Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
CBS News/NRO : Obama's Rezko Headache
For those wondering
how the Rezko trial will affect Obama, here’s a worrysome analysis on CBS News
site from NRO’s Stephen Spruiell:
This corruption, should it become an issue in the campaign, could cause problems for Obama when people start to wonder how he could have made it through “the combine” without getting involved in the overlapping networks of patronage and influence. Peraica, for one, argues that he didn’t.
“Senator Barack Obama is an integral part and a product of this corrupt system,” Peraica says. “Senator Obama has endorsed Todd Stroger for Cook County board president, Mayor [Richard M.] Daley for mayor of Chicago, Dorothy Tillman for re-election as an alderman, and other epitomes of bad government throughout his career in order to promote himself politically, at the expense of, I would argue, principles and morals and good government.”
Obama’s relationship with Allison Davis -- the alleged go-between in Rezko’s scheme to shake down Tom Rosenberg -- could pose another problem for him. Obama worked for Davis at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill. Later, when Obama sat on the board of a charity called the Woods Fund, he voted to invest $1 million in a partnership operated by Davis, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Levine’s testimony in the Rezko trial puts Davis in the middle of an attempted quid pro quo, making him yet another associate Obama might be pressured to disown. And the trial could stretch well into May, at which point a Rezko conviction could lead to even more headaches for the candidate. If Rezko is looking at a long prison sentence and decides to start talking, who knows what he might say?
All the more reason that Obama might be tempted to try to address this metastasizing problem with a single bold gesture. Obama made a big speech about race to distract from his ties to one unsavory Chicago character, but distancing himself from an entire network of them might prove to be a tougher task. After all, Obama was able to claim the middle ground in his defense of Wright, denouncing Wright’s most radical views while excusing his run-of-the-mill resentments as being a not-atypical part of the black experience.
But America will have a harder time swallowing excuses for corruption as being a run-of-the-mill aspect of the Illinois political experience -- particularly not from a candidate that has promised a new kind of politics. To succeed, Obama would have to denounce the behavior of some of his closest allies and demonstrate a candor about his own experience in state government that’s been missing from his campaign thus far. In the Rezko trial, Obama might have finally encountered a problem that a speech alone won’t solve.
Read the whole tale. ( note: I erred earlier in comments saying the trial was still in recess, apparently they were back all last week with Levine spilling his sorry guts.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/opinion/main3994002.shtml
Comments (23)
You know, I've perked my ears too many times on this Rezko thing. Every single gosh darn time, it is the same old line: "Just you wait until this comes out!" Well, I'm waiting. I've been waiting. For the past year and a half people have been hacking away at this thing, and guess what? THERE IS NOTHING THERE.
When something damning DOES comes out, I'll listen. Until then, this is just crying wolf.
April 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So...a lot of undocumented assertions from a Republican and a Republican site (NRO) picked up and parroted by some lazy CBS'er.
This, in your opinion, is documentation?
The Chicago Tribune (a pretty Republican paper in its own right) is a lot closer to all of this, and has essentially, on repeated occasions, said that there's nothing tying Obama to any of Rezko's more "interesting" dealings.
Then again, your profile reveals you to be a strident anti-Obam'er, so little of this is really surprising.
Planning on voting for McCain once Hillary Clinton loses the nomination?
April 7, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"strident anti-Obam'er" ---not my profile at all.
April 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
blusage may not be a "strident anti-Obama'er" - but carol s. certainly posts a lot of anti-Obama and some pro-Clinton.
Carol S.:
If you're a troll, get a life.
If you're a Democrat, your style of sniping is not healthy for the party. Were Hillary and Bill Clinton corrupt because they brought Webb Hubbell to D.C. with them?
A savvy loyal Democrat should keep her powder dry about possibilities of corruption coming back to bite an opposing Primary candidate. If facts come out, they need to be reported, but speculation about future revelations that might hurt another Democrat is not good strategy for Democratic wins in the general election.
April 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry I strongly disagree. When the Rev Wright story broke all over, it was after it had been on Fox for a year. I have used TPM since it's inception to track news before it breaks in MSM. Sometimes it takes a year or two. I believe the intolerance for my post is because it targets your favorite Democrat. I am a Hillary supporter and I want to know all the bad things said about her. I find them here. I investigate and I make up my own mind.
I have done opposition research for two campaigns in the past, and I also dig my own candidates potential weaknesses. The campaign often chooses to come out first with the story so they can control the story. Obama has not done this and fumbled badly on the donation amounts and blaming his staff, like the questionnaire imbroglio.
It just seems weird to pretend this stuff isn't out there. Look how far it got w/ the rev Wright story. So many people here freaked out and said a bunch of silly things because they were surprised, they treated Obama like a God, and were not mentally prepared to see a flaw in him as a candidate. that's part of the problem with the worship thing.
Many discussion threads have people apparently sincerely asking what is the story line about Rezko and Obama. This is one worrisome story line in the MSM today.
April 7, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then how exactly would you characterize someone who only posts negative half-truths and innuendo about Sen. Obama?
(crickets...)
April 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, Carol. More guilt-by-association insinuations. No question, politics is a rough business in Chicago. If anything, Obama deserves credit for surviving the system and formulating a new political equation based on transparency and destroying influence-peddling in government.
Interesting that you should omit the full info on "Peraica": "Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica, a Republican who is running for Cook County state’s attorney". Ya think maybe he has some interest in drawing attention to his campaign by speculating about Obama? Once again, there's no there there.
April 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah... you saved me the trouble of googling. I had a little bet with myself that the word "Republican" would come up, I was thinking "operative" rather than "candidate".
Hey Carol, MyDD is very friendly to people who want to use rightwing sites to smear Democratic candidates who are not Of The Body.
April 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a nice try by folks, but let's be blunt. Obama's name, with regards to Rezko, is so far down on the list, it's ridiculous. The bulk of this trial is going to be used to set up the downfall of our current Governor, who better start sizing up his orange jumpsuit.
Peraica - I'm LMAO at anyone listening to this loser, but ok, you can listen to him.
April 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You (conveniently?) snipped the part of the article that identified Peraica as a Republican politician.
April 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No mention here that he spent hours fielding every last question about Rezko in front of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,4441703,print.story
Note the last paragraph: "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."
April 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late.
Carol's already posted her anti-Obama diatribe. I'm sure she has no interest in a dialogue, just another pro-Hillary/anti-Obama drive-by trolling.
April 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm sorry I have a lot of real work today but, I believe that many, many people will read this on the CBS site and worry about Obama. The subtleties about NRO etc. don't mean squat to most CBS viewers/readers. I'm for knowing all the arguments that are out there in the MSM. That said, noting the source is important and I agree with most posters here in a general sort of way.
Not all writers in Chicago press absolve Obama 100% as you suggest.
April 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found this by googling "obama rezko news" it was one of the first reliable looking stories. I had to look closely for the NRO connection which I included in the title of my post. I would like to see more posts like this in the cafe, we all want to know what is out there in the MSM about our candidates. If you want to dismiss
CBS/NRO you have the option to dismiss the post before clicking on it.
April 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to mark this one so I don't lose it. I've corresponded with a couple of reporters who have been covering Rezko/Obama for a long time. The newspapers can't break this one. What was going on in the relationship is pretty obvious, but Obama has been blowing a lot of smoke, and the press can't quite nail it down. People will eventually use their common sense and figure out that you don't do people $600,000 favors unless you expect something in return some day.
April 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. So now do you understand why we want to see exactly who's donated half a billion dollars to the Clinton Library? Must be some friggin enormous favors owed... some day.
April 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're assuming Rezko was doing Obama a favor. There's no evidence of that. Rezko was operating in his own interest - he later resold that piece of land for $575,000, a profit to him of $54,000 when factoring in the piece of the plot Obama bought from him. Seems to me he was looking out for his own pocketbook. Any "favor" he might have expected to get from Obama would have been nullified when he profited that much from the land sale.
this DKos post is worth reading for a more accurate picture of the Rezko issue.
Thing is, the name "Rezko" has been out in the media long enough now that the people know, whether consciously or unconsciously, that if there were any "there" there, it would have come out already. It's old news, simply because it never became big news. It's boring.
April 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dkos is far from a reliable source on the election.
April 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"source"? You make the mistake of thinking I'm pointing to some sort of "reporting" about "facts". I'm not.
I'm referring to the commentary, which is far more objective than most Clinton supporters are willing to be on the issue, and which references places like FactCheck.org and the Chicago Tribune for data. You're welcome to dispute those places as reputable sources if you wish, but you'll lose credibility if you do.
April 7, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for maximum transparency all around, except for sex (unless there is abusive exploitation like pedophile priests.)
April 7, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Who is this Rezko guy? I've never heard of him. This is truly a worrisome new development...
Burp.
April 7, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need a supreme critical thinker to help deconstruct the guilt-by-association logic that the Right will add to Clinton's similar attacks on Obama. There's got to be some decisive rejoinder.
Perhaps Obama actually can come up with a broad perspective analogous to his speech on race. I'd include in it a representative list of the right wing guilt by association charges that never were proven. An excellent piece a while back in the New Yorker reported much of the scurrilous stuff done by Rove. I'd start by explaining how Hillary was hounded for years by guilt by association innuendos regarding Whitewater. I'df point out that no charges of wrong doing were ever made. There was only the brief association with MacDougal, but people were fooled for years.
The Swiftboat debacle could be much more decisively discredited by reporting that Kerry could have put the entire matter to rest by telling the documented story of him charging an enemy who was using a rocket launcher to destroy his boat, charging off the boat and into the brush to then shoot the guy. That herioc event never came to light, because he decided to stay above the fray. Obama can allow himself to be more thoroughly vetted by a team of journalists concerning all periods of his professional life to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is truly inclusive.
It's one thing, Obama can clarify, to have a specific charge of wrong doing to make, a charge that at least has some evidence for it; it's quite another to imply guilt without any charge at all. Were I him, I'd challenge his detractors, saying, "Make a specific charge, something specific that I did that broke a law or was something that Americans, not just extremists, generally would condemn. If you can't come up with something like that and you continue to imply that I did something wrong just because I associated with or voted for someone, then you are guilty of a kind of political slander that this country has every right to reject. Don't let these people hijack the election. Listen to them carefully. The way to know whether a criticism might be legitimate is if a specific charge is made. I have to have done some thing wrong. If I just associated with someone who has done something wrong, then I'm in the same company with practically every other politician in the country. Almost all of us have to relate to community and political leaders who may actually have done something wrong. That is almost completely unavoidable in many communities. So be careful and don't let the guilt mongers fool you."
My offering may not be adequate, but some top quality, piercing logic is needed. Put your thinking caps on.
April 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Senator Obama has endorsed Todd Stroger for Cook County board president...."
There is no way that minutiae like this will influence the general election. If you can't explain it in a soundbite, it doesn't exist.
Again, if this is the best that GOP critics can come up with, it makes me feel very very good about Obama's chances.
April 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment