Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
That Rezko Thing. Done. The End.
The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board's view of the definitive question and answer session with Obama.
Looks like it is time to dust off the kindergarten essays.
Advertisement
Comments (12)
Yeah, I think it should have been over a long time ago. After all, those who live in glass houses and all,
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/photos_surfaces_of_hillary_cli.html
March 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an incredibly important article.
Not just does it put all the questions to rest, it was how it was done. Obama went to the Tribune and with three dozen reporters packed into a room- answered every question for over 90 minutes on this one stupid topic.
It ends with the following:
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
Hmmm...any other candidates feel like sitting down with most of a newsroom for 90+ minutes to answer questions on a topic you hate and are embarassed about?
March 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you said.
March 16, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what McCain did when the NYT piece came out. The very next morning he took questions. And then he did it again, for an even longer period, for all followups. That's what BO should have done from the very start.
Fire the fool who advised him to sit on it for months and months, because now it's starting to merge with the Wright story. Whether this sit down buries the Rezko story or not, BO has now got a "is he being fully candid this time?" issue. Because of the way he handled Rezko.
Just stinks to all heck, own goals like this.
March 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.
Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story
A testament from the Trib hounds you can straight to the bank (or a voting booth)
March 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bracing myself for imminent dismissal by Clinton supporters to be followed by equivocation on why she needn't be held to this standard.
March 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the MSM won't report it. God forbid we tell the country what good thing Obama or any other candidate has done recently.
March 15, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another Chicago paper vouching for Obama a la Rezko
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_suntimes_columnists_on_o.html
Now Hillary, will you stfu now ?
March 15, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that both the Trib and Sun-Times have had their say, it's done. Good riddance to this non-story.
March 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but they're sexist! And, um, biased against Hill! And, um, Obama's lucky he's black! And, um....BIG STATES! BIG STATES! LOOK OVER THERE!
March 15, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My instinct was to trust him."
Judgment?
As to where to look, try a mirror.
March 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
trusting a major political donor of numerous campaigns to not ask for kickback =/= trusting a neoconservative President/administration to not use force "unless necessary" (even if you buy that Clinton excuse, which most rational people don't).
everyone has lapses of judgment, the question is which lapses are said to have occurred at what time with what consequences.
March 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment