Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shennigans, though it’s less noticable than in the Original Mayor Daley days. And Obama has been in the thick of it for several years. The question the Democrat hierarchy has to be considering:
Are stories like this one- the tip of an iceberg, or just an ice cube floating by? If there are such icebergs in Obama’s life, will the news media be as effective at masking such problems as they were with Bill’s extra-curricular activities?
This particular story is pretty thin, with most of it being circumstantial; however, it already has more meat to it (with actual financial transactions that appear, at least, odd) than the front-page blast the McCain with far less about the lobbyist (with 4 bylines no less). There are certainly questions to be asked of Tony Rezko (awaiting trial), who had “no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations”, yet managed to qualify for a mortgage and get loaned millions.
Of course, the media will give Obama the same kind of coverage McCain got when Satan’s team skates the Stanley Cup. But when Hillary gets knocked out and is sitting on the sidelines, who’s to say whether her back-stabbing little minions won’t manage to chum the waters with more substantial meat than this to leave 2012 open?
Politics at this level is a full contact sport that makes rugby look wimpy; if there’s a wolf under Bambi’s’ clothing, we’ll end up seeing Barack’s fangs before this is done.
Filed under: Politics
I’m sure Obama isn’t a spotless politician, certainly not much more than most, but I think Clinton probably has problems that are equally, if not more troubling.
Yes, but if Clinton was done for this cycle and could dredge it up covertly? She’s been handling scandal for decades; how would Barack handle it?
Barack Obama, in fact, ran against the Chicago political machine. Obama started a political machine of his own. It’s called grassroots poltics.
Not if the national television news stations stay as corrupted as they have been.
Talk about “pay for play” politics. As much money as they make off the public, you’d think they champion something like democracy.
I wish people wouldn’t kid themselves. About the grassroots thing, that has to be one of the biggest scams on the public (and DNC member base) going on right now. Obama never ran against the machine, which is funny if you dig into it. He is a near pure product of the Chicago and Illinois machines, from trying to push Rezco’s Iraq agendas to his good friends in the predatory loan scams. His little real estate kickback is just a distraction from his more shady shenanigans. He’s smart, and his words are as legalese as his actions. You have to look at them from three angles to realize what he’s really doing and saying. He may have a built-in a degree of deniability with everything, but few people have the friends, associates, and transactions he has without “having anything to do with them”.
And Rezco seems to be from Obama’s “small to medium” portfolio.
This seems interesting. I don’t remember the news mentioning this, but maybe they did.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html
No lobbyist money? – How come a massive amount of money is just being bundled from the employees of companies who do lobbying? Will this be the DNCs “new line”, taking that special, personal approach to special interest lobbying? Of course he’s gotten a lot of grassroots money too, playing that “I don’t take lobbyist money” line.
Is the under reporting just because only the criminals and money interests seem to be able to pay for airtime, or do the news stations think it’s for the public’s own good somehow? Maybe silence is “patriotic” or noble again. TV stations make good money from their “news”, yet these things are old news by the time they show up on ABC/Fox it seems, if ever.
Come on people. This may be important. Don’t let the world think we’re dumb, because we’re not.
[...] found one writer at The Political Enquirer who asked; Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shenanigans, though it’s less [...]
[...] found one writer at The Political Enquirer who asked; Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shenanigans, though it’s less [...]
[...] found one writer at The Political Enquirer who asked; Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shenanigans, though it’s less [...]
[...] found one writer at The Political Enquirer who asked; Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shenanigans, though it’s less [...]
[...] found one writer at The Political Enquirer who asked; Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for political shenanigans, though it’s less [...]