Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
To say one candidate can go negative and the other one can't is pretty silly. If republicans want to complain when Obama goes negative that he is not the "new candidate" won't they be admitting that their candidate is the same old politician of old?
|
Perhaps. All I'm saying is, Obama's whole selling point was that he wasn't a typical politician, and it's turning out that he is. McCain? Of course he's a typical politician. He's been in the Senate for 20 years.
Let me make myself clear. I have no problem with Obama attacking McCain. I do have a problem with him suggesting he wouldn't do that. McCain made no such suggestions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Tell me what Obama did wrong involving Rezko? Also while were talking about corruption maybe we should bring up Keating 5.
The truth of the matter is both Rezko and Keating 5 are too complex for it to resonate with the public. It is a sad state of affairs but the only thing that resonates with the voting public are tag lines that can be said in 5 words or less. If you have to explain anything the majority of the public won't care.
|
You're right. Rezko is way too complicated for the general public, and I think only people really into politics really understand it.
Now the way I understand it with Rezko is (and don't quote me on the correct order of this, I'm doing this off the top of my head)...
#1 Rezko gave Obama a deal on his house $300K below market value.
#2 Obama turned to Rezko for political expediency
#3 Obama fought for a lot of funding to get Rezko contracts on housing projects in Chicago.
#4 Rezko goes to jail for fraud and bribery.
For someone who follows politics a lot, I can't say I totally understand all the details.