No “There” To Rezko Accusations

10:54 am EST February 18th, 2008 | News | 6 Comments

I’m not surprised.

The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator’s $1.65 million bid “was the best offer” and they didn’t cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e- mails between Obama’s presidential campaign and the seller.

The Illinois senator has said he made a “boneheaded” move in involving contributor Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Chicago businessman, in the purchase of the property on June 15, 2005.

I would think the Clinton campaign and any liberals who weren’t comatose during the 1990s would know better than to echo right-wing attacks on nothingburger real estate deals.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

6 Responses to “No “There” To Rezko Accusations”

  1. Colorado Dave says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:24 am

    We know the Republicans will throw everything possible at Obama to see if it sticks. We also know they will make stuff up if they have to.

    Chicago politicians can be corrupt.

    There is likely something in Obama’s history which will tarnish his image.

    I will vote for Obama and canvass for him through thick and thin because I want a Democrat in the White House.

    If Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her and canvass for her because I want a Democrat in the White House.

    I am old enough to not have unrealistic expectations of my politicians. If it is revealed that Obama did something sleazy early in his career in Chicago politics it will not change my support for him.

    Can the same be said of his more idealistic and youthful supporters?

  2. duros62 says:
    February 18, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Whitewater v2.0

    Been there, done that.

    But Dave, like Rex Mundane said the other day, it’s the difference between wanting to vote for Obama versus having to vote for Clinton.

  3. SaveFarris says:
    February 18, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    So nothing but the word of a collaborative party as filtered through the campaign constitutes “proof” in your eyes?

  4. duros62 says:
    February 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    That’s all the proof you’ve ever needed to excuse your team, there, Farris. Whassamatter, it doesn’t apply in this case?

  5. z_adura says:
    February 18, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Well, I am sure there will be a full accounting of Obama’s financial dealings. I hope we can also have a full and truthful accounting of McCain’s dealings with Charles Keating. I think I would be more concerned to be McCain than Obama if ethical conduct becomes an issue.

  6. Gravypan says:
    June 7, 2008 at 9:41 am

    Rezko guilty on 16 of 24 counts

    Nope, nothing there are all.

    Oliver, since you have your head buried so far up Obama’s ass, would you mind telling me what he had for dinner last night?