It's not strange at all.

I think the McCain campaign has a democratic mole working in their editing room - and the really funny part is they think he's doing a fantastic job.

That ad is hilarious! I'm going to watch it again.

Well yes and no. McCain never sold himself as some type of "new" politics. You sort of expected attack campaigning out of McCain, as well as Hillary and so forth.

Obama portrays himself as a unifier, but is doing exactly what McCain and Hillary has done - attack.

I agree the Republicans have attacked Obama more so than Obama has attacked McCain, but it works doesn't it? Look at the latest Zogby polls or Rasmussen polls. Obama has lost a lot of ground since the McCain campaign started attacking Obama in full force.

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?
-----Added 21/8/2008 at 08 : 06 : 27-----
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.

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.

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.

I read. I rarely post. Most posts seem to come directly from a talking points memo put out by either the DNC or the RNC.

#1 Rezko did not give Obama a deal. Obama paid the owner (no relation to Rezko) 1.65 million, which was 300,000 below the asking price (not the value) (~18%). However, the house was on the market for months and Obama's offer was the highest one. The seller has said that Obama's paid a fair price. The seller also sold an adjacent vacant lot to Rezko and the seller made it a condition of both bids that they close on the same day. Later Obama purchased a strip of the vacant land from Rezko for $104,500 which was $60,000 more then the assessed value. That is definitely not a deal.

#2 Rezko donated a total of about $4,000 to his campaign and threw a single fund raiser for im.

#3 No evidence of this has ever surfaced nor of any favors done by Obama for Rezko

#4 this it true, but the bribery and fraud was related to other politicians not Obama.

From what I can tell the Rezko/Obama relation is really this: They owned land next to each other, Obama overpaid for a small strip of land, They both served on the board of a non-profit together, Rezko donated to Obama's campaigns a few times and held a single fund raiser for him.

Even when all the complexities are explained there still doesn't appear to be anything wrong it.

If you say so...



... as long as the perception is out there, it's going to have legs.



what the heck... while we're at it.



It's a sad truth... but true.

I'm sorry, otto, but posting videos that contain the phrase "I'm X and I approve this message" and calling that ANY sort of truth, sad or otherwise, is evidence of delusion well beyond what this forum can help you with.

The REAL sad truth is, people who have swallowed the kool-aid that thoroughly are beyond recovery.

Well many of the campaign ads *are* based on truths, but many times don't tell the whole truth. For instance, the latest Obama ad pokes fun at McCain's multiple houses. It basically tries to vilify McCain for being wealthy. Ummm isn't Obama fairly well off himself? Half the story....

Well there are certainly kool aid drinkers on both sides. In that 'rock star' video, the video producer obviously found some. It certainly isn't representative of most Obama supporters, but there certainly is no scarcity of them. Trust me I know a few.
-----Added 22/8/2008 at 01 : 43 : 35-----
$60k more than assessed value? Sounds a little fishy to me there.

As for the property Rezko bought, it is purported that he paid the asking price. Nothing wrong with that there, but combined with Obama's lot, seems a little shady.

Obama even regrets buying the property: Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Politics

Rezko's fundraiser raised almost $250k for Obama.

While Obama turning to Rezko for political expediency certain is not illegal in any terms. However, associating with a felon is coming back to bite him in the butt. He's been lucky not too much has been made of this yet, but don't bet the house that it stays that way.

Perhaps it's human nature, but there is a saying that goes "you are judged by the company you keep." With Obama befriending Rezko, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Raila Odinga and Father Michael Pfleger, you have to wonder if there are some skeletons in the closet.


Taken from a NY Post article:
BARACK'S FAVORS FOR CORRUPT CRONY - New York Post

-In October 1998, Obama wrote city and state officials, urging them to give Rezko $14 million to build an apartment complex outside of Obama's state Senate district. The Chicago Sun-Times noted last year that Obama's request included $855,000 in "development fees" for Rezko and for another developer, Allison Davis, who happened to be Obama's old law-firm boss. Obama's spokesman said it was just a coincidence that the state senator wrote letters to obtain millions of dollars for his two longtime friends.

-In 2001, Obama cosponsored a bill allowing developers to sell state tax credits to others and pocket half of the proceeds.

- In 2002 and 2004, he was chief cosponsor of a bill to authorize a rent-subsidy fund giving "grants . . . directly to developers" of low-income housing. Seventy percent of the money was earmarked for the Chicago area.

-Obama cosponsored the Illinois Housing Initiative Act of 2003, which required the governor to develop a plan for more low-income housing and "provide[d] for funding for housing construction and rehabilitation and supportive services."

-In 2003, Obama voted for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, which required Illinois municipalities to make 10 percent of their housing units "affordable" (by definition, this included subsidized housing). This forced 46 communities just outside of Chicago to create more than 7,000 new "affordable" units - a huge boost in demand for area developers. The bill also provided loopholes for developers to circumvent local ordinances and regulations.

These and the other Obama-backed bills helped make millionaires of Rezko and other slum developers at taxpayers' expense. The developers - including his former law boss and an adviser to his current campaign - reciprocated, together giving and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns.

Well I quoted all the NY Post stuff that addressed this in the previous section. The question is now what was the motivation? There lies everything. If Obama had in fact been motivated to help Rezko make millions, there is a serious crime here. If not, well, it's shady, but legal. The problem is proving the intent. Obama is not going to come out and say it, and I highly doubt there is a good paper trail either way.

Either way, however, the only one that is hurt is Obama. Just the perception he might have done something illegal (and by associating with a felon) will hurt him dearly in the eyes of voters.

Umm...his presidency is often considered the biggest flop ever.....

Would McCain be considered senile or incompetent if he couldn't say at what point human rights begins (in reference to Obama's "above my pay-grade" quote)?

This just continues to spiral... and we're only getting started. Yes, we've got the "old coot" vs. the "empty suit". I say let them beat the crap out of each other.

I would love to see Obama pick Biden as his VP and McCain Romney. They can go at each other's throats. That would make for some good debating.

At least entertaining at some level.
-----Added 22/8/2008 at 04 : 29 : 37-----
Yes "they" have and are.