Barack Obama sat down with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune determined to answer any and all questions they had about his relationship with Tony Rezko:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.
Obama said (once again) that Rezko never asked him for any favors:
"He never asked me for anything," Obama said. "He never did any favors for me, other than obviously supporting my campaigns. He never gave me any gifts, gave me no indication he was setting me up to ask for favors in the future."
Obama admitted a "lapse in judgment" when he bought a strip of land from Tony Rezko to expand his own lot, but insists that all his transactions with Rezko were above board and lawful.
The Tribune board gave Obama credit for his candor:
Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
It's unfortunate that Obama didn't confront these questions about Rezko earlier in the campaign. It's also clear that will he never satisfy the odd coalition of right-wingers and Hillary Clinton supporters who are engaged in a campaign of character assassination against him. They will continue to allege there was grievous wrongdoing without telling us exactly what that wrongdoing is (I'm talking about actual laws broken).
The last I checked it wasn't against the law to accept campaign contributions from someone who is later indicted (Norman Hsu anyone?). There's no indication or even allegation that Obama ever delivered any favor or payback in any of his official capacities for the benefit of Tony Rezko.
Mark Brown of the Chicago-Tribune seems to indicate the story has run its course:
... barring some new facts or information from some other source that would contradict him, I don't know how much further we can push the issue.
Isn't it ironic that we have created a political system where politicians like Obama are forced to associate with characters like Tony Rezko in order to raise money for their campaigns, and at the same time we launch salvos of incendiary accusations at those politicians when the people they have associated with get in trouble with the law? If Obama had refused Rezko's campaign contributions (and others like him) from the beginning he might never have been elected to public office because he would not have been able to wage a competitive campaign, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Instead, we would be talking about how Hillary Clinton and John McCain were going to match up in the general election. Would that have made our democracy stronger or weaker?
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Obama Rezko, Tony Rezko
Comments (7)
Slowly, over a period of ma... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Lee Ward![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 7:45 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Slowly, over a period of many months, we've seen the amount of money that was provided to Obama rise and rise.
First Obama said it was less than $100,000 -- then they upped it to $150,000 -- now it's risen to $250,000. They've lied several times before, and there is no reason to believe they are telling the truth now either. In three months we'll hear it's doubled again.
And slime like Rezko don't throw a quarter of a million dollars around without getting something in return. He's an influence buyer, and Obama was the seller. Obama has not yet told us what he did in return for the cash.
If Obama had been up front and honest from the start about the amount of money given to him by Rezko he'd have had many more questions to answer.
Instead he lied about the amounts -- and avoided the questions for months -- all the time gaining more voters and a free pass from the majority of the press as a result of his lies.
Bottom line -- Barack Obama wasn't honest and forthcoming about the amount before, and there's no reason to believe he's being honest now.
1. Posted by Lee Ward![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 7:45 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 07:45
2. Posted by sam | March 17, 2008 9:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Obama is being slowly revealed as what he is - a black nationalist Cook County hack, whose rhetoric is stolen from Jeremiah Wright and whose money is obtained from Tony Rezko. Obama's stories are clearly as unbelievable as "I did not have sex with that woman".
Not that he is any different from a any other liberal.
2. Posted by sam | March 17, 2008 9:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 09:41
3. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
whose rhetoric is stolen from Jeremiah Wright
Do all black people look the same to you?
3. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 10:23 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 10:23
4. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
And slime like Rezko don't throw a quarter of a million dollars around without getting something in return. He's an influence buyer, and Obama was the seller. Obama has not yet told us what he did in return for the cash.
And slime like Norman Hsu throw $850,000 into the Clinton campaign without getting anything either? Isn't he an influence buyer?
Your attempts to demagogue this issue are pretty transparent Lee. Maybe you can back them up with some FACTS.
I take Hillary at her word that she didn't exchange any favors for that money because there is NO EVIDENCE to believe otherwise. The same for Obama.
But don't let that bother you Lee. Just continue on with your blind pathological hatred for Obama and continue doing the work of the right-wing. You've done such a good job so far. Why let the facts get in your way?
4. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 10:56 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 10:56
5. Posted by Scrapiron | March 17, 2008 12:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Na, he never did any favors other than the hundreds of thousand of dollars and the million dollar home (with extra lot to keep the low class whitey's far away from me) I couldn't afford.
5. Posted by Scrapiron | March 17, 2008 12:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 12:32
6. Posted by amy | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The realtor involved in the Obama-Rezko land deal is a self-claimed "Hillary girl". She said this about Obama: I have been there. It is just like a hot date with a cool man. You just don't what to ask too many questions to kill the dream". Obama supporters, ask yourself: Are you trying to keep that Dream by suppressing any inkling of your doubts?
Nobody is accusing Obama of being a racist, or having done things illegal. The issue here is his entire platform he has built to make him so high and so above the rest of the political contenders is collapsing.
1. Honesty: he was not honest when he answered questions about Rezko and Wright. His story kept changing. There is more to come. I am 100% sure by Nov. there will be a tape surfacing out showing him nodding with Wright when those hateful words were said.
2. Ethics: he shows no ethical concerns when he entered the land deal with Rezko. Also look at his earmarks from the senate, to the hospital where his wife was VP; to things associated with his biggest donor.
3. Good judgment: Obama chose to be associated with Rezko and Wright intentionally. This is not just bad judgment, there is more than that. I have the suspect that deep in his heart, Obama is a completely different person. All he is saying in the campaign is carefully calculated "positioning".
4. Iraq: the only thing Obama can talk about as reflecting his good judgment. The NYT had an article about him recently. It turned out, except his 2002 speech, Obama did nothing to change the Iraq course, he even voted against troop withdrawal. His tones and strategies changed AFTER he started his pres. bid.
6. Posted by amy | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 12:47
7. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I am 100% sure by Nov. there will be a tape surfacing out showing him nodding with Wright when those hateful words were said.
So I guess you were in the church then?
Ethics: he shows no ethical concerns when he entered the land deal with Rezko.
"Land deal"? A 10-foot strip of a land is a "land deal"? Hilarious!
Also look at his earmarks from the senate, to the hospital where his wife was VP.
That earmark was never approved but even if it was there's nothing wrong with a senator seeking funding for a hospital so they can house more sick people. That's exactly the sort of thing that elected officials should be doing for their constituents.
It turned out, except his 2002 speech, Obama did nothing to change the Iraq course, he even voted against troop withdrawal.
So, I'm sure you would have been cheering if Obama had voted to cut funding for the troops in the field?
Pretty weak arguments. Better luck next time.
7. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2008 1:13 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2008 13:13