He should have had all this information shipped to the Clinton library archives----no one would ever have known.

The following article at Mydd,
http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/29/105154/627,
based in part on MSNBC reporting about the Obama/Rezko property purchase, is interesting.
It seems clear that to me that only legalistic parsing can refute the obvious appearance that Rezko gave Obama a $1 million gift.

He keep finding more money in his pockets don't he now.lolololo

Tick, tock, tick, tock,
It's a matter of time before Rezko talks.

"It's a matter of time before Rezko talks."

Outside of the fact that Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, here is an interesting post entitled: "SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT OBAMA'S PALS?" http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html

My question is for how long can Obama avoid talking about this?

Oh, he's talking about it...problem is he's given about 5 different stories.

Obama hasn't done anything illegal, and Rezko hasn't been indicted for anything related to Obama. He shouldn't have had anything to do with him, he admitted that, but there is nothing there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080124/cm_huffpost/083040;_ylt=Auo_ukcrYdhKQ7hhxK2mcYf9wxIF

*yawn*

Obama's people didn't need to bury this bacause the hational media is so invested in his mythology they are not going to make their prince look bad. Is anyone else wondering why the conservative pundits defend him so quickly? I just heard that big toad Bennett saying on CNN that Clinton had "ambushed" him by going down to Flordia to thank her supporters for her overwhelming win. Of course CNBC framed it that much of her vote was absentee before S.C. The way I read it that might account for 6 points, that still puts her 14 points ahead in FL.Try to imagine the cable talk if the point spread had been reversed. It would be the second coming has arrived.I kind think he also might have made a little side trip to FL himself.

First his crushing defeat in FL then yet more rezko funny money given away.

------------

“All along we have said this is a battle for delegates,” said Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, “and we are going to campaign for delegates in South Carolina and across the country.”

Hillary Clinton's delegates from FL: 0.

Barack Obama's delegates from FL: 0.

but the latter suffered a "crushing defeat"

good try chief.

paul...old news....this is new news

I thought he gave ALL the money back a long time ago...I guess this is just another one of Obama's miss-truths. What a disaster he would be as president. So Sad. VOTE FOR HILLARY...2008!!

"Guess what pal....that ain't the news is it. ;)"

Sure it is, especially when you utter the nonsensical, Rezko non-scandal. "SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT OBAMA'S PALS?"
http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html

I want my money back...need to pay my lawyers!

Rezko-gate is bad for Obama and Clinton (the media has a photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton with Rezko) which both parties prefer to have this subject overlooked.

I still think its funny how Hillary sort made this is a national headline at the Nevada Debates when she associated Obama with the Illinois slumlord but failed to vette her own history throughly as she has ties as well.

Mb>MarkL: "It seems clear that to me that only legalistic parsing can refute the obvious appearance that Rezko gave Obama a $1 million gift."

I really don't think that's the case. Patrick Fitzgerald is the U.S. Attorney in charge of Rezko's prosecution, and thus he's offered no evidence of any quid pro quo, and the trial's only one month away.

I actually think Rezko's motives in this case were above board, in that despite his own crumbling financial fortunes, he actually tried to do a favor for someone he genuinely considered a friend.

Some friend -- and that's the core of Barack Obama's potential problem in explaining away his relationship with his former political mentor.

For this particular transaction to have occurred according to Obama's storyline, he benefited from the largesse of someone whom he now describes as merely a casual acquaintance, who apparently went out of his way to arrange a deal that enabled the Obama family to buy a house that they otherwise could not hae afforded.

Well, we should all have such generous casual acquaintances.

Again, there is no evidence that Barack Obama ever did anything untoward or improper -- but that may not matter, once Rezko's trial begins on February 25. Because Obama is campaigning as the proverbial man on the white horse, such dirt is going to show up more readily on his mount.

You Obama morons: It doesn't matter if the elections had delegates or not. Obama lost 50% to 30%. These are real peoples votes. It is these votes that count in the general election.

GET IT NUMBSKULLS YOU LOST, FL PEOPLE DON'T TRUST OBAMA!

But of course you are running on "Fairy Tail" platform!

Barack HOAX Obama

Well, since Obama thinks his rout in Florida is no big deal, maybe he'd prefer to talk about the drip, drip, drip of money and news about his long-time, 20-year by his own quote, personal, business, and political relationship with Rezko, who is now jailed, awaiting trial. While he doesn't sound as tied up in this as much as Blagojevich is, it is really only because the full story of his friend is not yet out. It is past time for Obama to start talking about this, maybe now is a good time?

Steve, asking and expecting Obama to explain about his 20-year relationship and the continuing drip, drip, drip of news about this is relevant to the election and important. Do you really want to see Obama, who you apparently support, get tripped up later in this? There is enough now out about this--cozy deals, campaign funds, and all, plus, as closely has they were, I'm at a loss to believe that he didn't know the Rezko was a slum-lord. Take the blinders off and look at this. Whinning doesn't and will not make this go away. What it instead does is say to your fellow Democrats, stick your head in the sand and this will go away. Sorry, I didn't drink the Kool-Aid. And if you think questions now are onerous, you're pretty naive. I suspect the Republicans have Obama's number and will rip him apart, despite your whinning, in the general election. Thus, I'd prefer to know if he is real, is credible, and not corrupt now, rather than have the Republicans do it later. So, please stop the whinning and lets talk, ask your candidate about this, and stick to substantive content.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/01/blagojevich-tri.html

Just a bit of contrast here in terms of how and possibly why the media choose to highlight or bury stories:
The Rezko story gets brought up again and in a way that hints at the 'appearance' of possible wrong doing [Barack is 'dirty' by association].

Perhaps a week ago, there were a couple of small internet articles about some troubling memos found in the first batch of papers just released from the Clinton White House documents. Those memos indicated that Hillary Clinton was, in 1993, entertaining the use of opposition research on opponents lifestyles, etc, the use of the media to sideline opponents of her health care plan, and the wielding of a loyalty list of Clinton campaign backers to be woven into decisions related to determining policy.

Not only was I surprised to read the short-lived news that the Clintons themselves and their Democratic friends were 'into' oppo research at a time that pre-dated the supposed rise of the VRWC, and not only have I been very curious about why that news of those Clinton papers was quickly buried instead of being out in the public for discussions, but at this moment I believe that there is an as yet unknown connection between the media's definite burying of the Clinton 'oppo research' propensities and the media's definite attempt to resurrect the Rezko story.

I would like to see Media Matters and/or TPM Muckrackers dig into this.