Get out of here. We Obamabots don't want to here that. Rezko is Mrs. Clinton's pal after all his associated donated $1000 to the Clinton campaign.

It's only problematic if Fitzgerald brought his name up. Rezko is trying to establish that he had lots of friends in politics but isn't accused of pedaling influence with them. And newsflash, Obama has already said they were friends. If this is supposed to be explosive stuff, then it really underscores how little there is to this Rezko-Obama scare tactic pushed by you Hillbots.

Btw, any word on whether Vilsack returned the $450M Hsu helped raise at Clinton's instructions to retire his 2007 presidential campaign debt? You know, in exchange for his endorsement?

Duh, that's part of his attorneys' trial strategy. So what? It's entirely irrelevant.

The trial has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. You suggesting otherwise is highly irresponsible. Are you a Clinton supporter trying to mislead readers?

From the Politico story that's caused Matt Weaver to cream himself:

In his opening statement Thursday, Rezko’s lead defense attorney, Joseph Duffy, mentioned Obama and five other politicians in explaining Rezko’s motivation for political involvement.

That involvement, Duffy said, stemmed from Rezko’s affection for the political process and desire to help candidates he believed had the public’s best interest at heart. Duffy said Rezko raised money for the campaigns of Republicans and Democrats alike and expected nothing in return.

The list of those candidates, Duffy said, was too long to read in court, so he just ticked off a few.

Harold Washington, the late Democratic mayor of Chicago, was the first candidate Rezko backed (at the behest of allies of legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, according to Duffy).

Also listed were former Cook County Board President John Stroger, a Democrat; Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.); former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican; current Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat; and Obama.

Notice that Fitzgerald didn't mention Obama's name in connection with the allegations against Rezko? Keep digging though, I believe you are getting close to finding the magic pony!

Rezko has been debunked, get over it. The Clintons are much dirtier, and have a lot more recent dirt.

I can't decide which is more annoying, campaign talking points coming directly from HillaryClinton08 or coming from Weaver here.

Either way, they are both tools.

Rezko Myths debumked:

Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama’s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that’s the key issue here.

Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."

I love it when one can surmise something.

Also, a logical conclusion would be...

Rhetorical tools are very necessary to draw someone into guilt by association.

So all those people WJC pardoned must make HRC guilty, yes?

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s “Operation Board Games.”

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Rezko’s trial is scheduled to begin March 3. The legal cases comprise several indictments of Chicago political and business figures on multiple counts of fraud, extortion and kickbacks. Rezko’s co-defendants include Chicago businessman Stuart Levine; construction executive and Chicago Medical School trustee Jacob Kiferbaum, who is cooperating with the investigation, and Bear Stearns executive P. Nicholas Hurtgen; and attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren, doing business for the Teachers’ Retirement System. Mr. Loren has not been a significant donor.

All the major donors were obviously cruising for receptive politicians, whom they found. Setting aside any presumption of guilt, there was clearly more than enough money as well as blame to go around. Neither party has a monopoly on the big donations in Chicago in spite of its dominant Democratic machine. A quick search on Mitt Romney, for example, in Illinois turns up a result list that cuts off at 1000 donors—and that’s IF you limit the search to individual contributions over $2300.

Only public financing of elections, backed up by laws that have teeth in them, will ameliorate this condition.

Meanwhile—

That Rezko donated over the years like a political junkie, and may have been one, has already been written about by Buzzflash. Rezko himself gave mostly to Dems, with the largest amts going to central committees, other donations to national figures incl GWBush ($4000), and frequent contributions over the years to IL politicians incl Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and former senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald as well as the donations to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton pointed out.

Predictably, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.

Here is the rundown on his fellow defendants, from FEC data via www.opensecrets.org, in descending order by amounts donated:

Stuart Levine: 210 donations for federal candidates, totaling $255,350, mostly to Republicans. Biggest contributions to Illinois Republican Party and to National PAC. One $5000 donation to the Illinois Democratic Party. Most individual donations to GOP candidates from GWBush on down, except for a few $2000 donations to Joe Lieberman, Mark Green of NY, who now appears frequently on MSNBC as a Clinton supporter, and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes, whose father, Thomas C. Hynes, was formerly a Cook County Assessor. Dan Hynes was among Barack Obama’s primary opponents in the Illinois U.S. Senate race in 2003. Levine donated $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Levine has not donated to Obama.

Joseph Cari, Jr: pulled out his checkbook 137 times from 1993 on, giving $193,836 under Joseph and $8958 under Joe to candidates for federal office, mostly to Dems. Further donations from family members incl $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Biggest Cari donations went to the DNC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Individual donations, usually $1000 apiece, to Dem candidates across the country incl the natl figures—Gore, Kerry, Kennedys—and others incl Robert Torricelli in NJ, Chuck Robb in VA, and even the late Paul Wellstone in MN ($250). Cari donated $2000 to Bill Clinton in 1995, another $1000 to Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm, $500 and $1000 to Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2003, and donated twice to HILLPAC in 2002. The Hillary Clinton campaign has apparently returned the $1000 but not the other donations. Cari also donated several times to Southern Wine & Spirits, a PAC donating to both major parties which has also donated to both Clintons. Cari has also donated to several Illinois Democratic candidates including Gov. Blagojevich and former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. No contribution to Obama individually is listed, but the Obama campaign has returned $1439 from apportioned committee contributions.

P. Nicholas Hurtgen, former Bear Stearns manager in Chicago: 48 federal contributions from Hurtgen and his wife in recent years, totaling $47,787, almost entirely to GOP candidates--$5000+ to the Republican National Committee, $4000 to GWBush, most of the rest to other Republicans. However, the Hurtgens have also donated $2000 to Rahm Emanuel and $7000 to Mark Green of NY, a Clinton supporter.

Jacob Kiferbaum: Kiferbaum and close relatives have donated $27,000 since 2001, mostly to Republicans. Kiferbaum’s largest individual donation was $10,000 to Maria Pappas, another Democratic primary contender for the Senate seat won by Obama. Kiferbaum has also given $4000 to GWBush, $4000 to Joe Lieberman, $2000 to Jack Ryan—Obama’s GOP opponent for Senate, until he had to withdraw—and $3000 to Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois 10th District. Kirk has returned $2000 of the Kiferbaum donation.

Steven Loren: 3 small—by these standards—federal donations, $1000 to Mark Kirk and $250 apiece to Harold Ford of TN and Charles Schumer of NY.

Illinois has donated more than $22 million to all presidential candidates combined, Republican and Democratic, in the 2008 cycle, 5th in state totals for donations, probably because it is the 5th largest state in the U.S. by population. Illinois also has the 5th biggest health insurance market.

Going from Illinois to the national picture, just in general, it might be a good practice for newspapers to start routinely cross-checking the names in federal indictments with the names in Federal Election Commission data.

http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html

Matthew--I didn't know your alter ego was a sports fan.

This is by far the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the laugh!

I liked your image so much I've decided to copy it; I hope you don't mind. I am now a proud member of the Matthew-Weaver-is-a-tool club.

This is the funniest comment I have read today. Thanks for the laugh.

May I also add that Favre's wife may have played in some minor league somewhere, and has watched football on TV all her life? It's a lifetime of footballing expertise!

Brett's wife is ready from play one!

What she actually said, as you obviously know but are still trying to mislead people, was, "They are both not ready to have that 3 am phone call."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumIz2bajus

I'm not going to say that it's helpful to either one of them, but it's not what you guys are claiming either.

Mattie, you've been saying the same garbage over and over and over again for months. Please go play at hillaryis44.org. They will appreciate your delusional statements there. I hear its a regular rezko circle jerk going on over there.

That's a lot of gloating for a draw.

1. O noes she won in the state that highly favored her.
2. Did you miss that headline where it was Clinton that talk to Canada? Look down earlier today.
3. Her advisor's were called and asked what experience does she have to say she is prepared for a 3 am call, there were crickets.
4. She didnt show up to her meetings for Afghanistan for her committee.
5. He returned that money and dont get us started on people who donated to Hillary... Including people who are also on trial in the Rezko trial.
6. To many to list.

Hillary's top people cant stop fighting with each other and you say Obama who is winning is self-destructing. HAH

I've never understood why anyone on either side bothers with the trash talk. What does it accomplish? You're not exactly an objective prognosticator, so why are you so confident in your predictions? I'm not objective either, but I don't shout to the world about how my candidate is going to win, win, win. I'm happy to read (and debate) intelligent arguments for Clinton, but the cheerleading is inane. If you really believe she's going to win, go make a killing in in-trade, but leave the rest of alone.

It's not foreign policy "experience" she claims she has and Obama doesn't have, it's the ability to handle a foreign policy "crisis." specifically a "crisis" involving the military role of the President as "commander in chief of the army and the navy." She is boxing herself in to her weakest frame, which is that she is a war-monger and obsessed with military saber-rattling as a principal tool of foreign policy. The one thing Dems (and two-thirds of voters) loathe about Shrub.

I thought speeches were just words! Where are the actions? She said she's taken actions!

She said she negotiated for peace in Kosovo and Northern Ireland. I must have missed that part of the 1990s. And I guess you don't need a security clearance to do so, since she never had one during the Clinton Administration, as the NYTimes recently pointed out.

But Words don't matter.

Why would you post this?
Actions not words!

Snark aside, it seems like a lovely speech. Just not a lovely foreign policy achievement.

Ohhhhh, I get it. Her foreign policy experience is giving a speech. Wow, now I understand, so she gets credit for probably mauling a speech as experience. And, at the same time she attacks obama's experience as "only giving a speech," which of course is bs. Man I am confused. Can you pass me some of that clintonion cult juice so that I can understand?

sorry Richmond, speeches don't matter.

Yeah. I'm not sure that she raised tough issues like the need to stop widespread female infanticide in China and the need to empower Chinese women with reproductive rights to challenge the one child policy. Haven't read the entire speech but remember reading about it at the time (coincidentally as I was finishing my MA in Asian/Chinese studies)...Boy, raising those really tough issues about having to work both inside and outside of the home must have been difficult for her to utter.

In your post about Kosovo further down the thread, I'd like to suggest that you visit factcheck on Obama's site to find multiple MSM articles that describe in detail her role in Kosovo and N. Ireland.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/01/fact_check_clinton_still_has_n.php
She visited refugee camps in Kosovo and did not negotiate any resettlement or border agreements. That's largely UNHCR's work anyway. HRC gave comfort to suffering people because her visit as First Lady drew attention to their plight...sort of like Angelina Jolie does when she goes to Africa...Does that qualify as foreign policy experience for Angelina? If so, that's a pretty low threshold. I visited a refugee camp outside of Peshawar, Pakistan in 1991 and gave money to children who followed me, and smiled in solidarity at more than a few women at a refugee clinic. Does that qualify me to claim official foreign policy experience? Certainly, it was a "foreign" experience related to US policy, but to claim that visiting a refugee camp is in anyway similar to the very hard work that UNHCR does and that career US Foreign Service Officers do is nonsense. Susan Rice is right about that. All of those people were making HRC's visit comfortable and ensuring the perfect PR photo op to support a US policy. That's what a First Lady does. Laura Bush has done the same trying to improve literacy around the world.

HRC is counting on the US public to be ignorant about how things work in foreign affairs. Sadly, this is often the case. To convince people whe is exaggerating. Great leadership quality.

On the Clinton Administration policy in Afghanistan, go back to about 1994 and look for articles that talk about US support for the new Taliban regime. They exist. While the Clinton administration certainly did not create the failed policy towards Afghanistan in the 80's through to 1992, it did not figure out that the Taliban were extreme nutcases until the Bahmian Bhudda Blowup (towards the end of the Administration I believe?), or maybe a little before that when even the Pakistani ISI was unable to control them, but either way, the Clinton Administration was on board with the Taliban in the early days. To that point, I don't recall HRC speaking out about Afghan women's rights during the admnistration. Unlike in China, where US policy had no real impact on the actual plight of women in that country, US policy directly affected many many Afghan women and children during the Clinton administration. Opportunity missed?

As for foreign policy experience, well, let's not forget how many seasoned foreign policy vets came into the Bush administration and see what a disaster they have been with their unilateral view of the world. Even if HRC had been a Diplomat/Ambassador to a seriously troubled place like Pakistan, her judgement was terrible on Iraq. The Bush Administration has proven beyond doubt that it is possible to be experienced and be wrong.

Obama has demonstrated better judgement and vision for the US role as world leader in the globalized economy. He's hired a great campaign team so I'm going to bet that he'll hire a great team as President. That is an area where American voters can draw a contrast between the two candidates leadership capabilities on even terms; their judgment in hiring people to help them get elected. better judgement? Obama.

I believe the endorsements - not one, but two - of John McCain came out of Hillary's OWN MOUTH. That is reason for, if not hate, at least overwhelming disgust. And possibly contempt.

It has taken Hillary's campaign a solid week to answer Slate's question that was prompted by her "3 AM phone call" ad, and Macedonia/Kosovo and the IRA demobilization are the best she's got? Both of those incidents occurred AFTER the military "crisis" was resolved.

Assisting in humanitarian negotiations on behalf of refugees would qualify as foreign policy or diplomatic "experience." But that is still not a "crisis" involving the judgment of the commander in chief.

Having a meeting in the White House as first lady with a foreign politician may also qualify as diplomatic "experience," but again has nothing to do with managing a "crisis" requiring the use of the kind of judgment under pressure the commander in chief learns to develop.

And the fact that you are forced to rely on surrogates dredging up these flimsy examples, instead of being able to quote Hillary claiming examples of her "crisis" management ability, shows that Hillary is just making shit up.