<p>I don’t mind that they quickly became rich ($450k a speech?? I’d thought he was getting $150k), as long as they did so legitimately. But this is the kind of thing that worries me:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html</a></p>
<p>^Between Kazahkstan and Dubai, Clinton is pretty close to the line, IMO.</p>
<p>Why hasn’t the rest of the hungry press (main stream media) <em>explored</em> these connections more? </p>
<p>For those who think that Obama has been treated kindly by the media, give me a break. :eek:</p>
<p>NYMom- thanks for the link to that article. </p>
<p>So true, sokkermom. The McCain camp will have a field day- this is just the kind of thing Mr. Straight Talk loves to jump on.</p>
<p>(actually, they won’t have to. The media will “discover” all this anew once Hilary is nominated.)</p>
<p>Didn’t she recently agree to release her (2006) tax filing by April 15 when she was pressed. It was a flip flop from her original statement when she said she would provide the information after she won the nomination. If she submits it by April 15, that would still give the media time to delve in to it prior to the PA primary on April 22. She conveniently released all her NAFTA and attack ads prior to Ohio…</p>
<p>Any bets that won’t happen? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Won’t happen.</p>
<p>It won’t happen unless her donors, supporters, and the media demand it.</p>
<p>The media needs to put some heat on Clinton for the tax issue and some heat on Obama for Rezko. When asked about it at a recent press conference he simply said “I’ve already answered 8 questions” and walked off…</p>
<p>There’s quite a difference between the coverage of Obama and Rezko and Clinton’s tax returns. Rezko/Obama stories have been in all the papers, Obama has answered questions about it, and there isn’t anything that has been withheld- such as how much money was donated, how much he paid for his house,or whatever. It’s all out there to see, for anyone wanting to know. This has been in the news for at least a year now, and it’s understandable that he’d be somewhat annoyed with the insinuations that he needs to keep explaining. It’s all there, in multiple news sources- I’ve given you a few below.</p>
<p>Clinton’s tax returns and Library finances, are HIDDEN. No one knows how much they made or where it came from. </p>
<p>If people are interested in Obama’s relationship with Rezko, they can find out just by googling. They can also find out his financial status and see his tax returns. Clinton’s taxes on the otherhand–not available.</p>
<p>That’s a big difference. </p>
<p>I didn’t choose these articles on any basis except that they are fairly mainstream (non-blog) sources, but there are dozens of other sources that are easily found online. </p>
<p>[Boneheaded</a> deal haunts house Obama built - Times Online](<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3499430.ece]Boneheaded”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>
<p>[8</a> things you need to know about Obama, Rezko :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: The Watchdogs](<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article]8”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article)</p>
<p>[ABC</a> News: The Rezko Connection: Obama’s Achilles Heel?](<a href=“The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel? - ABC News”>The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel? - ABC News)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/</a></p>
<p>[The</a> Washington Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012952.php]The”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012952.php)</p>
<p>What about Clinton and Hsu?</p>
<p>What bothers me about the Rezko thing is that the media has never said what they think Obama did wrong. But oh, the insinuations keep coming because he happened to know the guy and at one time considered him a friend. And he bought a house. And he took some money for his campaign, which he gave to charity when the guy got in trouble.</p>
<p>I wish for once someone would just tell us what Obama’s crime was! Or what they think the crime was. Please!</p>
<p>I think it’s funny that the whole democratic party lambasted the republicans in the 90’s for attacking the Clintons. They defended the Clintons saying they were victims of the right wing machine, innocent, and genuine. Bill and Hillary were victims of Newt & his posse…yet here we are in 2008 and it’s becoming more and more clear that the republicans of the 90’s were right about the Clintons…</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone thought of the Clinton’s as “innocent and genuine.” They are politicians - I don’t think that was disputed. His defenders did like what was going on with the economy and the country in general, though. But innocent- no. .</p>
<p>Their attacks by the right were ridiculous- Whitewater, Vince Foster, “wag the dog”, all kinds of crap that cost a lot of money to the taxpayers and didn’t come up with much beyond a blue dress and a slimy affair. And Newt going after his affair while having one of his own…
No, they were not “right” about the Clintons. However secretive and less than above-board the Clintons may be, they will never be able to compete with the Republican slime machine during their administration, or the currrent one.</p>
<p>That’s why I’m worried about their tax returns. And Hsu. And all the old stuff they will throw at her. Old stuff, painted like new. We need someone else.</p>
<p>ASAP, Regarding the Rezko case, I believe Chicago Newspapers would shed better light than any other. You might want to google them.</p>
<p>But with this issue being aired in multiple programs, the common theme appears to be that the house he lives in now was on sale together with its adjacent property. The owner was not willing to sell just the house by itself without its adjacent lot. Rezko purchased the lot same day to enable Obama to purchase his house. In other words, Rezko lined Obama’s pockets indirectly.</p>
<p>Know any NYers that had such help to buy their parking lots in NY city for them? This only happens if you are a politician.</p>
<p>Even if Obama didn’t do anything overtly illegal, this certainly tarnishes his angelic image. He is starting to look more and more like any other politician instead of the “CHANGE from normal politic guy”. Especially with his “wink wink” act II with the Canadian govt.</p>
<p>I’ve read the Chicago papers. My last post contained an article by them that laid it all out pretty well. Obama has since said (many times- I’ve heard him and read it) that he made a mistake in allowing the house deal to go though the way it did, allowing a friend (not known to be a crook at the time)to help him buy his house. I don’t know about you, but this is really small potatoes.
It was not the best thing to do. Ok, how many times does a guy have to apologize for the same error? When the media continues to ask him the same thing over and over, they are either lazy, or they are trying to make it to be more than it is. I have my thoughts on that.</p>
<p>The latest about the story about the Canadian government has not been accurately reported in our press. The latest news on that isn’t found on
CBS or ABC, but in the Canadian papers and news reports. ( It was posted on this site a couple of times yesterday, but I’ll see if I can find it. )</p>
<p>The interesting points are 1) Obama’s aide did not contact the Canadian embassy- the Canadian consulate contacted the aide to inquire about Obama’s policies. 2) The memo did not accurately reflect the conversation, as there was no “wink wink” because Obama’s policies were stated as they actually are and 3) Steven Harper (right hand to prime minister)said that the Clinton campaign did call them about NAFTA, and told them not to worry. </p>
<p>That’s right. The CLINTON campaign. </p>
<p>So, what do we make of this. Were the Canadians lying about Obama then and telling the truth now? Are they lying about Clinton now? Who knows. But we do know that the current conservative Canadian Government is very close to the Bush administration.
And the criticism that finally got to the bottom of this matter came from the opposition party in Canada, accusing the current administration of trying to influence our election.</p>
<p>One thing we do know: Obama’s entire net worth is less than the 5 million dollars Hillary Clinton loaned her own campaign!</p>
<p>Hillary’s main sound bite is her lifetime of experience. Yet, I do not understand why the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers get so defensive when one asks questions about her behavior and finances during that lifetime of experience. Like everything else, the Clintons think they can cherry pick only the good “experiences” from her lifetime that will make her a good President and only those that might shed a favorable light on her. She can NOT have it both ways. The voters deserve to get the complete truth on the good and the bad!</p>
<p>Does anyone else see the hypocrisy? 
</p>
<p>I think that Obama’s campaign theme should be that if she has secrets now (and many “discrepancies” from her lifetime of experience), just imagine what she would do as President? In addition, make her elaborate on her “experience” claim. As of yet, it is nothing but words. :o </p>
<p>Also interesting that the Clinton campaign has free reign to say anything they want about Obama whether it is true or not. Yet, he asks some pretty important questions, and she tries to chastise him and avoids an answer. Again, the media has made her the comeback darling. And her supporters are drinking it up…</p>
<p>didn’t ken starr examine them?</p>
<p>Gee simba, did Ken Starr ask for Hillary’s 2006 tax returns? I don’t think so…</p>
<p>(…typical and expected retort though. Try to avoid an answer and explanation. Hillary does it all the time!)</p>
<p>You wrote:“Yet, I do not understand why the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers get so defensive when one asks questions about her behavior and finances during that lifetime of experience. Like everything else, the Clintons think they can cherry pick only the good “experiences” from her lifetime that will make her a good President and only those that might shed a favorable light on her. She can NOT have it both ways. The voters deserve to get the complete truth on the good and the bad!”</p>
<p>I need my steroid dose, but weren’t you talking about past?</p>