Exactly.

Obama was answering a question about his "dealings" with Rezko, a.k.a. how the guy helped him out--to which Obama says the guy told him he had the inside scoop on a property.

Not talking about the 15/30 minute tour of the property in which Obama asks the guy for his advice on whether the deal is good or not is not lying. It's not even a lie of omission, because he wasn't trying to hide anything/he wasn't trying to deceive anyone.

Looks like this blog has been caught lying!

O'dochartaigh: You're wrong.
You said "Obama says the guy told him he had the inside scoop on a property".

Obama said "I told him [Rezko] about the property" http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

If you're going to talk about dealings you've had on a property, visiting that property together is more important than a vague discussion at some 'event'. What do you think they talked about while visiting the property? The weather?

Obama clearly mislead us, and he did it 'cause he didn't want to be tarnished by the Rezko brush. Understandable, but still *true*!

Uh, foreigner, you said, "he intentionally mislead because he didn't want to be tarnished by the Rezko brush.” Right!

Well this is just hearsay unless you can read people's minds! How can you prove that he intentionally mislead? Can you prove that he meant to mislead? How? What information do you have that prosecutors don’t have in the ongoing case against Tony Rezko?

I am not an Obama bot, I do support the man for the democratic nomination, and I do think being associated with someone who is being prosecuted for being an inattentive and negligent property owner is probably not a good thing for a political candidate. I have looked at over 5 stories that revolve around the Rezko case and have yet to see where Mr Obama features in any prominent role in his dealings. I believe that one might assume that since Mr Rezko had been an investor in properties in the South Chicago area and that Mr Obama who happens to be a lawyer and activist in the area that they might in fact cross paths now and again. I know that Mr Obama was offered a high paying job from a firm but turned it down because of his belief that he would better serve the community by being an organizer within the community rather than being an influential player working from outside the community. This choice is huge for me because I see it as a "teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish" type of philosophy, i.e. it shows character. The other thing that Obama has said is that the mistake of buying the property of Rezko's wife was a "boneheaded" mistake. The beauty of this is that he reinforces his character by admitting fault even though he is in zero legal trouble because of this supposed mistake. So basically every-time I hear this argument it reinforces my belief that those that choose to push this story are either 1) partisan 2) are Mrs Clinton supporter's that can not understand what all the hubbub is about Mr Obama 3) Mrs Clinton supporters who never will believe that there is a better candidate despite qualifications 4) are just ignorant of the actual documents that describe the proposed improprieties.

Hi Josh, first:
None of your points 1-4 about people pushing this story apply to me.

2: "Can you prove that he meant to mislead?" Even better, I can prove that he *did* mislead. His campaign has been saying for weeks that everything about the Rezko affair is out in the open... yet here we are with a new admission. Touring property with someone is clearly indicative of closer ties than just discussing the house at "some event".

Now, this isn't a question of legality, it's a question of integrity and judgement. See http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article to put the timeline into perspective.

I agree it's laudable that he turned down a big job offer, but it's naive if you don't think he had his eye on a far bigger prize. Also, that same praise can be lavished on Hillary, who worked for a charity immediately on graduating law school, so I'm not sure why that would make you support one candidate over the other.

At any rate, you're allowed to support Obama and still think he mucked up big-time on this, by not being candid from the beginning. I don't think he did anything illegal, but he knew it looked bad, and showed poor judgement, so he misled us to limit the fallout.

Another instance of Obama lying is where he said that Dennis Ross is an advisor of his on Jewish issues. Dennis Ross claims that he only met Barack Obama once, very briefly, and certainly is not Obama's advisor.

If I might throw in an editorial opinion, here, I wonder what else Obama lies about.

The Chicago Tribune spent years vetting the Rezko story ... Not only did they not find anything, the Tribune endorsed Obama for president.

Here is an article wrt some points raised.

"Rezko first reached out to Obama in about 1990 when the future senator made headlines as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Rezko and two real estate partners called out of the blue to offer a job building inner-city homes.

"I said no, but I remained friendly with all three of them," Obama said. "All three of them remained great contributors of mine."

"Over the years Rezko and Obama shared lunch "once or twice a year, although that's just an estimate," the senator said. As couples, the Rezkos and Obamas dined perhaps "two to four times ... in the time that I've known him."

[...]

"Obama and his wife were already flush with success when they went house hunting last year. Their combined income--bolstered by payments for his best-selling autobiography and advances for future books--topped $1.67 million. His wife, Michelle, had recently been promoted to a $316,962-a-year position as vice president at the University of Chicago Hospitals."
~~~~~~~~```
No candidate is perfect. But as long as we are talking about character.

Clinton claims she has been vetted, but some of her largest donors are either indicted or in jail. There is a long list — including ties to Rezko.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/st.....55d748946e
http://www.margieburns.com/blo.....97614.html
http://www.margieburns.com/blo.....01879.html

Then there is the matter of Huge Kazakh’s donation of approximately $31 million dollars to Bill Clinton’s Library having to do with a mining deal, but it was scrubbed from MSNBC’s site:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/

Everyone has some skeletons in their past, but consider the fact that Obama has been completely cleared on the Rezko scandal.

Don't forget the media often takes quotes out of context to frame a story that slants in a way to make a point that is misleading.

The CT piece also showed the sellers of his house sold it to him because he was the highest bidder. It had nothing to do with Rezko, which has often been alleged.

So the "sweetheart deal" on his house never happened.

Apology accepted.

Foreigner: Tell us your real name and what position you hold in the HRC organization. Your facts are wrong and your innuendos are classic
Clinton. Get a life.