Obama and Rezko

Illinois blogger Archpundit has what seems to me to be a useful roundup of the links between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko. The essence of the matter is that there doesn't seem to have been any quid to go with the pro quo here. Rezko tried to curry favor with politicians in order to get stuff from them, and Obama was no exception. And, indeed, when one of Rezko's business partners had a son who wanted an internship in Obama's office, Rezko wrote a letter of recommendation and the kid got the job. It's possible that had Obama remained in the Senate and had Rezko not gotten indicted, that he would have found occasion to do some more serious favors but in the real world there's nothing there.

Basically, as with Obama's questionable record on coal I'm not particularly impressed. But it is true that, to an unusual degree, Obama's campaign has tried to portray their man as a living saint of some kind when, in reality, he's a normal pol who stands up for home-state industries and gives internships to buddies of sons of campaign contributors. On the other hand, what makes this sort of line of attack curious to me is that if there's one thing we absolutely know for sure about the Clintons it's that if you're inclined to make mountains out of molehills there are tons and tons of thin ethical charges you can make against them.

Comments

As a Chicagoan, that's one of the things that puzzles me about the Rezko based attack. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama at all, so why does Clinton want to bring up this type of thing when Webb Hubbell, just to use a single example, looks endlessly worse (not to mention the cattle futures deal, which has never really been adequately explained).

Posted by IP Guy | January 25, 2008 10:00 AM

No one should expect that irony to give Billary pause. The pathology is far too deep.

Posted by john o. | January 25, 2008 10:04 AM

Drudge has a picture up of the Clintons posing with Rezko:

Link

Posted by Rich | January 25, 2008 10:07 AM

Did ya catch this

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Six_degrees_of_Rezko.html

Posted by Mark from NY | January 25, 2008 10:08 AM

The essence of the matter is that there doesn't seem to have been any quid to go with the pro quo here.

Shorter Yglesias: nothing illegal here!
Of course this is true of almost all politicians because they aren't that stupid.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 25, 2008 10:09 AM

Actually, it's the media folks and Joe Biden who insisted that Obama was pure as the driven snow. Michelle made a concerted effort (too much so for my tastes) to portray Obama as a 'real' and imperfect person.

Because he is not completely and utterly devoid of integrity like the clintons, the media decided to beatify the man. It was not the Obama people pushing this meme. Okay, maybe they were a little bit.

Posted by iwillsayanything | January 25, 2008 10:13 AM

I think they confronted her on "The Today Show" with it. Doh!!! So much for Hillary saying she never met him or had any idea who he is. If Obama really is a fighter, he'd hit Hillary hard with it.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 25, 2008 10:15 AM

It's the fact that Sen. Obama is a politician that keeps me from swooning over him. I will always remain skeptical of politicians, even if they have the ability to lift the spirit.

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 10:18 AM

On the other hand, what makes this sort of line of attack curious to me is that if there's one thing we absolutely know for sure about the Clintons it's that if you're inclined to make mountains out of molehills there are tons and tons of thin ethical charges you can make against them.
*****

There is nothing curious about it, Matt.

Hillary's entire campaign is run on her supposed electability and willingness to do or say anything in the fall to win. No one, including her supporters, believes that Hillary is a sincere or even a decent person. No one likes the woman, or honestly thinks she's more qualified than her opponents. She's immune from "ethical charges" because it's just taken for granted that Hillary has no ethics. She appeals strictly to the partisan and the cynical.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 25, 2008 10:21 AM

It's the fact that Sen. Obama is a politician that keeps me from swooning over him.

So don't swoon over him. Just vote for him because he's the better candidate with the better set of policies.

Posted by Christmas | January 25, 2008 10:22 AM

Hey Matt,

Can you provide an example of how Obama's campaign has tried to "portray their man as a living saint?"

Just because Obama has sought to engage in a different type of politics and/or believes he is the best person to affect real change- does not mean that he (or his campaign) believes he is a saint.

He has frequently said that he is not perfect, that he has made mistakes in the past, and that the land deal he made with Rezko's wife, while legal and all above the board, was a mistake.

The claim that Obama, his campaign, or his supporters believe that Obama is a "saint" has generally been used as a strawman with which to belittle Obama supporters and Obama himself.

(And Matt, I do not believe that you are trying to belittle anyone; however, I do think that you are feading into something that seems to have, unfortunately, evolved into conventional wisdom.)

Posted by Aaron M | January 25, 2008 10:26 AM

Matt, I think you captured the point of the Rezco attack--"Obama's campaign has tried to portray their man as a living saint of some kind when, in reality, he's a normal pol who stands up for home-state industries and gives internships to buddies of sons of campaign contributors." This realization is explicitly aimed at the "change" and "new type of politics" mantra by showing that, in fact, Obama is really part of the same politics, just with a different tagline. Hillary's campaign has been trying to push this point since last year, when Obama's campaign got underway, but I think this is a much more effective attack than any of the crap they tried at that time.

Posted by nvs | January 25, 2008 10:27 AM

I think the strategy is clear. If you can't wash the mud off, make sure the other guy has a lot of mud on him, too.

Posted by wuchi | January 25, 2008 10:33 AM

I'm skeptical of a politician who claims to have worked tirelessly as a community organizer in Chicago for so long was not aware of this Resko guy and these shady 'slumlord' charges. Obama continued to receive multiple donations from him, and only recently began to return the dough! I'm just saying, he's hasn't been really upfront about this. I think the campaign tried to bury this, but then the facts started to leak out and it made him look bad.

Posted by rreddy | January 25, 2008 10:42 AM

[I]f there's one thing we absolutely know for sure about the Clintons it's that if you're inclined to make mountains out of molehills there are tons and tons of thin ethical charges you can make against them.

Exactly. If it was, say, Dodd or Richardson who had made hash out of the Rezko connection, I would have had more of a gut reaction of: "oh, good point; I sometimes forget that Sen. Obama is, in fact, a politician, not some sort of saint, and I should examine his candidacy with more skepticism than I have."

But for the Clintons to use a shady real estate connection as political ammunition?!? Preposterous! Even if there was something shady going on (something I have, indeed, not been convinced of), the fact that the Clintons brought it up instantly kills its efficacy as an attack, in my opinion.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | January 25, 2008 10:42 AM

The claim that Obama, his campaign, or his supporters believe that Obama is a "saint" has generally been used as a strawman with which to belittle Obama supporters and Obama himself.

I've noticed the same thing. In fact, every candidate has talked about staying away from negative politics. But for some reason, only Obama gets held to this incredibly high standard.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 10:50 AM

I love primaries. Isn't it great to learn that not only Republicans but even Democrats will use the Clintons' not existent to trivial ethical issues (created by the Right Wing Noise Machine with a big assist from the WP and NYT) to try to get their candidates to win. Way to fight for the home team guys! I'm beginning to suspect that a large part of these 'Obama supporters' who are happy to use the Clintons' unhappy past for Obama are just Republican trolls trying to stir the pot.

Posted by DougMN | January 25, 2008 10:58 AM

I find irony in Hillary "I can't think of any mistakes I have made, particularly not my vote on the war." Clinton saying Obama's campaign has held him up to be a saint.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 25, 2008 10:59 AM

Obama's campaign has tried to portray their man as a living saint of some kind when, in reality, he's a normal pol

My impression is that Obama is exceptionally honest for a politician and that the Clintons are exceptionally dishonest. I had already decided that the Clintons were too dishonest for me long before I'd ever heard of Obama. So I;m glad that honesty has become a central primary issue - idealists like me preferring the apparently more honest candidate versus cynics who think the Clintons' facile dishonesty is actually an advantage.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 25, 2008 11:09 AM

Helpful hint: Whenever an Obama fan says "Billary," that Obama fan was never actually a Democrat to begin with.

So tell me again how great Reagan was, guys.

Posted by Jim J | January 25, 2008 11:13 AM

DougMN, I'm one of those "'Obama supporters' who are happy to use the Clintons' unhappy past" who has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since 1972. And who will never vote for Evita Clinton, especially after the despicable, dishonest campaign she has run. I frankly do not understand Democrats who want, one more time, to nominate someone who voted for a war that 90% of Democrats oppose!

Posted by Traven | January 25, 2008 11:14 AM

I love primaries. Isn't it great to learn that not only Republicans but even Democrats will use the Clintons' not existent to trivial ethical issues
DougMN,
You've got that wrong. The point is the Clintons, having been victims of these tactics, should be the last ones willing to use the same slime tactics against their primary opponent.

Posted by blindjoedeath | January 25, 2008 11:17 AM

Hey Jim J, if you want to know how great Reagan was, why don't you check out Bill Clinton's remarks to the Washington Post in 1991 on how Reagan won the Cold War and how the Democrats could not win without new ideas (E.J. Dionne's column in today's WaPo).

Also, I'm one of those people who uses the moniker "Billary," because make no mistake about it, we're electing both of them, not just her.

Posted by Traven | January 25, 2008 11:21 AM

From "baking cookies" to "it took LBJ" we've defended Hillary against idiotic attacks.

Now, it sometimes feels that her message is:
"Don't be such a sucker. This as good as it gets. The best you can hope for are bloody struggles to get moderate progressive reforms with the occasional DOMA, NAFTA, welfare reform, and reckless war thrown in for good measure."

Posted by ao | January 25, 2008 11:28 AM

Christmas: I will vote for him because I do believe in his abilities and his policies. The problem is, there are so many Clinton supporters out there who are complaining that since the media keeps pointing out the inconsistency in the Clinton's attacks on Sen. Obama, it makes him look like a saint. As the man himself said, no one's hands are completely clean, and that's an honest statement. After sixteen years of presidents who refused to admit their mistakes, except if for political expediency, I like a guy who can own up to his mistakes. It's not that the Clintons are so much more horrible in their ethical record (although I bet there are more than a few people who would debate that), it's simply that they are willing to use every little infraction Sen. Obama made as an attack while he is not, or at least hasn't yet. Right now it's a difference in kind, but that may change to a difference of degree.

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 11:32 AM

"[I]f there's one thing we absolutely know for sure about the Clintons it's that if you're inclined to make mountains out of molehills there are tons and tons of thin ethical charges you can make against them."

I think the point is fairly simple. All of the "dirt" on the Clintons has been discussed ad infinitum. Those who are inclined to vote against her have been so inclined forever and are fully counted in every poll. The same can not be said of Obama. We need to appreciate that whatever is raised in the democratic primaries pales in comparison to what will be raised by the Republican attack machine. We've heard it all about the CLintons. We need to hear it all about Obama.

Posted by Randall | January 25, 2008 11:37 AM

Randall, you assume for one thing that the Republicans won't make stuff up. Also, who knows what they can find from 2000-present (whether or not there is any misconduct).

Also, the fact that "we've heard it all" about the Clintons is not a point in her favor. Her negatives are sufficiently high that I'm afraid even a weak R candidate could make it an election. The "We need to hear it all about Obama" also assumes a moral equivalence, that each candidate has "x" quantum of dirt and and equally high ceiling. Could Obama's negatives be driven higer? If so, it'll be because of things like Augustus's and Livia's bizzaro-world attacks: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_says_she_must_countera.php

Furthermore, the Clinton's are entirely two-faced. His memoir is honest and self-critical, and the response is to have surrogates go out and inflate admissions of occasional cocaine use into speculation he was one of Jack Lord's targets on Hawai'i 5.0.

Posted by David B. | January 25, 2008 11:55 AM

"We've heard it all about the CLintons"

Really? That Rezko picture seems to be new!

Posted by drosz | January 25, 2008 11:56 AM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801230008

For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.
In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.
Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.
The Obamas secured their brick Georgian Revival-style home on June 15, 2005, for $1,650,000. Later, the Chicago Tribune reported, Rezko paid $14,000 to build a fence, required by city ordinance, along the new property line.

This is from Media Matters, not some Clinton feed. This not only looks bad, it is bad. Either the market is distressed enough that the seller had to slice $300,000 off the list price or the market is so robust you can get a $625,000 sale on a bare land lot. To have both events happen in the same day from the same seller and not have some collusion between the parties kind of stretches the imagination. The wording about the fence is a little unusual but a straight out read of the transaction is that the Rezkos bought the Obamas a $625,000 yard and were only later forced to build a fence on the property line. A property line that by the way was shifted when Obama bought a portion of the lot.

The landscaper who mows Obama's lawn also mows Rezko's 7,500-square-foot yard, Obama said.
Obama paid Rezko $104,500 in January for a portion of the lot to create more space between his house and the fence. Obama has said the arrangements were ethical and proper.

CBS2 Chicago. What did both families flip through the yellow pages and find the same landscaper? The Rezkos paid $625,000 for a lot that was fairly small to begin with (7200sf being about the smallest standard single family lot size in my state), sold an unstated portion of it to their neighbors perhaps making it effectively unbuildable and then allowed it to be landscaped in a way that directly benefited Obama. You want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt but frankly most of the left blogosphere has convicted Ted Stevens on evidence that was not much more clear cut than this.

I don't sell real estate but I have a license and worked for a company that did and this just stinks. You have a property that happens to consist of two buildable lots but has functioned as one property. In order to maximize value you list it as two lots but generally would expect it to go to a single buyer. Okay so far so good. But making a sale on the same day to two buyers that know each other, knocking $300,000 off the price for one, getting full price for the other raises some serious questions. When that is followed up by an on the ground situation where the property continues to function as a single maintained unit and the buyer of the empty lot ends up with no economic return while the buyer of the house ends up with a continuous landscaped yard alarm bells should be going off.

Take much the same scenario, transfer it to Alaska and change the names to Sen. Murkowski and developer Bob Penney and you get headlines like this Murkowski river land deal questioned What is the difference between Sen. Murkowski getting a property deal below market and Sen. Obama getting effective use of a property listed at $2.6 million for $1.6 million? Because in context Murkowski got a lot less benefit

Martin Radvansky owns Soldotna Realty. He said according to the Multiple Listing Service, since January of last year, similar lots sold between $250,000 and $350,000.
"There's only so much that's available on the river and that's the reason prices keep coming up," Radvansky said. "On the market now, the only ones that are not above ($300,000) are the ones way above Sterling or Funny River."
Murkowski paid well below that. Her price: $179,600. She bought it from influential real estate developer Penney, who lives right next door.

So Lisa got a sweet deal that netted her something more than $121,000 from her neighbor-developer-contributer and calls for ethics investigations abound. Obama got a sweet deal from his neighbor-developer-contributer with a value of $1 million and it gets written off as the equivalent of incidental contact.

What is going on here? Have we decided to take Clinton rules and turn them 180 degrees? Look if I were a mortgage lender making a $1.6 million dollar loan on a property originally listed for $1.9 million while knowing that a friend or relative was buying the adjoining property at full price I could lose my license for mortgage fraud. This deal just does not pass the smell test.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 12:19 PM

The real reason Rezko is an outrage, I know that most people don't care but it comes down to this.

I don't tend to speak for other people, I know my place as a white woman. But in all the years that I have been involved in community and neighborhood politics I have never seen or heard such an openly anti community, in this case anti African American community, words as Mr. Obama's spoken by an advocate or public official for a community.

Below is the most despicable part of the Rezko mess, even after Rezko's projects went under Obama defended Rezko and used the NIMBY attitude that low income housing projects fail because "urban crime,demographic changes and social factors". Clarifications the reasons are not complex Mr. Obama, it's when the developer and his consultants (yes, you as the attorney structure a bad project). Folks, all that Obama is saying is that it was the tenants and the neighborhood's fault. Who were the tenants? Very low income African Americans. Now, you tell me how the misquoted fairy tale words of Bill are equal to this?

I have heard this kind of language from the most horrid of anti affordable housing, anti low income and yes racist opponents of affordable housing, but never from a public official or community organizer.

Original from Sun Times article.

Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord? A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article

Someone who used the community for political gain is not tranformative, not an idealist and not an agent of change. It's that simple. MLK would not have uttered these words.

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 12:20 PM

Sorry for the flub on the quote: take two
Original from Sun Times article.

Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord? A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 12:25 PM

Bruce Webb:

Yes, I don't know that much about real estate, but I noticed some of the same "interesting" aspects in that land deal in which Rezko basically gave Obama an extra $1M of value. Frankly, it also reminds me a little of that San Diego Congressman whose military-contractor friend sold him a mansion for something like $1M under value, which eventually sent him to prison.

I think the main difference with that $100K which Hillary made in instant commodities trading is basically 25-odd years of inflation...

Can't say that I really much like either of the main Democratic candidates...

Posted by RKU | January 25, 2008 12:44 PM

Thanks Stella Bruce,

Matt is an Obama supporter as is his right, but this post and others brings into question whether he is doing Obama any favors by casually dismissing Obama's past.

Posted by S Brennan | January 25, 2008 12:54 PM

Brennan, what is scary, truly scary, is the lack of questioning and the desire to shut down all criticism. I have been researching this stuff on my own, do people think the Republicans are gonna just gloss over it? They are sitting waiting for him to be nominated, he is their only chance.

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 12:59 PM

I think the Clintons will be particularly reluctant to talk about internships.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | January 25, 2008 1:00 PM

The landscaper who mows Obama's lawn also mows Rezko's 7,500-square-foot yard, Obama said. Obama paid Rezko $104,500 in January for a portion of the lot to create more space between his house and the fence. Obama has said the arrangements were ethical and proper.

What did both families flip through the yellow pages and find the same landscaper?

Bruce,
You're clearly insane.

Posted by MikeKC | January 25, 2008 1:05 PM

Robert, do you think the Republicans will be?

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 1:06 PM

Don't bother with the real estate deal, it was just a minor Duke deal, and heh...it's ok with people that he did these deal after Rezko was under investigation. Geepers kids, if he drowned in Chicago, what will happen in DC?

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 1:11 PM

This will always be a net gain for Clinton, or in November for any Republican vs. Obama, precisely because his reputation has more to lose.

Posted by Rich | January 25, 2008 1:25 PM

RKU. Well the difference between this deal and Clinton's commodity deal is that anyone making that same bet on the same day would have made the same gain. The implication was that the friend who advised her somehow had enough control over that market to know exactly how it would move at any given time. Which if true should have launched some serious investigations. No one actually came out and suggested that the fix was in everything revolved around allegations that the quick profit somehow proved the crime.

That is the essence of Clinton rules, the causal chain is always reversed. Take three examples.
One, your Agriculture Secretary takes basketball tickets from a college roommate now high up in an industry you regulate. Under K Street Rules this would not have even raised an eyebrow. Under Clinton Rules it is enough to justify a multi-million dollar investigation in search of the crime.

Two, your Commerce Secretary organizes a trade junket and takes along some CEOs of companies that donated to the campaign. Under K Street/Bush rules not only would this have not only not raised an eyebrow it would have been considered the rules of the game. You contribute money, they return your phone calls, whats the big deal? Plenty if your name is Ron Brown.

Three, the President of Israel and others including Scooter Libby appeal for the President of the United States to pardon a billionaire philanthropist not just because of the millions he donates to charities in Israel but because the conduct for which he was charged was no longer a crime under US Law. Substitute the names Prince Bandar and Bush and some semi-shady Saudi financier and I doubt anyone would blink. Substitute Clinton and Mark Rich and you get proof positive that he sold pardons for campaign contributions from Rich's ex and estranged wife.

Examples abound. In each case you have conduct which could have a straightforward explanation. Instead the immediate assumption is that there must be some sinister, criminal intent.

It never stops. You had a small airport in Mena, Arkansas that oddly enough was favored by both the CIA and drug smugglers. Was this proof that Clinton was secretly supporting national security interests a la the Telcos? Hell no, the very existence of Mena proved he was a drug dealer.

Obama did praise Ronald Reagan. This isn't subject to interpretation, you just have to examine Stoller's transcription or listen to the video.

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The 60s and 70s were marked by "excesses" which in the context of "grown and grown" can only mean Great Society programs. Two those programs were not particularly accountable. Three, the country was tired of that and ready for a different path. Four that the way forward would be marked by "entrepreneurship". That is not exactly a bold call for universal coverage and economic justice, it is an explicit endorsement of Reagan's 'Big Government is not the solution, Big government is the problem'. The Clintons called him on it and on the merits had him dead to rights, but under Clinton rules this is just proof that they were dirty, lying bastards who would do anything to win.

There is simply no way that you can parse that statement by Obama in any other way than as flat out praise for Reagan. Attempts to wiggle around and claim it was really only about the "optimism" and nothing about "excesses" "fundamentally different path" "ready" "bigger and bigger" and "entrepreneurship" is simply special pleading. Obama goofed big time, whether out of tiredness or in revealing his actual pro-market anti-government views (I am open to either explanation) but for him and his surrogates to use Clinton rules to turn this slip around as a weapon against Hillary is pretty low. Now if Stoller got the transcription wrong or someone can define "excesses" as meaning anything other than the programs put in place in the 60s and 70's to advance economic and social justice then great. But I am a native speaker with a literature MA, I am pretty confident in my ability to parse some simple sentences.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 1:38 PM

Bruce...it's watching the whole video of his interview that substantiates your analysis. The words, out of context from the one hour video, which I think is still online. You can contrast the Hillary interview. Reno Gazette, go to the video section, make sure you look for the one hour with Hillary. This to me was the clincher. I do not pay attention to the transcripts. Obama was pandering either pandering or he really believed this stuff. He is either a bad panderer of if he believes this stuff, he ain't for me.

Look at my post, his answer was a total pro market anti low income people response. Amazing that people try to spin him.

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 1:55 PM

Bruce Webb:

Well, I'll admit I never closely followed the endless list of "Clinton Scandals," so can't really say much about the details of most of them.

But turning a quick $100K profit on a 1-day commodities bet always seemed *hugely* suspicious to me. I'll admit I never really looked into it, but had always vaguely assumed that the way it was done was that the broker had basically assigned Hillary her bet *after* all the results had come in that day and everything had been marked to market. I can't imagine someone at Goldman Sachs doing this, but some local broker in sleazy AK for the governor's wife, sure...

And I'd have to disagree about the Marc Rich pardon. Hadn't he been on the FBI top wanted list for years, and they'd almost caught him a few years earlier. I'd guess that the Israeli/AIPAC pressure was just as important as the millions(?) given to the Clintons, but I can't think of the previous time such an outrageously corrupt Presidential pardon was handed out...though I suspect at the end of this year, we'll easily top that record!

Posted by RKU | January 25, 2008 2:00 PM

"But I am a native speaker with a literature MA, I am pretty confident in my ability to parse some simple sentences."

You want to get your money back.

Posted by drosz | January 25, 2008 2:12 PM

Bruce Webb: Wow, that's pretty detailed there. Must have taken a lot of time to put all of it together. You also must have a degree in the philosophy of language if you can nail down the meaning of Sen. Obama's Reagan quote like that. I'm amazed that you would even bother to grace us with your intellect. You know, I bet you even thought Jonah Goldberg was right when he said Mussolini wasn't a fascist, even though Mussolini said he was a fascist. It's just everyone else parsed the sentence wrong, took it out of context, that must be it. And your sources are amazing. I wish I could find sources like that. Your understanding of the last two decades of politics and how the media has worked is quite overwhelming, if I may say. Well done and keep up the good work!

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 2:14 PM

I don't like what you Judases are writing.
Why do you choose Barabbas over the Messiah?

Posted by Obambis | January 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Man you can practically smell the flop sweat here. MikeKC wants to believe that the Rezko family put $625,000 into buying a 7500sf lot, barely big enough to build a house that would justify that price, sold a portion of it to the neighbor further reducing its buildable status, and then left it undeveloped and landscaped in a way that benefitted only one party. There is no real estate investment strategy that makes sense for the Rezkos in this transaction. ' Some dare call it insanity' Bring an explanation of this transaction that makes sense.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Jordan get pathetic much?

Jordan I have been posting just about everywhere why Doughy Pantloads analysis of Fascism is historical nonsense. Oddly enough my BA was in European History as was the three years I spent in a PhD History program after that lit degree. Engage on substance or blow it out your ass.

I didn't in fact specialize in the history of the historical Reaction after 1789 vs Revolution which doesn't mean I am making it up as I am going along.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 5:59 PM

RKU

I would be more than astonished to find that Rich was on the FBI Top Ten list. Generally they reserve that for killers, kidnappers, and bank robbers. Can you supply a link to suggest any T 10 was wanted for white collar crime?

A little Googling showed he was kind of high on Interpols list of international fugitives, quite a different thing.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 6:16 PM

Bruce Webb: Huh, I thought you could only get a BA in history and say you specialized in European history. I know I couldn't put that kind of specification down on my BA in history or philosophy, or my MA in history. Now, my sister, who has her MA in literature, is able to specify her field in Victorian literature for her PhD. And really, an MA in literature doesn't mean that much about parsing sentences, unless you were one of those composition types who didn't actually major in literature, just how to write. Now when I receive my PhD in philosophy I'll have down the philosophy of language as my specialty. I would have gone on to study more history but after writing about fascism for so long I got really bored with it. Talking on endlessly about revolution vs. rebellion, the Rousseau-Hegel-Marx-Sorel lineage, nationalism and secularization on top of industrialization and the fight back and forth between Hobsbawm and Gellner, and the ridiculous things some historians say about Nietzsche kinda put out my historical fire. I mean, of course the questions that a lot of intellectuals were asking from the fin-de-siécle to the 1930s are still haunting us today, so I'm happy that I have an understanding of that, but history got boring. I have too much fun playing around with theory and practice and you can't do that so much with history. Now philosophy, that's where the big scary brains are.

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 6:31 PM

Bruce Webb:

Well, I'm certainly no great expert on the Marc Rich case. But when I just googled his name and checked the top-ranked result---the Wikipedia entry---it claimed that he was "on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years", just as I'd vaguely remembered. Wikipedia is hardly an unimpeachable source, but it's usually correct on simple factual details like this. If it's wrong, maybe you should correct it.

Also, I seem to remember that at one point during the 1990s(?), U.S. law enforcement agencies set up some very difficult and complex "sting" operation which can pretty close to catching Rich and having him finally sent to prison. Don't see the details anywhere.

Posted by RKU | January 25, 2008 7:06 PM

Jordan at the University of California at Berkeley you can only gain one MA out of the College of Letters and Sciences which includes both the Comparative Literature Department and the History Department. Having earned an MA in Comparative Literature prior to dropping out of that PhD program prior to returning to a different PhD program three years later I was only eligible to earn a Permision to Proceed from the History Dept even though on ant substantive basis that was the equivalent of a second MA. I didn't explain the internal details of UCBs specific degree granting policies because I assume
a that only assholes would care. Thanks for the validation on that point.

Plus you don't apparently know much about Literature programs in the late Eighties which were a lot more about Derrida and Deconstruction, Poststructionalism, Reception Theory, and Chomsky's theories about Generative Grammer than analysis about Jane Austen's treatment of character. Don't make me unleash my Inner Wittgenstein on you. And no that is not a pistol in my pocket, it is however a vintage Popper. You want to engage on ideas then fine

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 7:43 PM

Bruce Webb: Sucks when you have your own record thrown back at you, twisted and demonized, doesn't it?

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 7:54 PM

My MA in Literature required a basis in Literary Theory along with a detailed study of two different literary traditions. Well there was not a lot of contact between my chosen fields of Medieval Welsh mythology as contrasted to Medieval Latin treatments of the same matrerials to current theories of Habermas as opposed to Derrida as they were superimposed on the theories of Marx and de Saussure. But your smug assumptions that you can retreat behind the barriers of theory will require some testing.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 8:18 PM

RKU I am fully aware that Wikipedia can change on the turn of a dime with limited controls on editing but can you provide a cached version of your Top Ten claim or some documented show that I am Wiki Clue Free? Because I clicked through and managed to miss that part. .Citations are good.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 25, 2008 8:38 PM

Bruce Webb:

Now I'm really confused...why would you need a cached version?

Here's the Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

The paragraph I noticed is at the top of the second big section entitled "SCANDAL". It reads:

In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. They were indicted while they were in Switzerland. The pair failed to return to the U.S. following the indictment, and were on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.

Since it's a very simple factual claim in Wikipedia and accords with my own vague recollection, I'm inclined to credit it unless there's some hard evidence to the contrary. Don't have a clue exactly how "many years" they were allegedly on the FBI's Most Wanted List.

I'd also seemed to recall that Rich was involved in some huge financial fraud as well...but I think I might be mixing him up with Robert Vesco or someone else.

Posted by RKU | January 25, 2008 8:56 PM

Ex-CIA Larry Johnson (with whom I normally don't have a problem) has been attack-dogging for Hillary on Obama's connection over at TPM. I wasn't impressed with the connections and neither was anybody else commenting on the post.

I suspect it's likely that Obama has been dumb enough and cynical enough to go along with this guy's donations, and then defend him even when it became clear he was a slumlord. And I'm sure Obama knew that he was getting a deal on that property - nobody's that dumb.

But there really isn't any evidence that Obama AIDED this guy in BEING a slumlord. It all sounds to me like another of these "he didn't denounce him hard enough to suit me" criticisms which are really lame.

Meanwhile, Marc Rich is an entirely different kettle of fish - if for no other reason than it is likely he is one of, if not the, money man behind the drugs/weapons/nuclear smuggling rings targeted by Sibel Edmonds and involving high level treason on the part of senior elected and appointed US government officials.

And Clinton DID in fact pardon him over more deserving individuals strictly in exchange for money and influence peddling from Israel.

After all, if what Rich did was no longer a crime, why not come back to the states, turn himself in, use his incredible wealth (looted from Russia and elsewhere) to hire the best attorneys to get the case squashed?

No - he'd rather flee the country, then hire a bunch of ex-Israeli mercenaries to protect him from being kidnapped by the DoJ.

And how about this, via Justin Raimondo back in 2001:

"Why would the Israelis go all out for Rich? The story is that he has performed certain "services" for the Israeli government, and they are "grateful" for his "unselfish" and even noble actions, which are vaguely connected to the alleged "rescue" of Israelis from Arab clutches and other good deeds. But now it is coming to light that the Rich Foundation, set up by Marc Rich to launder his ill-gotten fortune, IS the Israeli government. Avner Azulay, executive director of the Rich Foundation, is a former Mossad agent, according to a very interesting article in the San Jose Mercury News [http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/rich15.htm]. So are the bodyguards who, since 1983, have been protecting their boss from being jailed on charges of racketeering, fraud, etc. The piece cites Vincent Cannistraro, a former spook and a Middle East expert, who said the Mossad used Rich as a "conduit for financial transfers" and to pass messages to Iran when necessary. He is a very wealthy man, so he is not on the payroll per se. He was a very close friend of the Israeli government and has been cooperating with Israeli intelligence since the early 1980s."

"Rod Dreher, in the New York Daily News, recounts the story of how Rich looted Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse, citing Paul Klebnikov, a Russia expert and senior editor of Forbes magazine. Klebnikov is the author of Godfather of the Kremlin, a book that painstakingly documents how Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and his cronies plundered Russia under the rubric of a phony "privatization" program. Rich, based in Switzerland, was in a perfect position to act as a key link in an international scheme to strip Russia of its assets and sock away the profits in secretive Swiss banks. As a dealer in oil, aluminum, zinc, and other commodities, Rich moved in with amazing speed and alacrity to strike deals with local party bosses who wanted to spirit their stolen wealth out of the country. "He'd strike a deal with the local party boss, or the director of a state-owned company," explains Klebnikov, "he'd say, 'OK, you will sell me the [commodity] at 5 to 10 percent of the world market price. And in return, I will deposit some of the profit I make by reselling it 10 times higher on the world market, and put the kickback in a Swiss bank account.'" Rich "made a complete mint off of Russia," says Klebnikov. "Marc Rich ended up being a mentor to all these young kids who came out of the Communist Party establishment, and who made billions off these schemes themselves." Dreher cites an article in The National Interest reporting that the KGB had been spiriting assets out of the country since the early eighties – just about the time Rich went on the lam – through front companies: 'The program evolved into . . . avenues for squirreling away funds for the safe retirement or political comeback of embattled communist leaders.'"

"In a letter to Clinton dated Nov. 28, 2000, ex-Israeli intelligence chief Shavit said the Mossad had "requested [Rich's] assistance in looking for MIAs and help in the rescue and evacuation of Jews from enemy countries. Mr. Rich always agreed and used his extensive network of contacts in these countries to produce results sometimes beyond the expected. Israel and the Jewish people are grateful for these unselfish actions which sometimes had the potential of jeopardizing his own personal interests and business relations in these countries." Shavit does not identify these "enemy countries," although the implication is clear that we are talking about Arab countries, perhaps Iran, where Rich has connections due to his oil interests, but it could just as easily be any place where Jews face danger – and Russia could very well fit that particular bill. Acting on behalf of the Israeli government's perceived self-interest, Rich's alliance with the ex-Commie kleptocrats makes perfect sense: as a political buffer against the alleged resurgence of Russian anti-Semitism, and a facilitator of Russian Jewish emigration to Israel, the remnants of the old Soviet party machine would be valuable allies."

"While much is made of Jack Quinn, the supposed Svengali who hypnotized Clinton into pardoning his client against the advice of the White House legal staff, little is said about Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also one of Rich's legal hired hands, who recruited Quinn to Rich's cause – and then segued into position as Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Then there's David Bossie, Rep. Dan Burton's chief investigator and a veteran of the impeachment hearings, who was hired by Quinn to brief him for his appearance before a House investigating committee this week – one that just happened to be chaired by Rep. Burton. What a coincidence!"

Maybe not - Dan Burton happens to be on Sibel Edmonds Rogues Gallery page on her Web site. Guess what? Dan Burton is involved with the same criminal enterprises that Marc Rich is!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 9:06 PM

Bruce Webb: Last post before I go have some fun. Please unleash your inner Wittgenstein. It might constrain some of your fast and loose jargon since he was fighting against such muddled doublespeak. 'Meaning-as-use' works for a reason. Oh, and current theory and practice is to focus on the context as much as possible, both in literary criticism and in history. Wittgenstein was pushing for just the same focus on context. Just as you argued when defending the process by which you received your degrees. Media Matters pegged Tim Russert for not providing the proper context in that 'fairy tale' clip. Context matters, so keep that in mind whenever you hear a politician attack another politician, no matter which party they're with.

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 25, 2008 9:27 PM

first, read archpundit.com for a real wrapup of all the rezko materials. He's rounded it up for everybody who's been hearing a lot of crap about all this stuff.

#1: Barack knew Rezko long before Rezko was having problems at any of his properties.

#2: Property problems like the ones described in 1995 are rarely dealt with at the state level, but primarily at the city and possibly county level. There's no reason be sure that Obama knew about them (though it's possible that he did, I don't know what happened).

#3: Obama keeps the empty lot next to his house mowed, so his neighborhood doesn't look shitty. What's the issue?

#4: the law requires that rezko pays for the fence. Obama paid for the legal and architectural work on it. (By the way, with his legal problems, Rezko still hasn't paid the bill).

#5: Because (again, by law) the fence has to be built on the property line, Obama and his wife wanted to buy the strip nearest the house so the fence wouldn't be so close to their house. The strip under discussion was appraised for $40k. Obama paid over $100k (it was approximately 1/6th of the plot purchased for $625k).

#6: Again, there's no indication that any favors were done for Rezko at all.

#7: The above quoted material attributed to media matters is a quote of the LA Times quoted by MM. My impression of the truthfulness of that particular critic follows appropriately.

Posted by dbt | January 26, 2008 12:33 AM

Jordan you set out to pick out a fight starting with a totally patronizing comment that had nothing to do with the substance of the post.
"Wow, that's pretty detailed there. Must have taken a lot of time to put all of it together. You also must have a degree in the philosophy of language if you can nail down the meaning of Sen. Obama's Reagan quote like that. I'm amazed that you would even bother to grace us with your intellect. You know, I bet you even thought Jonah Goldberg was right when he said Mussolini wasn't a fascist,"

I throw in an offhand comment about my ability to read an English sentence and all of a sudden you are "bet" that I agree with Goldberg and go on to mock me with the 'intellect' thing. You then go on to drag all kinds of jargon in a clear attempt to take some imagined intellectual high ground in a clear attempt to belittle me. Where here is some jargon for you 'ad hominem'. You tried a cheap shot and whiffed. Because if you want Critical Theory jargon I got plenty.

Because at no point did you address the actual sentences or give some alternative explanation for what they could mean or some refutation of my interpretation. The question remains. What did Obama mean by 'excesses' that led to 'bigger and bigger' government?

Trying to obscure the issue with meaning as use, and accusing me of using fast and loose jargon without actually pointing out instances is just shoddy argumentation. If you have a case make it.

This was truly pathetic.
"I would have gone on to study more history but after writing about fascism for so long I got really bored with it. Talking on endlessly about revolution vs. rebellion, the Rousseau-Hegel-Marx-Sorel lineage, nationalism and secularization on top of industrialization and the fight back and forth between Hobsbawm and Gellner"

What the hell does any of that have to do with a shady real estate deal in Chicago? Who hijacked the thread by introducing fascism to begin with?

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 26, 2008 11:50 AM

dbt, thanks for at least attempting to engage on substance. I took your advice.
Point #1. Then why did the Obama camp insist that their only relation was some five hours of legal work? And why did they maintain the relationship after the problems surfaced?

Point #2. Would have had some force if in fact the deal went down in 1995. Per my quote and the source you urged on me it went down in 2005.
"Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it “boneheaded” because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time."

Point #3. Who in fact gets the use of the land? Under Real Estate law uncontested use of a piece of land over an extended period of time without protest from the fee owner can result in acquisition of that land by the doctrine of adverse possession. I don't know the law in Illinois but under Washington State law in 10 years Obama would own that lot, in effect getting a $500,000 gift. From a guy under grand jury investigation.

Point #4. Okay but not dispositive. It is a little difficult to unravel the sequence of events but a logical reconstruction goes like this. Obamas buy $1.3 million dollar house. On the same day the Rezkos but an adjacent vacant lot, previously the two lots having been maintained as a single unit. Obama continues to maintain the two lots as a single unit, potentially setting up an adverse possession claim. Someone points out the fence requirement, so Obama and Rezko enter into a Boundary Line Agreement to move the property line before putting up the fence. The portion of the property involved was roughly 1/6th of the Rezko lot and appraised at $40k suggesting that the entire Rezko lot was worth about $240,000. Why then did the Rezko's pay $625,000 to start with? The best data point to establish market value of land is recent comparable sales. When the subject property changed hands in the last three years that is a pretty reasonable place to start. On the basis of the actual sale price Obama did not over pay, he got 1/6th of a $625,000 lot for something over $100,000 right in line with the dollar/sq ft of that recent land transaction.

But all this leaves out the single most glaring question? What benefit did the Rezk's get out of this transaction? By all appearances they paid something on the order of 2 1/2 times the appraised value for a property they have no immediate plan to use, allow that already small property to be cut down in size, and then effectively gifted it to Obama to be used for yard purposes.

#6 Well in these cases you may not always have an explicit quid pro quo. Rezko may just be a long time supporter and friend that went too far in doing a favor for a State Senator that just happened to be running for US Senate. The question that is being ducked is the relationship itself. It apparently went on for years and had the odd result of a community organizer strongly associated with a slumlord and entering into a property deal with said slumlord while said slumlord was under grand jury investigation.

Look there may be a simple honest explanation and in fact the Chicago Tribune bends over backwards to provide one in this article from Nov 1, 2006. It does address everyone of my points in a way that may satisfy all Obama supporters. Rezko owns vacant lot next to Obama's home. But to me it raises more questions than it answers. Take the two following passages as they relate to each other.

When Sen. Barack Obama decided to buy a stately $1.65 million home last year on Chicago's South Side, Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his wife wasted no time. The same day the Obamas closed on the house, the Rezkos closed on the purchase of the adjoining vacant lot, which once was the estate's lush side yard.

and with this which both answers and raises a question.

Obama said he and his family have never used the Rezko yard--even for a brief picnic or Frisbee game. But Obama said he pays his landscaper to mow Rezko's 7,500-square-foot yard.
A person can't enter the Rezko lot from the street--but Obama's groundskeeper gets in through the gate that opens from Obama's lot.

So the Rezkos own a lot that they don't use, that used to be part of a single use for the other house, continues to be maintained as a single use, moreover the owners apparently don't even have access. It is nice that Obama is so scrupulous that he doesn't let his kids play frisbee there (which seems kind of tight) but there are clear benefits to not having a house built next to your existing house. It is in fact common practice for relatively well off people buying adjacent properties simply to maintain privacy and view corridors. But usually they do it with their own money.

Adverse possession is not an obscure legal concept, I believe it is covered in the typical law school curriculum and certainly every real estate agent understands it. It is particularly important in an urban setting and even more so in a city as old as Chicago, a modern survey is bound to show numerous encroachments. It is close to impossible that Rezko doesn't understand the implications here. It is possible that he and Obama in fact have a lease agreement spelling out the actual ownership and granting access for Rezko to enter his property across Obama's, absent that time will end up conveying this property to the Obamas.

None of this proves anything. But it can't be simply dismissed as some smear. These question deserve answers. And Obama does in that article address the questions. Unfortunately he answers them with a precision that suggests he has anticipated all the perception issues, that is if you had to defend a shady transaction knowing it was shady you couldn't come up with a better one. But in the end we still have Rezko paying a net $500,000 for a resulting 6250 sf lot all for the immediate benefit of Obama.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 26, 2008 12:59 PM