<p>I think what people are trying to do is in fact to point out that Obama is <em>also</em> a politician, not some saint. To that extent, I agree with them. Obama is not a saint. He is a politician. But IMHO, he is far more honest and upright politician than most of the others. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I think McCain is also a pretty honest guy. At least that is my impression of him. </p>
<p>The Clintons, OTOH, are far from honest.</p>
<p>And to be honest myself, the honesty of a politician is only a minor part in my decision process in terms of whom to vote for. That is the reason I would much rather have the dishonest Bill Clinton than say, the probably more honest Senior George Bush.</p>
<p>Quit living in the past. The Clintons have nothing to do with this. The issue is whether Obama is a corrupt politician. He’s the one running for office.</p>
<p>The seller was doing nothing of the kind. In fact, the seller wanted to sell both to the same buyer and, when Rezko wanted to pay full asking price while Obama got the full discount, the sellar only agreed if the two parcels closed on the same day.</p>
<p>sokkermom: </p>
<p>I’m a registered independent and have been for more than fifteen years.</p>
<p>Oh come now, Idad. Don’t be coy. The point is that when (in the very recent past) Senator Clinton was running for office, she too had (and still has) a very questionable past when it comes to her associations and dealings. But that apparently never presented any sort of an impediment to your enthusiastic support.</p>
<p>Quote:"Quit living in the past. The Clintons have nothing to do with this. "</p>
<p>Yup. Believe that, and we have some swamp land in Arkansas for you…:eek:
I’dad, your whole bitter attitude has everything to do with the Clintons. Hillary lost. Quit living in the past. Time to move on.</p>
<p>Well, the birth certificate brougha appears to have been a bust. As to the property, we did the same thing as the Obamas did for the very reason that Calmom gave. The minimum distance between houses here is not much, and we had to pay a premium to buy a 10 foot strip so that we could plant some trees between our side yard and a future neighbor’s backyard. Thank God we did so. The window that faces that strip is “grandmothers’ room” and there is a playground set for little kids on the other side of the trees. As it is, there are times that the grandmothers have had issues when trying to rest while kids are playing out there. Had we not bought that strip (which H did NOT want to do), it would have been much, much worse.</p>
<p>Interesteddad - you’ve posted a series of false and/or mistaken claims about the property. Obama was the higher of two bidders on a home that had been on the market for a while; the property had been subdivided many years before the sale and apparently already approved for the development of townhomes, a project that had been contemplated for at least 6 years prior to purchase. Obama paid Rezko the full pro-rata cost of purchasing the strip of land, despite the fact that the market value of that strip would be far less because it could not itself be developed. There is no evidence whatsoever that the seller wanted or expected both parcels to be purchased by the same buyer – they were listed separatedly. One was a large stately private home, the other was open land ready for development. The seller did want the sales to close on the same day, but that was through instructions to the agent after the properties had been sold. </p>
<p>As a lawyer I can say that there is absolutely nothing that is illegal or improper about this transaction. There are no laws that say that Senators cannot buy property from people who are under investigation for possible crimes. It would be suspicious if the property were sold at a discount - but Obama paid well above the market value to Rezko by paying 1/6 of the Rezko purchase price. (A fractional strip of land is not worth the equivalent fractional value of the total because the fraction is too small for development, hence any appraiser would find it to be worth far less than what Obama paid for it). </p>
<p>In other words, the person who benefited financially from this transaction was Rezko, not Obama. Obama appears to have bent over backward to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety, with what pretty much looks like a straightforward financial transaction.</p>
<p>In defense of Idad, when he is not fretting about Hillary’s loss, he is actually thoughtful and respectful, and has provided a bevy of great info, for example, to other parents and their kids about Swarthmore. . .</p>
<p>In the interests of being fair and balanced, I do think there is a “whiff” about the land deal, and it is this: if somebody else had bought the corner property, would they have been willing to sell Obama the 10-foot strip of land? Probably not. I don’t see anything financially shady about the deal; Obama paid a fair price, and Rezko did OK too, but Rezko did a favor for Obama by selling him that strip of land. Perhaps not a financially corrupt favor, but a favor nonetheless. It is that aspect of the deal that makes it a mistake for Obama. Is it a huge deal? Not really, not compared to financial dealings of the Clintons and many others.</p>
<p>The other thing that’s weird about the land deal is that (I heard) Obama paid a very reduced price for his parcel while Rezco paid the asking price & they were purchased on the same day & located side-by-side.</p>
<p>If those facts are incorrect, please feel free to post otherwise. I haven’t researched the subject - just going on something I remember hearing a while back. If it’s true, there is probably more to the story than has come out so far.</p>
<p>I hesitate to post this since it is unsubstantiated - can anyone provide confirmation or more info about the land deal and/or Obama’s connection to Rezco? In the meantime, I’ll see what I can find out…</p>
<p>That’s not quite right. According to what I read, the Obamas bought their piece of land in a fairly normal way, with several bids back and forth, etc. There was already an option on the other parcel, which the Rezkos bought out. It wasn’t the whole parcel that they sold to Obama for $104,000, but only about a sixth of it (so they paid a pro rata amount). As I said before, it doesn’t appear that Obama (or anybody else) got a particularly sweet deal here financially; the benefit that Obama got was the ability to buy that strip of land from a friend who was willing to further subdivide the second plot and sell it to him; something another owner might not have been willing to do at all, or only at a more than pro rata price.</p>
<p>The reason Obama needed Rezko to do this is because there was an easement on the land, and Obama could not qualify to buy both. He needed to buy the easement b/c that is where the driveway was located…if a stranger bought it, Obama could have been told by the new owner sorry, but you’re trespassing. The reason Obama’s house was cheaper was because of the easement. Who is going to buy a house when you don’t have use of the driveway? The minute the title went over to Obama, the house was valued at a higher price, because now it had a driveway!</p>
<p>The problem of this whole thing is that Obama maintained a friendship with someone who is being indicted and people are jumping to conclusions that it was fishy. Obama would have been better off using a different friend to buy the parcel, reducing the chance of the look of improprietary</p>
<p>That doesn’t make sense, though. Obama could have “qualified” to buy both parcels of land, if he had enough money. According to what I read, that was the problem; even the lot he bought was more than he originally intended to spend, and the second lot was about $600K. What he needed (or wanted) was to be able to buy PART of the second parcel, and Rezko made that possible. I don’t really see anything sleazy about the deal financially, except that it constituted a favor to Obama by a friend who was also a developer with political interests.</p>
<p>from the article quoted in post #153:
“Rezko’s wife paid full price – $625,000 – for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko’s wife $104,500 for a strip of her land”</p>
<p>bz’s paraphrase of that article in the SAME POST:
“Rezco’ wife paid $625,000 for her parcel of land, then six months later sold it to Obama for $104,500.”</p>
![http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg[/url]](http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
