This issue has already been explored fully by the Chicago newspapers who spent this whole campaign trying to turn this into more than it really is. Hillary is just helping to do the Republicans' work again by making it sound like there's more to do this, just like she made it sound like there was something to the Muslim smear.

"too little, too late." Well, no one can say you haven't done your part Greg.

I'm so disillusioned with Hillary right now. If she makes the nomination, I will not vote for her.

Seems pretty smart to me. Republicans and the Clintons seem hell bent on making a mountain out of every mole hill. Better to prepared for the unexpected than be caught flat-footed

Rezko tourette's syndrome. Does anybody know of a cure? There have been nearly 300 news stories on this non-issue. I'm really tired of it.

By the way, did anyone see the picture of obama's house in chicago? Wow. I would love a comparison to the clintons' mansion. Do a side by side. That picture was worth a thousand words. They should put it on the front page of every newspaper in the country and this primary would have been wrapped up a month ago.

Come talk to me when there's actual evidence that Barack Obama has done anything remotely wrong. And if the Clintons think it's fair to play the game of guilt by association, perhaps the press should be discussing Mr. Hsu, Johnnie Chung, Charlie Trie, Bill Clinton's own disbarment, Marc Rich et al, not to mention Bill's lucrative dealings brokering uranium contracts with third world dictators.

An Obama win in Texas will take care of everything.

So Greg......you admit that the Clintons have you crapping yOUR pants to do her dirty work...What a bunch of losers that call themselves the press.

I hope that everyone does take a long hard look at this. Democrats want transparency (where are those tax records and appointment records anyway, Hillary?)

If all that's discovered is that Obama had a friend that was highly regarded in the community that started to make some shady and illegal deals when his businesses started to fail, and Obama had NOTHING to do with them in any form whatsoever, I hope that Hillary supporters and the Media will let it go. We're not holding the Hillary campaign responsible for Norman Hsu (who goes on trial soon too).

If Obama did something illegal, then by all means, let's examine this and reprioritize our candidates. The last thing ANY of us want is another crook in the White House. However, if he did nothing other than accept a campaign donation and receive real estate advice, and he's already returned the donations, then we need to back off.

I think the reason that Obama has a staffer in the courtroom is simple. Whatever is said in the trial is going to be used by McCain/Clinton '08 and their 527s or 501 c organizations will be bringing up as much mud as possible regarding the trial. Better to get firsthand notes and prepare for the onslaught of mud that Hillary McCain is going to be throwing...

"the Obama campaign can throw it out there the way she's doing to see what "sticks"."

I hope this is true. The negative information about him is turning into a cascade, and there's been no pushback whatsoever.

It's time to go negative, Barack. She will not stop until she is stopped. And there are enough skeletons in her closet to throw a Halloween Party for all of those kids she claims she cares so much about.

Ugh, horrid.

Is it time for Obama to hit back hard with all the dirt on Hillary? How about the time she, as a court appointed lawyer defended a man accused of raping a 12 year old by accusing the girl of seducing him and having a thing for 'older men'? How about that Kazakhstan thing? There is so much dirt on Hillary out there it's absurd. She is the far dirtier candidate.

I don't know if Obama even needs to do this in order to win at this point. I suppose we'll see by tomorrow. I hope not, but I can't stand all this vitriol. God damn the Dems are pathetic. Hillary &co. epitomize the "I want to win more then I want to fix the nation" mindset that infests the party. It's disgusting.

I'll tell you what should set off alarm bells in the Democratic party...

HILLARY CLINTON ENDORSED JOHN F-ING MCCAIN!!!!

God I hate it when Dems act like Repubs. "Too little too late?" Are you kidding me? Is sincerity even a factor anymore? I'd like to think that one reason to support Clinton is that eight years of a president above the law is eight years too many. But that clearly is not her argument. I'd like to think that truth and inspiration are important in a democracy. Not to Hillary, though. I'd like to think that journalists seek facts and not just report innuendo. But not so much, eh Greg?

Many Obama supporters are not going to vote for HRC, many Clinton supporters are not going to vote for Obama. Let's guess, who is going to be the next President?

Sure seems odd that after YEARS of being attacked about WhiteWater, that the Clintons would now attack a FELLOW DEMOCRAT over his affiliation with a man that EVEN THEY NEW and met at Carol Mosel Brauns fundraiser in the 90's.

Guess they learned a lesson from their enemy the GOP -- attack attack attack attack and if that isn't enough, attack again.

I gotta hand it to the Clintons -- they have some kind of love of living on the edge that scares the bejeezus out of me. Next week, it will be tax return time.....

i can tell most of you are young and dont understand campaigns.....wait until the general election and see the scrutiny obama will get (if in fact he is the nominee) the MSM wont be able to save him from the GOP attacks .....so far this has been kiddee games for him

greg is one of the fairest bloggers on this site .......where is the MSM coverage of yesterdays press conference in which obama walked of after 8 questions with reporters yelling he dodged 4 of the 8 questions

There are MANY unanswered questions about Rezko!!
And the media has given Obama a pass from the gitgo.

Why won't Obama release the documents for the house closing?
Why did Obama reach out to Rezko for financial help? - KNOWING he was the target of a federal investigation.
Rezko toured Obama's house with him before he bought it. Obviously Obama didn't mind locking arms with Rezko.

btw - Hillary is releasing tax returns next month.

How much money did Hsu donate to Obama's HopeFund??
Wasn't it about $60K?

Obama/Rezko08

i can tell most of you are young and dont understand campaigns.....

Condescending much?

I find it disgraceful that Clinton is using the same tactics against Obama that the Republicans used against her. But I guess at 47 I'm just too young to get that this is how things are done.

As for the ridiculous "wait until the general election" theme that Clinton, and Clinton supporters have been hammering, why wait? Clinton is dishing out the same slime that Republicans will.

And you know what? If Hillary is the nominee, we can look forward to Republicans saying "Even Hillary said McCain would be a good president"...Thanks, Clintons, for a really well-done campaign. Scorched earth, indeed.

The Republicans will attack Hillary with equal or greater vigor should she somehow secure the nomination. Who the Democratic nominee is makes no difference.

Chivalry is not dead. The fair maid, a damsel in distress, calls to her knights to come to her aid, and, lo, they ride forth to slay non-existent dragons. Though there are no dragons to slay, the knights-Ridder, et. al., can sit tall in their saddles, confident that they have not failed to protect the fair, blond, maid.

Greg-
In the Rezko case, is there even the possibility or the allegation of anything illegal or any wrongdoing? As US Senator when he bought the house, Obama did not have oversight of any government agency that regulated Rezko, or his business.

So this is a faux scandal, nothing like others (for example, Whitewater) where there was theoretical possibility of some quid pro -- then Governor Clinton had regulatory oversight of his friend, campaign donor Jim McDougal's bank. Hillary represented him before that commission.

Now I'm a Democrat, hated the right wing attack job that used Whitewater to cripple the Clintons, and don't like bringing it up now. But I do so because the Clintons are using the exact same kind of Rovean dirty tactics against Obama that were used against them -- with the substantial difference with Rezko that there is not even the remote theoretical possibility of similar wrongdoing. In Rezko, it's Governor Blagojevich who is in the position to have done wrong, just like Governor Clinton was in that position with McDougal.

Given all that, the Clinton's tactics are nothing short of slimy, disgusting, and depressing.

And the press? From what I can tell so far, they're just repeating the questions pushed by Wolfson, without even pausing to ask if there is a "there there."

Guess the "attack the press" strategy worked.

i have a thought about why HRC should take this to the convention
the dem party needs to wake up and change their system.....this system is set up for a disaster as this campaign has turned out to be.......proportional delagates and caucus's make it almost impossible for a candidate to reach 2025 delagates if the dem party is split on the 2 candidates as they are .and having open primaries where outsiders have a say in the parties selections is also stupid...by going to the convention maybe they will learn that this crazy system should be changed ...for example if they were winner take all like the repubs have hillary would have a 400 delagate lead after super tuesday.......her electoral vote lead would be way up also.....taking one stae like wisconsin where the dem vote was 50 to 49 in favor of obama ..because of GOP and independents it ended up obama by 17.......outsiders made it a big win for obama......this is not a way to pick a candidate....the dem party has to wake up and change the system

Check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/153522/320/811/456849

(this story is a few weeks old, but there's an update on the DailyKOS front page)

While Hillary is trying to destroy the party from within, Barrack is actually filming commercials and trying to get Democrats elected.

I don't think any Obama supporter have a problem with someone brining up Rezko- we KNOW it will come up in the general. I think we are just a little disgusted that it is Hillary not McCain. I mean- with Whitewater in her past there is a little more irony than I am comfortable with. Both are land deals that were investigated ad nauseum and yet produced no finding of wrong doing. I think there is no "there" there for either. What is notable is that Hillary uses Rezko and Obama doesn't use Whitewater. And if he did--- who would be the first to cry out "Republican talking points" or "Karl Rove playbook."
For a campaign thats talking points are all about a double standard- it seems to me the glaring one is how all of the Clinton scandals have been off limits. If she's the nominee- we will be re-visiting all the scandals (Travelgate, filegate, Monicagate, Vince Foster, whitewater-- should we go on????) and McCain has no problem using Republican talking points- he is after all a REPUBLICAN!!!!

Hi Greg,

I actually commend you for this story. Although when I first sat down to read it, I felt the need to jump and point out the obvious bias. However, I think the fact that you wrote out a complete thought and posted it publicly points to the changing nature of the press in this campaign.

Essentially the press is "going nuclear" right now and unfortunately the stories have little teeth. I hate to be so literal, but in a world of irony I think my posts are refreshing.

I sure wouldn't mind if Obama had some surrogates to at least remind people of the campaign donor issues that have surrounded the Clintons their entire career, Norman Hsu being even more recent than Rezko. And the company whose executives are mired in sexual harrassment cases. Hillary, always playing fair, is waiting for those cases to be adjudicated. All 103 of them. Where are the feminists now? Such hypocrites.

There's no one who can draw the parallel between Hillary sounding like the Republican hit men (pick a name, any name)? Just to put it in context and throw a volley that actually defines his opponent? I'm frankly surprised the campaign was not prepared to do this more effectively. For Hillary Clinton to make campaign donors an issue, and land deals -- LAND DEALS, for God's sake -- and the Obama people not be able to volley that back? I'm frankly, very disappointed.

And if they want all the info on Rezko (of which there is no more, or the Chicago papers would have been all over it), then you demand Bill's donor lists from the library and the foundation. That those numbers, and the source of their $54,000,000 worth is hidden, takes all the legs out of their chest-thumping.

I expected the Gates of Hell before March 4. Even I didn't anticipate the amount of mud they could sling, so fast. But Obama is still responsible for his response. I understand the high road, I really do. But it is still the candidate's job to define his candidate -- that's Politics 101. I'm not pleased.

I tell you what - I really, really hope that the press does focus and focus hard on the Rezko story. Once they do, everyone will realize that there is no there there. Right now, Obama's problem is that most folks merely know that there is some dirty business involving a guy named Rezko, but they do not know the particulars. Once this becomes 24 hour headline focus and every jot and tittle is aired in public, people will see that Gov Blagojevich is badly tainted by association with Rezko but Obama is mostly just an innocent-but-involved party. Better to immunize our guy against this issue in the fall by airing the whole thing out right now.

This issue is good for a short term boost for the Clintons because there is no time for a thorough treatment of the subject before voting is done, so it mostly serves to leave a taint in the minds of late deciders as they head to the polls today. It will have little traction for either of Obama's opponents (either Clinton or McCain) once the press really digs into it, however. As such, the sooner they do dig into it deeply, the better for Obama.

And her taxes? Her financial troubles pending in court? When does the press cover that, when the primaries are over???

You know the obamatrons are getting nervous when all of the ridiculous canards come out.

"Where are the tax returns?" is just a variation of the classic republican smear where you find one thing that the person can do beyond what is required and hammer them for not doing it. She has done every senate disclosure necessary, and nobody has any actual unanswered questions. What do you think you will find? A line item on a schedule C for bribes to kiddie porn dealers? It will just show the amounts of money they made, which are already disclosed in the senate reports. And calling for her to release her tax returns when Obama is still withholding some of his is even sillier.

"She endorsed McCain!" Everyone here knows that she was not endorsing McCain. Everyone here knows she was making the same argument she has made dozens of times: that she has the experience to counter McCain and Obama does not. If you think Obama has the experience, then just say that. But don't pretend that you actually believe she endorsed McCain. Should she lie and say that McCain has no experience? Should we just not mention that the guy was a war hero and an extremely popular senator for decades and just HOPE that nobody notices? That is just silly. He is very experienced. Hillary commented on that and argues that he can counter it. Obama thinks McCain's experience is irrelevant because he brings hope and puppies for everyone. That's all there is to this.

"Rezko? Bring it on!" The story according to Obama is that he would not have been able to buy the house without Rezko's help. His biggest donor spent lots of money (not directly to Obama) to ensure that Obama could get a house that he otherwise says he could not have afforded. How is that good for Obama? How is that anything other than cronyism? How, if your campaign is based on "judgement" do you reconcile such a "boneheaded" move with your supposed good judgement? Even if there is nothing else here (and Obama has already had to change his story several times to account for facts he keeps getting wrong: underreporting donations, collusion on the land deal, actions that he took for Rezko, etc) that is pretty bad on its own. But if nothing else bad is there, why is a Senate staffer sitting in on the trial? Wouldn't that person's (government salaried) time be better spent preparing for Obama's first hearing in his subcommittee?

"But Hillary did X, Y, and Z!" Perhaps. But other than annoying comments from her staff members about who had what title, there is nothing new on Hillary. These things are bad because, like the NAFTA story, they drip drip drip out over the course of a week and continue to show deception with every new revelation. The NAFTA thing might fade with his loss in Ohio, but now Rezko will drip drip drip over the next few weeks. Not because Hillary is making stuff up or feeding the press, but because it is there. You only know about the Hillary "scandals" because people spent tens of millions of dollars building those molehills up into mountains a decade ago. Yet she is still the most respected woman on the planet (Oprah is #2), is more popular with Democrats than Obama (he is ahead through crossover votes), and is a viable candidate for president.

"She's throwing the kitchen sink!" Maybe just part of the spout (not including that little filter you already stole to use in your bong). Or the handle. If this looks kitchen sink to you, you are extremely naive. Dukakis got hit in the primaries with the "prison furlough" issue. It was a reasonable policy question: were the prison furloughs a good idea. It wasn't some secret policy--it was part of his record. They debated it. He won the primary. In the general election, the republicans picked out one guy who had been on the furlough program and ran ads saying "be scared of the black man." They painted a white guy with "be scared of the black man" and won on it, and you are afraid that Hillary is mentioning a sleazy donor? The republican attacks on Obama won't be for Rezko or NAFTA. They are going to beat the crap out of him with some obscure policy position that he took as a state senator, or find some guy currently in Guantanamo that painted his house in Indonesia, or some business dealing or law filing in Chicago that you have never heard of. They are going to drop the whole kitchen on him.

If this is what you are expecting to head into the general election with, you might as well start printing up your "Impeach McCain" bumper stickers now.

Hillary's campaign trying to point out a disgraced former fund raiser is just so ironic. In the last 16 years, how many fund raisers for the Clinton's have been accused of illegal or immoral behavior? If the press goes full bore on the Rezko situation, in all fairness, they have to dredge up all the past foibles of the Clinton fundraising activities.

Bret08: Most posts on this blog are relatively intelligent and insightful and therefore worth reading. Yours, however, is rife with misstatements, outright falsehoods and long-ago debunked Clinton talking points. Please go away. I thank you in advance.