New Details from Obama on Rezko? Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions . . .

[bigtree]

Obama: I toured home with Rezko

By David Jackson and Bob Secter | Tribune reporters
2:44 AM CST, February 19, 2008

Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday.

Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama's presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones.

Obama was able to buy the house for $300,000 less than the listed price while Rezko, in his wife's name, paid the full $625,000 asking price for an undeveloped side lot.

On Monday, Obama's campaign gave Bloomberg news service e-mails from the sellers, who reportedly said Obama's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and that they didn't cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent yard.

The campaign said Obama and his wife started at $1.3 million and upped their offer twice over 10 days. According to the campaign, the sellers confirmed they "did not offer or give the Obamas a 'discount' on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot."

The campaign declined to share the sellers' e-mails with the Tribune or elaborate on the Bloomberg story. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: "Despite the many extensive investigations into these questions and the numerous attacks we have weathered from the < Hillary> Clinton campaign, the resounding conclusion has been that the transaction was completely aboveboard."

It's not clear why Obama had not previously divulged Rezko's tour of the house with him. In 2006, he told the Tribune he recalled talking to Rezko and his wife "either at an event or some conversation we had where they mentioned to me that they either knew the property or knew the developer or something like that . . .

After they bought the parcels, Obama and Rezko entered a series of personal financial arrangements to redivide and improve the lots.

full story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-rezko-home-feb19,1,1896263.story

[loveangelc]

1. I'm sure it will be a huge story everywhere as it has been...

[paulk]

2. if this had been the Clintons

it would have been plastered all over the news 24/7.

Obama is getting a free ride from the press. The question to ask is

"why?"

[oasis]

7. The MSM will await Obama's coronation before they lower the boom.

That's when the real sobbing at DU will begin.:cry::cry::cry:

"...but..but..if we only knew"

[calico1]

9. You are exactly right. n/t

[Hepburn]

18. Ummmmmm.....because people like Obama and hate Hillary? n/t

[paulk]

21. what a shallow reply

I guess I should consider the source...

[Hepburn]

24. You don't like the message, so take it out on the messenger?

You have any Pubbie or Independent friends ~~ or any friends at all? Ask someone who falls into the swing vote criteria what they think of Hillary? The word "hate" does not go far enough to describe the feelings IMO. I have a gal pal who is apolitical...and all one has to do is say, "Hillary" and the instant response is, "I hate that bitch." This friend of mine is a sweet, gramma type who does not get upset about much and would not say "shit" if she had a mouthfull. If Hillary engenders that response in her...well, go figure for yourself.

Hillary is hated, really hated by those we need to vote Dem to keep McInsane out of the WH. That is the bottom line. We nominate Hillary...the USA says "hello" to John McCain as POTUS.

[paulk]

26. you have a message?

All I see from you on this board are insults.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. Bill's conflict of interest-Hillary could be using husband's foreign cash for campaign

Report: Hillary could be using husband's foreign cash for campaign
OneNewsNow, MS - 4 hours ago
She has a particular interest in the speaking fees former President Bill Clinton has been paid since he left the White House. "At my last count
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=67673

[floridablue]

3. You mean like Whitewater ???

[mikekohr]

77. Is this the Same Rezko That was Photoed Between A Smiling Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Just wondering?

For all of you not from Illinois, and may not be following the details of this case, there is as much criminal malfeasance in the Rezko deal as there was in the "Whitewater" deal, which if I remember correctly was exactly nothing. This is a Republican talking point, it belongs on the "Freeper network.

mikekohr

[Nitrogenica]

4. Swiftboat DU-ers for Truth don't give up easy, do they.

[bigtree]

6. don't be stupid. This isn't some tabloid story. It reports exactly what it found out.

I'm just an observer here, albeit, rooting for Clinton in this primary. I'm not going to editorialize. I really don't know the details enough to condemn or defend, but, I imagine the Obama campaign has the right answers. We'll see.

[Tellurian]

69. There was another aspect added to the mix the other day...

The estate the Obama's purchased was sold to them by a Doctor at the hospital where Michelle holds an Administrative VP position... Yes, the plot thickens and more questions to be answered.

[bigtree]

71. where was that posted?

[Tellurian]

72. Here is an ongoing diary continually updated as new facts are revealed..

Scroll part way down for the Doctor's involvement in the Obama/Rezko sale.

http://www.rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-bought-his-home-with-no-rezko.html

[calmblueocean]

12. Nailed it. "Swift-DUers for Truth."

They are trying to do the same thing to Obama that the Swiftboaters did to Kerry.

[bigtree]

13. What nonsense. Are the Tribune and Bloomberg part of your imagined conspiracy?

Did I lie about ANYTHING in this post? Sounds like a desperate diversion to accuse the messenger here. This story was sparked by an admission made voluntarily by OBAMA. Not by something someone else said or did.

[calmblueocean]

16. There's no conspiracy. Just a bunch of people who love scandal more than issues.

What I think the SwiftDUers have in common with the SVT is a hunger for scandal to destroy a candidate. They feed it, nurture it, revel in it, rejoice in it, because they think that the best way and perhaps the only way for their preferred candidate to win is to destroy the reputation of the other.

The faux innocent act -- "Did I lie about ANYTHING?" -- doesn't fool anyone. There's a core group of Hillary supporters who have been dredging up the most preposterous filth from the depths of the internet -- YouTube accusations, hate sites, etc. -- just to have something dirty to try to throw at the man. The goal of the SVT was to muddy the debate on the issues with scandalous accusations and that's what I see here, too.

There are, I'm sure, Obama supporters who are also part of the SwiftDUers for Truth, but frankly, they're outnumbered 20 to 1, in part because Obama is doing well enough that his supporters don't have the same hunger or need to try to scandalize Hillary to succeed.

[bigtree]

33. Who the hell are you to judge me? You provide NO proof of the crap you accuse me of.

I posted an article with FACTS about Obama, offered, voluntarily, from HIM.

You people are amazing in your defenses.

[calmblueocean]

43. My post was about a certain type of Hil supporter. If you're not one of 'em, then it doesn't apply.

I've gone back and read some of your old posts, and I think you're a pretty fair broker, generally.

[bigtree]

44. I'm a policy guy. I don't have the stomach for the investigative stuff, although,

I play defense quite often.

Is it just me, or does this surprise you, at all, to find these kinds of deals by these politicians? I'll tell you what. NOTHING in my life resembles these financial relationships both candidates' families have benefited from.

[calmblueocean]

53. You know, that is a really good question!

I don't know that deals like this ever so much surprise me as frustrate or disappoint me.

I've never purchased a 1.65 million dollar house, and I can see how perhaps you might ask someone you knew who was a real estate developer to come along and give you their opinion on whether you're getting your money's worth or not, but it's a disappointment to me that Obama didn't have better judgment on this issue. He should've kept things above board, and if he needed extra expertise, he should've hired it, rather than turning to someone in his donor base.

But there is a part of me that simply thinks, "A $1.65 million house?"

My heart is still with Kucinich, whose house was described this way in an Esquire article about him:

Dennis Kucinich's home has no number anywhere to indicate its address -- a leftover precaution from his days as mayor, when he had the $25,000 bull's-eye on his back -- but you can't miss it: It's the only house on its lower-middle-class West Side street painted a strange shade of blue -- cornflower? Periwinkle?

"This is the color you get when you mix red, white, and blue," Kucinich explains. "We were painting it on 9/11. We're painting it again."

Elizabeth calls down from upstairs, "We're going to paint it white."

"I was elected to city council from this house," Kucinich says. "Clerk of courts. Mayor. State senator, congressman. My brother and his family lived in this house. My mom lived in this house. This is kind of a family homestead here."

It is a small house -- eighteen hundred square feet, tops. If you could find a buyer for it -- this street and the streets nearby have plenty of FOR SALE signs planted on the lawns -- you'd ask maybe seventy grand, and be happy to settle for sixty-five.

Quite a contrast.

[bigtree]

56. Dennis. You're right. That house is a big part of his story.

I take your point about finding good advice on those million-plus deals. I wouldn't know where to look, or who to ask for help, other than a real estate expert. I guess I'd be looking for some inside track to maximize my investment and keep costs down. I think his real estate company provided some cover in the article for the apparent reduction in price. I think the question in the revelation is about the difference in the degree of the relationship between Rezco and Obama with what he previously described it as. Then again, credibility isn't most politicians' strong suit.

[Saturday]

5. Do you think Michelle considers the Rezko deal her husband made...

as a "proud moment in her adult life"? LOL

[oasis]

11. I'll bet she believed America was one great place to live in those days. (eom)

[Hepburn]

19. You're an idiot on many levels....sheesh!

So...somehow because she is female and married, she has NO part in purchasing the family home???

The Rezko BS on the purchase of the residence is total unmitigated bullshit and you are touting this as a "real" issue...but what is worse...your TOTAL sexism comes through. Guess what? Quite often the "Little Woman" is involved in major family purchases. The Days of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House are long over.

Geeeeeeeez.........get at least one clue, OK?

[Straight Shooter]

41. You clearly missed the point of the post.

It was implying that Michelle as a person helped to orchestrate this deal.

Four more years of thin-skinned ultrasensitivity from Dems whining about any criticism of Lord Barack is going to cause the right wing to despise the Democratic party more than ever.

But don't worry about your guy, because the Repubs will warm up to Obama when they find out how truly business-friendly he is, schmoozing with Buffet and Soros, going for caps on jury awards, pushing for legislation to prevent class action lawsuits in district courts and getting them to federal courts, all designed to help the big corporations and punish the "little guy."

Obama is all about "reform" this and "reform" that. Red flags.

[high density]

51. Buffett and Soros

Interesting names you throw out there.

Is 'anti-tort reform' really the biggest issue for you in this election? Are there other tangential issues you bend yourself into knots about that have little effect on the day to day lives of most Americans?

IMO the red flags fly when a candidate isn't talking about reforms. A lot of shit is badly managed in this country and reform is exactly what it needs.

[Straight Shooter]

70. You don't get it. Obama is for big business, not for the little people.

I know you're aware of how much the right hates Soros. Obama being seen as schmoozing with the likes of him won't help.

Who says I'm tied up into knots? Do you become so confrontational with people you meet face to face? "Reform" is a right wing word for FUBAR, just as Clinton managed to FUBAR welfare with his so-called "reform." Obama wants to "reform" NCLB.

As for the issue where Obama has lost me, see my sig pic and figure it out. "Exploit and toss" is the hallmark of bush, and I don't support ostensible Dems who employ it.

[CorpGovActivist]

8. The Clintons should tell us all they know about Vinod Gupta's dealings with them.

Nobody will remember Rezko's name once the Gupta file gushes.

- Dave

[bigtree]

10. fine, but this is a thread about Obama and Rezko

start your own if you want to debate about the Clintons. As far as I know, the Clintons don't have any financial relationships with Rezco.

[CorpGovActivist]

27. Rezco and Gupta are much alike in how the reflect, only Gupta moreso.

[CookCountyResident]

17. Doubtful.

The Rezko trial is coming up in just a few weeks. It will be all over the MSM then.

[CorpGovActivist]

29. And so will Gupta. Promise.

[moobu2]

14. The audacity to hope

you can instantly make $300,000 on a shady land deal.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. The return of Chicago politics.

We can do better.

[bigtree]

49. where's the defense of the apparent closer involvement with Rezco than we were led to believe?

Where are Obama's troops, MP? Clearly he led folks to believe that his involvement with Rezco in the purchase of the house was like a distant referral ('the real estate agent handled most of it'). Now, from his own admission, he toured the property with Rezco. Much closer involvement. Discussed some deals with Rezco afterward . . . This relationship between them looks more than casual.

I really don't know the rest. Sheez, wading through that muck . . . I'm not up to it.

[Iceburg]

20. I always take my best friend along when I make a major purchase too./nt

[saracat]

23. Particularly when my friend is under federal investigatrion!

[Benhurst]

22. "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

This hardly meets that test.

In fact something smells in Chicago, and it's not the stockyards.

[karynnj]

28. It is less questionable than the wife of the 1992 candidate's cattle future trades

that were guided by a Tyson chicken lawyer. It is not at all typical to convert $1000 to $100,000 in the commodities market.

[CorpGovActivist]

31. Chump change, compared to the Clintons' financial dealings in the last 8 years.

[karynnj]

38. yep - but easy to understand and HRC, not BC

[CorpGovActivist]

39. Oh, her financial dealings and inked signatures on docs in the last 8 years...

... make the old commodities trade look quite quaint.

- Dave

[karynnj]

45. I agree and have read many of your excellent posts on the Clinton library

[CorpGovActivist]

54. Well, I think voters in Ohio and Texas deserve the facts on those, don't you?

[bigtree]

42. you're a real good thread kicker

boring as hell, but, a good kicker

[CorpGovActivist]

55. Happy to oblige. Don't let the donor dollar amounts, names, and orgs put you to sleep.

[bigtree]

73. right

blah blah blah

[CorpGovActivist]

76. Do you live in Ohio or Texas, perchance? n/t

[bigtree]

78. nope

[CorpGovActivist]

79. Well, voters in OH, RI, TX, and VT...

... will get a very thorough, up-close-and-personal, look at this data.

We'll see if they find it as boring, given the effect these deals had on their lives and livelihoods.

- Dave

[Benhurst]

32. At this late date, I still don't have a dog in this fight.

Just because one candidate is corrupt, doesn't make the other any better.
Since neither of the biggest losers looks like he or she is going to get the agreed upon 2025 elected delegates, maybe it's time to start looking around for another candidate.

They had to lie about John Kerry's war record to Swiftboat him.

We may very well be handing them a candidate they won't have to lie about.

The party, to say nothing of the country, is more important than the individuals.

[karynnj]

37. That was my argument about HRC - that they would not have to lie

She has far more baggage than Obama. Rezko is the only thing the Clintons have found - and it appears to be less than it appeared at the beginning. I agree that in John Kerry, we had a candidate that they had to lie about. He really is among the cleanest politicians to have reached that level and most of his adult life was lived in the public eye - but he is not running (or I would still be for him 100%) Your comment is fair and saying HRC has some problems says nothing about Obama.

In her case, McCain gets the ethics/corruption issue - even though he is not clean. He might also get the environment/global warming issue because he actually was an advocate for doing something and he worked with Kerry on CAFE standards. These are both issues Kerry would have had easily. (Also McCain stole a Kerry joke at the Firefighters union event and may have plagiarized how Kerry spoke of the relative costs of doing or not doing something on global warming in the event where McCain got Arnold's endorsement.)

[Benhurst]

40. I agree with most of what you say; but I think the Rezko business is

beginning to look worse. He takes a man such as Rezko with him to look at a property. That man then buys the adjoining property the same day as Obama buys his house, only to then cut Barak a deal on that very purchase to make Obama's property more desirable. And, to make matters worse, Obama is forthcoming about his and Rezko's little visit to the property only after months of prodding by a newspaper.

I'm sure the Clinton campaign was more than happy to learn about this; but it was the Chicago Sun-Times which initially exposed the purchases.

But as you say, Clinton has more baggage than Obama, at least from what we know so far. But, assuming that is the case, is less baggage good enough for our nominee? Just how low do we set the bar?

[karynnj]

46. At this point, this is our choice

as I said I would have preferred Senator Kerry. (In fact, I would have preferred the various Clinton people in the media in 2004 to have really made an effort to look at his past and proposals and sold Kerry better - then we would be working on his re-election. I'm not saying that Kerry made no mistakes, but the election was close enough that minor changes could have changed the results. For instance, the HRC people are making a big deal of her lobbying Clinton to get S-CHIP in his budget plan, but they were uninterested in Kennedy's comments that Kerry wrote much of it in his earlier bill with Kennedy. Given the Republican lie that Kerry did little in the Senate this could have helped. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4633702 )

The same case could be made for Senator Gore. What is clear is that Clinton sharp elbows likely kept them out as well as Warner or Bayh.

But given the choice, I have yet to see anything as bad here as the worst the Clintons had.

[Benhurst]

52. Yeah, so far it looks like Obama is bad, Clinton worse.

But Rezko's trial is set to start. Who knows? :shrug:

Unfortunately being a little corrupt is like being just a little pregnant.

Excuse me for not being enthusiastic over either of our two biggest losers, neither of whom will obtain the magic 2025 elected delegates on the first ballot to win outright.

But then rules, and laws, only apply to the lesser orders. And who are we, as mere citizens, to question the finaglings of our rulers?

[CorpGovActivist]

30. Calpurnia Clinton?

:rofl:

[Benhurst]

34. Yeah, neither of the front runners can pass the smell test, despite the protestations

of their fanatical groupies.

[bigtree]

35. I think that pretty much sums up the theme of this post.

. . . that, neither candidate comes to this process without 'questions' unanswered to the satisfaction of their critics about their financial pasts (and present).

[CorpGovActivist]

36. But the Clintons seem to be whistling past their own graveyard on financial dealings...

... and there are some deep, deep holes dug there.

- Dave

[Little Star]

25. k&r

[BlackVelvet04]

47. I thought they weren't really friends?

"Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday."

[Levgreee]

58. No, he has explicitally stated that they WERE friends

but that they were not doing business together. He only did 5 hours of work for Rezko at the law firm.
Try to keep the statements straight before you put words in Obama's mouth?

[bigtree]

61. Doesn't this revelation indicate some sort of buisness relationship between the two

since Rezco bought the adjoining lot?

from the article:

"After they bought the parcels, Obama and Rezko entered a series of personal financial arrangements to redivide and improve the lots."

[Levgreee]

66. What business, exactly, is involved?

All I see is real estate deal. That's not a business, that's not 'doing business'.

There was no money exchange except for when Obama bought a strip of the plot from Rezko. No transactions were made to make profits for each other, unless you consider Rezko, on his own, thinking about developing the land he had purchased. What do you mean by a 'business relationship'?

[bigtree]

67. I don't know. But, this is certainly more of a realtionship than he led us to believe

in his earlier statements, isn't it? Why didn't he disclose this earlier? It just makes folks who care about these things wonder what else he's leaving out.

[BlackVelvet04]

68. I can't keep up with his

bullshit about Rezko.

[CyberPieHole]

48. Rezko and Obama are joined at the hip.

:kick: and rec

[BootinUp]

50. fascinating nt

[redqueen]

57. Honestly, I don't care about Rezco.

I don't know if it's dirty... but even if it is, all the candidates have dirt. All of them.

Yes, the press will play it up for Dems and try to ignore it for repukes... but whatever.

[bigtree]

59. For me, it echoes my own insistence that 'all the candidates have dirt. All of them'

That point gets lost, sometimes, in our inevitable, partisan defenses of our candidates.

[redqueen]

63. Indeed it does.

It does seem as if some supporters can't seem to admit that their chosen candidate is, indeed, still a politician... and that they have made and will continue to make mistakes.

[Labors of Hercules]

60. I have to say this is a non-issue.

I've had several friends who got caught doing unscrupulous shit, and more than one that helped me out when I needed a hand. Does that mean I was somehow wrong for accepting their friendship and letting them do something nice for me?

[redqueen]

62. Yes, you should both be chained in the public square and stoned to death.

:sarcasm:

I don't know what's going on around here anymore. Though I suppose I've been swept up in it, too... when Obama was making his 'jokes' about Edwards, twisting his words to mock his answer to the 'weakness' question, I did not think that was nothing... I thought it was in poor taste.

[bigtree]

64. There is the issue of his criticisms of his rival's financial dealings and associations.

[izzybeans]

74. 300,000 on a 1.65 million dollar home?

Is this what you are crying about?

[bigtree]

75. his candor is the issue

what else has he left out about his financial relationship with Rezko?

[jackson_dem]

80. Why didn't he come clean right away? What more is he hiding?