven't yet proven themselves smart enough to solve that problem.
A president Obama wouldn't be lonely at all sitting at the negotiation table with a mandate for change and the support of millions of voters. And I mean voters who are ready to go to the polls and vote out any Democrats in Congress who work against a mandate for real change. If he brings voters ready to make changes, he brings the Congress people they vote for, too. He'll have all kinds of friends at that table.
Of course this coalition would also have to muster up some new candidates able to define "public service." And those candidates would have to agree to public funding so we didn't have more of the same. (like you said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!)
"There's no way to win this fight without understanding you're in a fight and telling the American people that's what it is. Furthermore, you have to tell them who we have to defeat, who is chickening out and so on."
"There's no indication at all, no eivdence whatsoever that Obama understands the necessity of this approach. None. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he believes (and many of his supporters do too) that the key is to elect him President so he can work his magic of bringing people together."
So true. But again, if you were working on Obama's campaign and intended to mobilize people to resolve more than the fact that you wanted to call the oval office home, when would you think it best to start naming names and unleash the attacks? Also, there's a limit to the amount of detail lots of voters want to hear. Most just want a president who will work effectively for the greater good, keep his word and talk strait.
Edwards is a close case in point for you, because he has come the closest to doing what you suggest Obama would do if he were any different and Edwards was quickly undermined.
Once Edwards beat Hillary in the first caucus and it was clear his very direct and honest approach was so effective with the voters, Edwards was promptly undermined by those "experts" the media pays (most of them practically ignored his win over Hillary, or offhandedly dismissed it, or promptly labeled him the angry candidate, then drummed on that hour after hour till the people half-listening probably began to think they were the ones who came up with the label)
Well, I hope we all find the candidate you describe and he isn't taken down by the media and pundits. Until then, Edwards is my first choice, then Obama.
January 24, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The time to name the enemies of progress for our people is now, not later. Only by doing so now will there be any mandate for fighting them. The "let's all come together" approach gets you a mandate for nothing because it is incredibly vague and your loose coalition falls to pieces quickly and with little effort by the opposition when you try and move off that vague mark.
I agree most just want an effective, honest President. But frankly, it is dishonest for Obama to be running on this vague pablum when he knows that it won't produce the results he is promising. I can excuse his supporters for being bamboozled on this point, but if he doesn't understand this is the case, then he's too naive to be President.
Edwards' problems are not because of his message. Indeed, his continued staying power despite being blacked out by corporate media proves that. The media has frozen him out because they prefer having a contest between the first credible/electable female candidate vs the first credible/electable black candidate. They also prefer interest group politics because that leaves the fundamental issues of social and economic inequality on the cutting room floor. The wealthy don't want the discussion to focus on the fact that most of our problems stem from the massive inequities our society has created and allowed to persist.
Like most candidates in most races in this age, Obama has chosen winning over accomplishing. The rationale, as usual, is that once elected he will do the necessary work to switch gears drmatically and take on the special interests. But that never occurs and there are clear, concrete reasons why. In order to get a different result you have to run on and win on a different platform. If Obama and his people were not entirely entrenched in Washington think, they would already have made this shift. But because the Obama campaign and candidacy is a Washington driven phenomenon they are simply using the "hope" and "change" and "yes we can" slogans and slogans alone. That doesn't mean there are no good intentions behind the slogans, but that's all they are and all they will ever be.
The difference, in my opinion, between Obama and Edwards is that Edwards learned in 04 what Obama has yet to learn which is when you play that DC game, it doesn't achieve the goals you want to achieve. In fact, it impedes progress toward those goals (as it has for decades now)and actually produces more despair and hopelessness as opposed to hope.
Like you, I'll vote for Obama, not as a first choice but if I have to vote for Obama, I'll not do so expecting any more from him than any run of the mill DC Democrat because as likeable and attractive a candidate as he is, he's still just a politician. Only the packaging is different, not the substance.
January 25, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a masterful politician due to a combination of intellect, judgment and leadership. That is what makes him brilliant and has catapaulted him onto the national scene. Although, it is not acknowledged in the media, Obama is running toe to toe with politicians who have been on the national scene for 15 years and he had to start from scratch. That makes him far more than just another politician. Biden, Dodd nor Kucinich with all their experience could accomplish what Obama has politically in 3 short years on the national scene. To say that he is a pretty good politician is a gross understatement.
This is a misrepresentation of Obama's campaign. He did not emphasize African American voters in his campaign. In fact, Hillary has had a double digit lead over him in terms of the black vote since the beginning of the campaign, until her and Bill decided to introduce a biased racial tone into the campaign with the remarks of Sheheen, a fired HRC campaign supporter and Bill Clinton. Hillary at the same time has consistently introduced the gender card.
What we are witnessing is two very different styles of leadership and two very different visions for the direction of this country. Hillary believes is wielding power and engaging our military might globally to resolve problems while caving to corporate interests when it comes to the economy. Obama believe in working with dissent and opposing views to find solutions to the nations problems while engaging in robust diplomacy as the primary focus of our foreign policy to restore our stature in the global community. These are the primary character contrast we need to choose between. We have a politician with a track record of good judgment who gets it right the first time and a politician who claims that she is ready to lead on the first day despite having a track record of poor judgment that does not learn from mistakes with all the experience she has acrued she repeats her errors of judgment as the K-L bill attests to as well as the 'mandatory' requirement in her national healthcare proposal.
I am uncertain how you have acquired this perception but it is false. Obama speaks consistently about restoring our govenrment to the people and taking it out of the entrenched corporate interests in DC. His vision for the country encompasses the awareness that we need a grass roots movement in order to restore our democracy to the citizens. He tells the electorate that people who love their country can in the face of incredible odds, take back their country. No campaign is going to be able to give specifics about the details of how they will do anything as the circumstances and situations that will come about in their administration is unpredictable. What the candidates do is tell us their vision for what the direction they would like to see the nation go and what policies they are proposing to do that. A list of those policies as you know are on Obama's website.
Not so. As a constitutional scholar who taught con law at the U of chicago, Obama has spoken out against torture, habeus corpus and as a state legislature he fought to ensure that detainees had all confessions taped. Obama has stated he will restore habeus corpus and uphold the Geneva Convention. Obama as a rookie senator worked to ensure that the language in the Patriot Act did not strip us of our civil rights just as warrantless wiretapping. Obama has also spoken about the need for greater banking and mortgage lending regulations so that banks can't engage in predatory lending practices or charge consumers unlimited credit fees. Obama did voted against the bankruptcy bill for that very reason, whereas Hillary voted for it.
January 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is it that you think Obama has accomplished in the past three years? I'm not being snarky at all here. I'm unaware of anything substantial. Seems to me his primary accomplishment thus far has been achieving fame and raising lots of money in his run for President. That's not a slight. I'm just unaware of any significant accomplishments of his. I honestly don't think he has any significant legislative accomplishments and certainly don't know of any. He isn't running on his legislative accomplishments in DC. I'm all ears.
January 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite is the restoration of funding to secure nuclear materials. That's followed by the Congressional ethics package which was long overdue. (And Hillary complained about it but failed to mention she didn't help negotiate it and that her complaint is for an older piece that wasn't under consideration....after the fact criticism is very unhelpful, IMO.) Another is transparency with posting legislation on the Internet.
I think that's a fairly good record for a freshman US Senator. In the state, I am particularly fond of how he gathered a consensus to videotape confessions. I agreed with the end result and I'm a bit stunned he convinced the initial opponents to change their minds.
And perhaps you don't think these are significant compared to quite naive complaints that he didn't single-handedly cut off funding for Iraq.
January 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I really do not consider these significant accomplishments at all. I don't think he's done a bad job, I just don't think he's got an impressive record of accomplishment. He is a solid, typical, average Senator. Nothing wrong with that.
January 25, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a politician who is "real?" Gimme a break. A "real" politician is an oxymoron as clear as "military intelligence" is. Faking "real" is another job requirement for any successful politician. They put it on and wear it like a costume when they step out the door.
Obama just looks "real"because he hasn't been around on the national stage long enough for anyone to get behind the "reality" veneer yet. But he's on the national stage now, and his opponents will get behind that veneer and expose him. You Obama true-believers can complain all you want, but Obama's "reality" veneer will disappear very soon. Your objections to raising the issue won't stop the process. It's up to him to deal with it, and he hasn't.
Since the Kennedy's I have learned that there are no different politicians, just politicians who reflect their constituencies. The successful ones also have the ability to deal with negative campaigning, and I haven't see that from Obama yet.
Perhaps Obama can't deal with negative campaigning and is making a virtue of necessity when he comes up with his Kumbaya politics? I can see why he would. It was a key to Bush's success in 2000. "Bring a better tone to Washington and work with the Democrats." Remember that? That was the previous label for Obama's Kumbaya politics. It wasn't workable then, it is less workable now, but it is still a fantasy that resonates with a lot of voters.
January 23, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are politicans prior to Bush II, you know. The theme of WDC pols needing to go and the leadership of the party requiring change and even handing things to younger people are not unknown trends. There is nothing that unusual in Obama's challenge.
I am quite glad that the primary wasn't decided after Iowa. I want the primary to extend PAST Super Tuesday until every last person has been heard from. We'll have plenty of time to see how Obama handles negative campaigning since it seems quite obvious that the Clintons are up to the slinging of mud.
I certainly hope we fight all the way down to the last vote being counted in the primary and then we can repeat it in the general election.
January 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And a politician who is "real?" Gimme a break."
I said "MORE real."
"You Obama true-believers..."
I guess since this is the second response to my post here that assumes I am a "true-believer," I must have been unclear. (see response to Oleeb if you want details)
January 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your reference criteria for success, winning the election? Can you name a great President who dealt with negative campaigning of the nature we have today? It seems to me that we do not need successful politicians what we need are great leaders and those talents are not judged by the ability to handle negative campaigns but rather on the ability to lead and have a vision for the country.
A successful politican is typically one who is corrupt and owned by special interests groups and who knows how to not only lie well but who basically has no record of accomplishment to state on and so they engage in negative campaigning to shift the focus away from themselves and onto their opponent. Individuals like that do not make great Presidents nor are they typically decent human beings who believe in honesty and integrity above and beyond their own personal ambitions.
January 23, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Larry is right to raise the issue . 2. Hillary was right to raise the question she did of the legal work he did on behalf of Rezko. 3. He answered it: 5 hours not on behalf of Rezko but on behalf of a client's transaction with Rezko. 4. For the sake of full disclosure ,he could have gone further and disclosed his involvement with Rezko in a personal real estate transaction. I don't think it was dishonest that he did not volunteer that information. He answered the question . 5. But the general matter of his personl involvement with Rezko will be raised again. That's worrying because.... 6. He appears evasive when he tries to defend himself even on a less fraught matter such as voting "present". 7. And OBTW he gave hostages to fortune in allowing Rezko to help him in buying real estate. "If you'd sup with the devil you need a long spoon". I know , I know . He wanted to do good as an organizer but he also wanted his family to have at least a little of the benefits that might be expected to come to the President of the Harvard Law Review.So would I in his place. So would most of us. Perhaps thinking that we could control the involvement. That it's possible to be just a little bit dishones.
8. While I don't think the Rezko relationship itself is a show stopper for his campaign this unsatisfactory demeanor when replying to an attack may be . 9. Those of you who are Obama supporters rather than attacking Larry for raising this issue should be trying to influence O's campaign to deal with his defensiveness . 10. My personal guess is that O wants to see himself as a better human being than most politicians- as his campaign portrays him. But he's not.Altho immensely talented he's a normal human being who makes mistakes. He's got to admit that to himself in order to deal effectively with political attacks on those mistakes.
January 23, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
BS. There's nothing the Hillary campaign would like more than pulling Obama down in the mud hole the Clintons have been living in. The Clintons want to even things up and knock Obama's halo off. That is certainly their aim.
Now, you don't like Obama's answers. Tough. The truth is the truth.
Provide facts on where Obama is lying or fudging and we'll talk more. Otherwise, you're just smearing.
January 23, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me distinguish.
I am chiefly bothered by the fact that when neither lying nor fudging he defends himself poorly. For example on voting "present" in Illinois. On every site users found his answer confusing and/or unconvincing. His saying that it was unfair not to acknowledge his 1400 other good votes, came across as irrelevant whining.If you don't deal with the item on which you've been attacked no one is interested in what you talk about instead.
Having read the letter from the President of Illinois Planned Parenthood about O's "present" votes on family planning matters I knew he had an excellent case. Which he didn't make. We've had Swiftboating and Willy Horton. We can't have that again.
As to fudging, that is the case with his relationship with Rezco. This tough slum lord did a personal favor for Obama when O wanted to purchase some land. Maybe there was never a quid pro quo. But understandably the public is reminded of a bird that walks like a duck.
It will be raised from now until the end of his campaign in May or November. He's got to explain why he did it.
In the Farrakan matter O was quite correct in not turning it into a renunciation of his friend the minister. If Rezco has been a friend, has done him favors, O should say so : get it out in Macy's window. In technicolor. And if he now sees that created an appearance of a conflict acknowledge that. All without "turning his back" on Rezco.
BTW I hope Obama wins. But if not, I'll be comfortable with Hill . If she's able to bring down a good guy like Obama she ought to be able to deal with whatever appealing target the Republicans put on the tripod.
January 23, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Sun-Times recent article on this concluded,
"For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips."
Nice to know that Hillary and now Larry have bought into a Republican point against Obama. And Hillary is using it to win the primary.
There are few facts behind this and it would have been great if Larry could have provided some. False hope, it seems.
So, yep, I think Obama is going to have to address all of the mud slinging from the Clinton campaign. I recommend short, pithy and humorous with a heavy dose of facts.
Something these allegations are short on.
January 23, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who attacked first?
January 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, good grief. Are you in the sandbox? I want both of them to damned well stop. How about you?
And we both know how fast it will go downhill if the mud starts being slung at Hillary, now don't we? Is there any particular reason for going there?
January 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see...now you want it to stop. Nice deflection, but the point is that Obama started it, and Clinton finished it. Now would my druthers be that none of them engaged in this kind of thing? Yes, but that doesn't mean that one candidate can act with impunity.
January 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama defended himself against Hillary's assertions that he was prasing Reagans policy by drawing a clear contrast to what work he was doing at the time and what work Hillary was doing. That was not an attack to say that Hillary was a corporate lawyer on the board of WalMart nor is it a smear. To assert that someone is the lawyer for a slumlord for the inner city of Chicago is a smear. Hillary started the fight.
Hillary and Bill thought are acting with impunity as the press is not holding either of them accountable for the blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations of Obama's records that they willfully engage in as did Hillary when she started the fight at this debate by intentionally misrepresenting Obama's views on republicans having ideas.
January 23, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The politician who can best bend public perceptions to where the public will accept him or her will be successful - that is, get elected - even when there is no connection between the perceptions and the objective truth. That's a large part of why negative attacks are more successful than objective policies to get voters to elect a politician.
The reason why politics is about perceptions is that perceptions are all we have to go on. Your "facts" are my "Lies" and vice versa. We each have filters set to determine what we believe and what we don't. We select our channels of communication base on how closely what they present agrees with what we believe is the truth, and then accept what comes through those channels as "true." But that's perception, not truth.
The "fact", the "truth," is that Obama has been caught out in something that appears to contrast with the pure and above politics image he is trying to run on, and he has not successfully countered the issue. It's going to be hard because of the image he has presented of himself as the rare honest politician who is above politics. I suspect the "truth" (or the closest we will ever know of it) will show that he is just another ambitious and very bright politician trying to prove himself by becoming President. All of the potential nominees in both parties fit that profile, though the closest to Obama in personality as far as I can perceive is Mitt Romney.
Some early Public Relations guru once said about public relations "Perceptions are the reality we work with." Facts have to be perceived as real before they influence perceptions, and at the moment, Obama is losing the battle of perceptions. He's trying to be perceived as a new kind of politician, but he's not. He's just like the rest of them, and we have to decide, collectively, which of the semi-crooks who are running will do the best job for us.
stlounick, you have your reasons for preferring Obama and you have decided to join the ranks of Obama true-believers, much like the Goldwaterites and members of the Reagan Revolution did. Politicians are glad to use true believers, since it gives them a lot more freedom to do what they personally want to do when they get into office.
I'm more interested in a politician who 1. wants to do what I think needs to be done to preserve America and the Constitution, and who 2. has the ability to achieve those things when he or she gets into office. First, they need to commit to some policy before I'll support them. Otherwise they have free reign to do whatever they want, and no successful politician can be trusted off-reign. On the second part, the question of whether he has the ability to do what I want done, if Obama can't handle this issue better than he has demonstrated so far, then he doesn't have the ability to succeed in office.
[The fact that he has not presented me with any real idea what he would do other than be a pro corporate anti-war Democrat to the right of the DLC is a different issue. I bring it up here because what is to be accomplished and the ability to accomplish it are of equal importance. A politician who is not equally successful at both is a failed politician. It is, however, off topic for this thread.]
We are voters. It is not up to us to defend our vote. It is up to the candidate to convince us to vote for him or her. You label it a smear, I label it an issue. It doesn't matter. Obama better deal with it better than he has or he will be waiting for the 2016 election for his next try at the Presidency. Maybe he'll be ready by then.
January 23, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
:) And, of course, Rick, it is to your benefit to portray me as a nutty "true believer" instead of someone searching for the truth and exposing smears to the sunshine. I am looking to change perceptions to more closely match the truth.
I don't believe truth is slippery; I merely think it needs to be based on facts or even logic. (For example, there are little two-source facts to question Hillary's deal on cattle futures; but logic would find the timing of the deal quite suspicious, although not illegal.)
Are you saying that this is an issue just because it was said--without any facts accompanying it? I would say it is a smear until facts are presented.
January 23, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are not an Obama "true-believer" then I apologize for that statement, but your comment was very much in line with those of the true-believers.
You're just trying to define away the issue by relabelling it a smear. Issue is emotionally neutral, smear is negative.I've read most of the material Larry presented in other sources. It has reached the level of political issue. The only question now is when it becomes a hot issue in the media, and that is a tactical campaign issue to be determined by Obama's opponents, not by him.
I would interpret your statement as saying that until someone presented rock solid court-level facts that proved beyond any doubt that Obama had a number of significant connections to a man later proven to be a slumlord then you won't believe them.
Fine. Go ahead. Don't believe them. It won't make a bit of difference in the election what you personally refuse to believe. Labeling the issue a "smear" does nothing to help Obama, though. The swift boat attacks on Kerry were pure unproven smear, but they kept him from being elected President. The same was true of the allegations that McCain had a black child in 2000 in South Carolina. Obama is headed up "swift-boat alley" and he'd better be able to handle incoming fire. I haven't seen yet that he can.
It's not a question of legal or historical proof that everyone accepts as best possible evidence. It is a question of voter's perceptions. I think Obama looked shifty as he blew off the question the other night, and I'll trust my perceptions over denials from almost anyone. That's part of why we have jury trials. [I personally did not have an impression as strong as rereading that statement seemed to make it when I watched his reaction, but a lot of people will.]
If Obama wants the nomination and the election, then he'd better deal with the issue quickly. If the perception that he can't deal with such issues gets rooted, then he is dead in the water as a candidate this election and may never get another shot.
As I said earlier, I think he has a real problem dealing with confrontations like this one because he is trying to sell himself as a person who is above normal politics. Dealing with that brings the perception of him as just like all the other politicians. Either way, he has a problem that may be a major vulnerability.
Perceptions are what really matter here. Image and perceptions. Provable facts are only a small part of what goes into the images and perceptions, and usually not the decisive elements. You can take that as a fact.
January 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
stlounick, the smearer.
January 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I wonder if you've read your own post.
"This is not true. In some circles it is called a lie.... So excuse me if you expect me to take Senator Barack Obama seriously while he claims not to know some guy who was his neighbor."
Where is the lie or mistruth exactly? Obama did not claim that he didn't know Rezko, or that they had no relationship outside of the law firm. When you wrote that Obama claimed that, you were wrong. In some circles that is called a lie.
Blitzer asked Obama to respond to the allegation that he worked for a slumlord, Rezko. Obama explained the context of his work for Rezko. He didn't explain a lot of his other dealings with Rezko, nor was he asked to. But he's talked about them at length in other contexts, as you yourself mention.
If you're really looking for flat-out lies from the debate, you can start with Hillary's "The facts are that [Obama] said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote."
January 23, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama from the 2006 The Audacity of Hope:
"All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, as unconvinced as I might have been by his John Wayne, Father Knows Best pose, his policy by anecdote, and his gratuitous assaults on the poor, I understood his appeal. It was the same appeal that the military bases back in Hawaii had always held for me as a young boy, with their tidy streets and well-oiled machinery. It was related to the pleasure I still get from watching a well-played baseball game, or my wife gets from watching reruns of The Dick Van dyke Show. Reason spoke to America's longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we discover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism , and faith."
Peggy Noonan lifted much of Reagan's text from FDR and used it in service of policies which were the reverse. Most liberals were able to see through to Reagan's venom and his coded appeals to racism. Most conservatives were not.
January 23, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Peggy Noonan lifted much of Reagan's text from FDR and used it in service of policies which were the reverse. Most liberals were able to see through to Reagan's venom and his coded appeals to racism. Most conservatives were not."
Rosalyn Carter conveyed what I consider to be the most accurate assessment I ever heard about the appeal of Ronald Reagan. I will never forget when Mrs. Carter said that Ronald Reagan "makes us comfortable with our prejudices".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/books/review/22mckelvey.html
Roz was right on the money.
January 23, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, are you actually saying that Reagan did not win with OVERWHELMING popular and electoral college votes in his two presidential elections? Retake American history, please.
Analyzing Reagan is certainly something folks serious about American politics should do. He was more than president; he actually inspired folks to become conservative.
Do I agree with Reagan? Nope. I never understood his appeal; but I certainly don't deny that it existed.
You apparently want us to deny facts.
January 23, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, actually I'm saying Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote the first time around. Not exactly OVERWHELMING. Carter and Anderson split most of the remainder: Carter 41% and Anderson 6.7%. (This did translate into an overwhelming win in the Electoral College due to how the votes were distributed:Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote while Carter took 41%, and Independent 1. John B. Anderson (a liberal Republican) received 6.7%)
Reagan was overwhelming in the next election: 58.8%. The reasons are debatable but include the false prosperity induced by spend and spend practices. Consult John Dean.
Bill Clinton's 'I feel your pain" got exceptionally tedious but Obama's "I understand that you only did what you did from the best of motivations which I share --although I'll throw in enough caveats to muzzle potential critics from the left" is both naive and dangerous in a President. Reagan appealed to some of the worst impulses in American political life and it is important to recognize that as well as more noble impulses Reagan may have called to.
Analysis is one thing, whitewash is another.
January 24, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sick and tired of the word parsing. I did not like it when Bill Clinton did it, but at least he could argue he was trying to save his marriage.
But you're doing the exact same thing here, no? So, obviously, you're really not all that sick of it.
Larry, sorry, but I agree with everyone else -- your posts have become embarrassing.
January 23, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
sPh
January 23, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton shouldn't have to "apologize" for a vote given in good conscience. If you read her floor speech on why she was going to cast her vote yea, I think she explains very well what her reasoning was for that vote. Did I disagree with her? Yes, just as I disagreed with Kerry, Dowd, Edwards and Biden voting yea for that act along with 21 other democratic senators.
Why should Clinton "apologize" for being fooled by Bush? Shouldn't Bush be doing the apologizing?
January 23, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the man says: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... I won't get fooled again." Clinton's vote showed poor judgement, and her behavior since has shown an unwillingness to admit that mistake, and hence learn from it. She doesn't necessarily have to apologize, but she needs to acknowledge her failure of judgement, and show that she won't do it again.
January 23, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think that what you want is an abject apology. She has said over and over that if she knew then what she knows now, her vote would have been different. Kerry, Biden and Dowd have said the same thing.
Clinton voted with the majority of the democrats, why is there not a clamouring for apologies from them?
January 23, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see how she does on (illegal) telecom immunity. Leadership or poll-tested triangulation?
sPh
January 23, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so passive, sphealey. Get involved, here.
January 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have absolutely no knowledge of what I do or don't do, so your advice is a bit silly.
sPh
January 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I am happy to imagine that you hit the link and sent the letters urging Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain to take a break from their respective campaigns, lead with the jobs they presently have and support Senator Dodd's filibuster.
January 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, apparently now we know: a nice safe campaign event scheduled for this afternoon. Not even a vote, much less assistance with the fillibuster.
sPh
January 24, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is disappointing. And what about Obama?
January 24, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I certainly don't want an apology. The last thing we need is yet another insincere "I'm sorry."
How do we know she won't do the same thing again? She says if she knew then what she knows now...but she didn't even read the NIE! She didn't MAKE herself informed on a vote that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and the good name of our country!
Guess what? I knew what he was going to do! And the defense that many other countrys also believed the WMD BS --> Hans Blix was there -- George Bush threw him out! No other country would have invaded because they knew there was NO IMMINENT threat. So should Hillary! So I ask again: How do we know she won't do the same thing again?
SHE JUST DID THE SAME THING REGARDING IRAN!!!!!
Every single Democrat that voted to give Bush the right to attack Iraq should take an oath to be a responsible Congressperson. To acknowledge that they have a role to play other than that of a rubber-stamp (and to appear tough on terror so they can get re-elected)
As to the notion that Bush might have needed a speedy vote if there were an emergency, just tune into the Terry Schiavo fiasco to see how fast the Congress can convene for a crisis!
Apology? Spare me. What I want is proof that she will act in our country's interest rather than her own (and Israel's).
Jan
January 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which NIE report did she say she did not read? I've seen where that allegation has been made, but I cannot find a statement by Hillary Clinton that she did not read any NIE report.
January 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 13, 2008, transcript, Meet the Press with Hillary Clinton:
"MR. RUSSERT: Again, learning from mistake, do you wish you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, which had a lot of caveats from the State Department and the Energy Department as to whether or not Saddam Hussein really had a biological and chemical and active nuclear program?
SEN. CLINTON: I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense; all of the various players in that. And many people who read it--well, actually, not very many people read the whole thing because we were getting constant briefings. And people--some people read it and voted for the resolution, some people read it and voted against the resolution. I felt very well briefed. And it wasn't just what the Bush administration was telling us in the NIE, I went way outside of any kind of Bush administration sources; independent people, people from the Clinton administration, people in the British government. I looked as broadly as I could at how to assess this.
And if, of course, you see the vote as I saw it as opposed as how it's been characterized, I thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in, to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to go off unchecked. If those inspectors had been permitted to do the job that they were set up to do, we would have avoided war. It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That's not what I was told by the Bush White House. That's not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That's not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation."
Gee, and this is our little policy wonk? I think we should demand that our representatives do a much better job than this. And I also think someone who wants to be Prez needs to always do a better job when the outcome can get people killed.
January 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So?
January 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if, of course, you see the vote as I saw it as opposed as how it's been characterized, I thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in, to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to go off unchecked.
Right. She "saw" the vote in completely the wrong way. That's the whole problem.
January 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her vote should have been different with only the knowledge she had at the time. It doesn't matter that she says that -- had she only known then! -- she would have brought a paddle when we're already up a creek.
Why no complaints about those other democrats? Because they're not running for President.
January 23, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Foo:
I found it interesting, and felt you might also, that this guy doesn't seem concerned about her "failure of judgment" on that vote.
(Disclosure, since that seems necessary on this site in the state it has come to: I don't care which of the three Dem candidates wins the primary, I feel that each has plusses and minuses that add up to equivalent scores.)
To ex-Larry fans:
Yes, I know, the linkee, he's a friend of Larry Johnson's, one who many also previously presumed to be totally apolitical. Scuse the interruption, carry on with your conspiracizing about one or the other figure you once thought apolitical objective analysts and jim dandy aok guys not subject to questioning about facts, because back then they were fighting the good fight on your side. It's funny how Larry once could do no wrong on this site and anyone who questioned his statements was downrated or called a troll. Consider that it might be that people do not turn into advocacy essayists overnight.
January 23, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Foo, have you considered that Hillary simply does not see the pre-emptive war as a mistake? Perhaps she only sees the execution as incompetent--that matches with her support of the war once it started and for some years past that.
So, no, she won't apologize or admit a mistake if she agrees with neither of those.
I would respectfully submit that this is what Hillary actually believes. I don't agree with her but I think this has to be considered.
It certainly explains her failure to apologize or tell any of us what she learned.
January 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but if that is the case she should be honest enough to (1) say so (2) run for the Republican nomination instead of the Democratic.
sPh
January 23, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has said a number of times, that Bush mismanaged the war, not that the war itself was a mistake. She takes exception to how the war was executed.
January 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure, but I think for her it's a mixture of support for preemptive war and support for Presidential authority in general. And the latter is one of the main reasons I'm in the not-Hillary camp.
January 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD;
There was a time when I was a 100% Hillary backer, willing to forgive her 'political cover your ass' vote for the Iraq war.
Since then I'm now under the impression I had about Kerry, she's an equivocator, unwilling often, to answer a question honestly lest it offend someone, somewhere.
Her non-answers at times are maddening.
Then, her vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment came along and it infuriated me and so I started looking for a different candidate. I chose Edwards because I don't think Obama can win the General election, but whoever the Dem nominee may be, they get my vote.
January 23, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I keep reading about this Kyl-Lieberman amd. as though that was some separate amd. with a single vote. It wasn't - it was attached to H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. Here are the democrats who voted yea on H.R. 1585 - Landrieu, Baucus, Mikulski, Cardin, Lieberman, Baye, Durbin, Clinton, Akaka, Feinstein, Pryor, Carper, Nelson, Nelson, Lauterberg, Menendez, Schumer, Conrad, Dorgan, Reid, Casy, Johnson, Murray, Rockefeller, Kohl, Whitehorn, Reed, Levin, Stabenow. Obama wasn't there for the vote. Voting no on H.R 1585 would mean defunding the military for 2008. Obama has never said how he would have voted.
January 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the whole point of having a good conscience, when you realize you have made an error in judgment you apologize for it. So yes, she should apologize, as has Edwards. Edwards is right. Hillary does not apologize because she has not learned from her mistake. Thus her conscience is clear, but not good.
Her reasoning was incredibly flawed. Her speech is nothing but a disclaimer to tell us what is not casting her vote for, yet by casting the vote she is affirming and putting into action all that she disclaims. It was a classic example of say one thing and do another.
Because only she is accountable for her actions and votes. She can not pass the buck to Bush for her error in judgment. A majority of the congressional democrats were able to reason that Bush had not made the case for war, as was obama despite not being a Senator at the time. Hillary needs to account for her flawed judgment and saying that she was fooled does not do so. Hillary is not taking responsibility for the power that was vested in her by the people of NY when they elected her. It is unacceptable for her to say that she was fooled by Bush when both the chair of the intelligence committee and armed services committee explicitly told her to vote against the war. Hillary Clinton especially needs to apologize because she sent our sons and daughters to die in Iraq without even reading the NIE report while casting her vote with conviction. What type of conviction does she have to act in such a negligent manner...calluous? Hillary's entire floor speech makes a mockery of the trust the citizens of this country trusted her when she fails to apologize for that vote. That floor speech does nothing but underscore how incredibly terrible her judgment is.
Given that Bush is an incompetent fool, anyone who acknowledges they were fooled by him is an even bigger fool. As they are the fools fool.
January 23, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama on Tony Rezko:
George W. Bush on Ken Lay:
If Obama's supporters really support Obama, then they need to be very concerned about the trouble that the Senator's relationship with Tony Rezko will certainly get him and his campaign into. And soon. A recent attempt by Rezko's lawyers to delay his trial has been denied. Rezko goes to trial at the end of next month.
January 23, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That "2" is for trying to equate Obama with George Bush. It was stupid, not relevent, actually deserving of a "1," and I'm sure it made Larry proud.
Jan
January 23, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the juxtaposition is at least as relevant as the media is unlikely to hold Republicans and Democrats to one consistent standard. But you're probably right, Obama will likely receive the same slap on the wrist from our esteemed punditocracy for dodging his relationship with Rezko that Bush received for dodging his relationship with Kenny-Boy. Probably best not to think about it.
January 23, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...media is unlikely to hold Republicans and Democrats to one consistent standard."
Prove that statement.
January 23, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, it is an interesting challenge to "prove" a likelihood. But for the sake of argument, let's review the history. Consider the election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Which one was and remains the "serial exaggerator" in the popular media-driven narrative? Consider the election between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Which was and remains the one with the burden of questionable military service in the popular media-driven narrative? (Hint: ask Dan Rather). Now convince me how likely the media will be to hold Republicans and Democrats to one consistent standard.
January 23, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar, I view the blame placed on the "media" as a complete distraction. The problem is with Democrats and with our party. We are not fielding good candidates and we really have to address that. We either remain a minority party or we grow the party. And that's just how I see this election.
Now, you want to fault the "media" for these campaigns and I fault both the candidates we are fielding and the antiquated groups these candidates believe they have to cater to. This is going to have to stop or we will become a footnote in this history books.
And that's what I'm for--not this vague hand wringing that blames someone else that one has absolutely no control over. We can exercise some control over our party. It's time to do that.
January 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party will never field "good" candidates as long as conservatives dominate the means of communication; and a comfortably deregulated communications industry will do whatever it can do to stay that way. Our public discourse is not a level playing field. It is no secret that deregulation and privatization of the public sphere in general, and of the public "airwaves" in paricular, is the priority of the conservative movement, and the Republican Party is its vehicle. Believe me, I'm with you entirely about improving the Democratic Party. But we need to sign up for the long haul and get more Democrats elected at every level, and understand that it is not likely to happen in a single election cycle.
January 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton approved the Telecom Act that allowed the consolidation of the media conglomeration that attacks Democrates. Just another one of those 'good' GOP ideas he passed into law, like NAFTA and welfare reform and retention of the mandatory drug sentencing laws.
January 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief! We can do nothing, I tell you, with the masterminds in charge of everything. We are just ants waiting to be stepped on. We can do nothing!
What a whining piece of drivel. You can't be serious??!!
It takes work that will go beyond radio and TV and newspaper. So what we have is you dinosaurs fixated on declining unions to do the actual contact work with voters and an over-inflated dependency on mass media (including the Internet) to fuel things along.
The GOP is decades ahead on identifying their supporters and staying in touch with them throughout the year and for more than money and votes. If we can't do that, then we deserve to become a footnote in the history books.
You give no damned plan for getting out of the hole. Just all of these generalities wrapped up in how "someone else" or "something else" is at fault and is so big and mean and unmovable that practically nothing can be done.
Good grief!
January 24, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what you asked. Meanwhile, what do you bring to the party, besides a cult in search of a personality?
January 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
pre ENRON scandal.
Bush: 'Hey, Kenny boy, wanna go golfing?'
post ENRON scandal:
Bush: 'I understand Mister Lay runs a large Corporation.'
January 23, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to look forward to useful inside info from Johnson, and righteous anger at the White House. Now I cringe at another attack on an ally--a Democratic candidate for President. Shall we start talking about Marc Rich?
This is the kind of partisanship that tears parties apart. There is no way the worst moral failing or legal compromise assignable to Obama is worth even mentioning in the circumstances.
Consider the context---capital-indulging policies have us on the brink of ruin, terrorism is perhaps worse than before, Israel and Palestine still a flashpoint, Pakistan still a nightmare, unresolved issues of negligence in the White House, gross politicization of Justice, election rigging....
And Johnson is railing about a sleazy real estate dealer? Put a sock in it.
January 23, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from the majority of responses here, people don't care whether or not Obama has distorted his relationship to Tony Rezko, or been involved in sleazy poltical patronage deals, or exploited his own poor constituents, who lived without heat for weeks during a Chicago winter in 1997.
Fine.
But, Obama has been caught lying about his relationship; it's disingenuous in the extreme to call Rezko "this individual" during the debate, and say he billed 5 hours of work on a Rezko project.
He has written letters on Rezko's behalf, garnering Rezko millions in contracts, even as he knew Rezko was being investigated by the Feds for fraud. Obama has been stalling about answering questions about it for the past year, beginning in March 2007, when the Chicago-Sun-Times tried to get him on the record about it.
Could people really be deluding themselves into thinking that Obama is about "hope" and "change"? The evidence shows Obama is really just an old-style Chicago Pol, who shoved aside other African American candidates on his way up the political ladder, using vote suppression.
During a question and answer session with the Chicago Sun-Times last March, Obama basically blamed his own contituents for suffering from no heat, while Rezko was donating money to Obama, instead of using that money to protect Obama's own constituents.
Sure politics is politics. It ain't beanbag. It's an ugly process, like watching sausage being made. Blah, blah, blah.
But, clearly, Barack Obama is trying to hide this 5-hour relationship with "this individual" and doesn't even want to say his name in the debate. What about his lunches with Rezko, and his donations from Rezko, and his letters on behalf of Rezko, and his 20-year friendship with Rezko, and his real-estate deals with Rezko, and his ties to Rezko? Can a man who has done all of these things actually say, "this individual?" I just don't think so.
It's reasonable to conclude: A man who's working so hard to hide these things might have something to hide.
Sun-Times' questions, and Obama campaign's answers April 23, 2007
The Sun-Times first sought to interview Sen. Barack Obama on March 14 about indicted businessman and longtime supporter Antoin "Tony" Rezko and a series of troubled low-income housing deals involving Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp. Obama's staff asked for written questions. It responded Sunday but left many questions unanswered and didn't directly address some other questions. What follows are the Sun-Times' questions, asked in the preliminary stages of the newspaper's investigation, and the answers received in an e-mail from Robert Gibbs, communications director for the senator's presidential campaign:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article
January 23, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Provide two sources for each smear "fact" you present. One article won't cut it.
Can't do? It's called smear. Congratulations on doing the bidding of the Hillary campaign. Sleep well at night?
January 23, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thank you for doing the bidding of the Obama campaign. Why must you smear Hillary Clinton?