Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Rhonda — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:12:00 -0000

Have you seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Hillary is pretty much praising McCain and of course herself on their experience!! While of course stomping on and dismissing Obama.

This for me is the last straw.

P.S. Charlie Crist is allowing the DNC to do a Florida do-over. I'm havent heard if the DNC will agree. I actually dont think that it is a bad thing. In addition, John Edwards was still in the race. Many of his support may cross over to Obama which will make him more competitive. Obama will have a chance to campaign in the state and also his amazing grassroots organizers will be able to head down there.I will head down there and get my 68 family members and 55 plus associates!! in FL to round up some voters.

But then again who should take Hillary, her supporters and Charile Crist seriously, I'm still sticking to the fact that unless their is a do-over, Florida should not count and nobody as yet agreed to any such thing.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Rhonda — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:25:00 -0000

Ronnie B., Thank You!!

I've known about the Rezko non-issue since 2006!! It isnt new. Various media outlets esp. those in Chicago have questioned him about it!! I dont know why people. like Wolfson (Hillary's Communications guy) continues to say that people ignore it and nobody is asking him about it!!! Who is Hillary Clinton to tell anybody about ethics and scandal...hasnt she had he share...the more I read about her the shadier she gets...please!!!

I'm so sick of the media in this whole thing. Hillary Clinton has control over the media. She even has control over the media to the point that she can convince them that they are biased towards Obama. All I have ever seen was the media paint Obama as an empty suit with no substance and not a single accomplishment.The media is a joke and the Clintons are like the big bullies. I think that they have put Obama at a major diadvantage with their rhetoric than they have Clinton. Clinton doesnt hve the momentum and its her fault!! The reason why they have so much negative press for Hillary is because she has earned that negative press. Since when have SNL and Comedy Central been reliable, look at how they portray Obama, as if he is stupid!! Is that what Hillary is encouraging.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Ronnie B — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:22:00 -0000

That response from Barack has been in the public domain for almost two years.

How can anyone seriously involved in politics -- at the very least, the media -- not know?

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

D. — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:22:00 -0000

Craig,
Had never heard/seen that before. And I'll be the first to admit that Obama's responses are a lot more open than anything I've heard from Clinton...or McCain, for that matter.

Thanks for sharing.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:24:00 -0000

According to the Chicago Tribune, Clinton phonebankers are calling Obama "Osama bin Laden" and then claiming it is a "slip of the tongue."

http://weblogs.chicagotribu...

Please, someone who knows someone, report this to the Obama campaign.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

I am not Star Jones — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:52:00 -0000

When I first read this, I was pissed but now I realize that's Hillary showing her rage at the reality of being the front runner during Fall 2007 to being on political life support.

She is fighting for her political life -- it's not pleasant but she has to do it since her team has done such a lousy job managing her campaign. I don't respect it but I do understand.

Barack Obama & Rezko.

I'm interested in how far the relationship goes but don't feel it will sway me when it comes to voting (if he should be the nominee).

If America wants completely untainted politicians, then maybe we should start electing embryos.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Craig Hickman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:29:00 -0000

d.,

This is for you:

Information I can't imagine you haven't Googled yourself.

It was just last Friday that Howard Wolfson, top Clinton aide, held a media conference call and said that "the number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," after saying nothing about it for the entire campaign. It's an understandable tactic. The timing was perfect. And the media ran with the story, as Wolfson knew it would.

What I find most interesting, though, is that several Chicago media outlets said within the last few days, according to the MSNBC talking heads, that Obama had never answered any questions about this transaction or his relationship with Rezko. I guess that means the link I posted above is a figment of my imagination. If the media wants to vet Obama about this, it might at the very least consider starting with a few facts.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Ronnie B — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:49:00 -0000

Re: the stolen nomination

It's starting just as b-serious predicted. The media is all over this Canadian NAFTA non-story. They're acting like they've blown the cover off of Iran-Contra.

Meanwhile, HRC is riding this one like a porn actress.

Has White America finally found its plausible deniability?

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

justice58 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:36:00 -0000

d,

No No---you made a bet! You lose-- Pay up!

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

D. — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:38:00 -0000

Craig,
Of course.

I'm so low on the scale that it probably won't even put gas in your vehicle.

Don't you think that's kinda a double standard? If we're going to be fair about it, whoever's left for the general should fully answer all the questions about the elements of their shadiness that have made it into the light. For McCain, that's the lobbyist in 2000 (though I'm not concerned), and for Obama, that's Rezko.

Even though we're not particularly concerned about our respective candidates, there's those who are. Let's just put it all out there.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Craig Hickman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:01:00 -0000

"But I'm more than willing to bet my meager gov't salary that you're willing to hold McCain's dealings with the lobbyist in 2000 against HIM."

::

Then I'll take your salary. When can you start forwarding payments?

First, it's untrue that Obama hasn't answered any questions about Rezko. Do I think he has something to hide in the situation? Perhaps. I've no doubt it will come out if he does.

It's also untrue that Clinton and McCain have answered for everything in their pasts. Or their presents.

I'm more interested in Hillary's tax returns than I am in what may have happened in Obama's Chicago past. If there's a dealbreaker in Obama's past, it will come out. But I'm not waiting with baited breath for the other shoe to drop.

Hillary has always been secretive, has always been around corruption, and after becoming First Lady has always dismissed it as a "right wing conspiracy." Well, no conspiracy is keeping her from releasing her tax returns.

I have this thing about politicians and it's really quite simple: other than how they vote on the issues, if they have a record of voting at all, what they do in the relatively distant past is far less important to me than what they do in the present. Which is why I said Hillary is hiding something while using Karl Rove's playbook to win this thing, and McCain is showing what a fool he is.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:07:00 -0000

Lynn Sweet: Obama and His Taking Questions on Rezko

By Lynn Sweet

Here what David Axelrod said on Sunday, during an interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: Before you go there, David, let me just follow

up on one point, because Lynn Sweet writes in the Chicago Sun-Times, I

believe it was yesterday, that in fact Senator Obama has not sat down

with the Chicago reporters who are most familiar with the Rezko case.

Is he willing to do that, or is Ms. Sweet wrong, in your opinion?

AXELROD: I think she is wrong. We've talked to reporters from

— and he's talked to reporters from both papers several times in

several sessions about this, and each time the conclusion is the same:

There's no evidence of any wrongdoing related to Mr. Rezko.

I showed the above to the reporters who cover the Rezko-Obama story.

For the record, here’s what they said.

Sun-Times Reporter Tim Novak: “David Axelrod has never talked to me, Fusco or Mckinney about Obama. Neither has Obama. All we've gotten are responses to written questions, and who knows who actually answered those. And occassionally we talk to (Bill) Burton. But the point is that Obama himself has never sat down and discussed these questions about Rezko.”

Sun-Times Reporter Chris Fusco: “Tim is absolutely right about that one.”

Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief Dave McKinney: “Well, I know Chris and I have never had a sit-down interview with Obama. Axelrod might be referring to the December 2006 Q and A, but as you know those were written questions and written responses. I believe Tim's experience was identical when he wrote about Rezko's slum properties. Axelrod would have been more accurate, perhaps, had he said today that Obama has "communicated" with reporters (through spokesmen and a Q and A). But he hasn't spoken to us directly about this. You are right. Axelrod is wrong.”

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

TruthSeeker — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:27:00 -0000

@ d

Obama has answered concerns.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Ronnie B — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:54:00 -0000

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:

If you have a candidate who wants to scare you, and you have a candidate who wants you to think ...

If you have a candidate who appeals to your fears, and you have a candidate who appeals to your hope ...

You should vote for the candidate who makes you think and hope.

Bubba said this back in 2004 during the Bush/Kerrey contest.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:10:00 -0000

Anonymous writes,

"I was hoping to see if his most ardent supporters here at this blog could refute. I welcome an enlightening discussion."

No, what you were HOPING is that you'd stir the pot a little bit. And what you'd WELCOME is the thought that you are sowing false seeds of doubt. Go crawl back under your bridge, troll, and take your fake "concern" over these non-issues with you. If you want to know the truth on these issues it's available through this incredible website called Google.com. You really must try it. I'm not your damn research assistant, and you're not interested in the truth anyway.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

D. — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:07:00 -0000

Craig,
....but I'm more than willing to bet my meager gov't salary that you're willing to hold McCain's dealings with the lobbyist in 2000 against HIM.

The point that Clinton and McCain have had dealings with their share of corrupt figures is irrelevant. They've answered the concerns. Why hasn't Obama?

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Craig Hickman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:54:00 -0000

Corruption in Chicago politics is like malaria in Southeast Asia. If we expect a politician from Chicago to never have met, dealt with or received support from someone tied to corruption, then we're truly living in a fairy tale.

Clinton and McCain have certainly been supported by their share of corrupt figures.

On this matter, the playing field is more or less level. That said, Rezko hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

People, however, are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter who says what about whom. If it affects their vote one way or another, so be it.

Clinton won't even release her tax returns or donor lists and McCain is shows himself to be a bigger fool each day.

Unless somebody produces a smoking gun I can believe, I have no reason to hold his relationship with Rezco or his real estate transaction with Rezko's WIFE against him.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Der Vandernder Yid — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:04:00 -0000

1) It's the pinnacle of fearmongering to even make being a Muslim an issue in this campaign. There are plenty of white, born-again Christian terrorists (Eric Rudolph, anyone?), but no one accuses Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or George W Bush of being a Manchurian candidate because of their Christianity. Obama nailed it on its head when he said last night that it's offensive to Muslims. Being a Muslim, does not make one a terrorist, or a foreigner, or any less of an American. To even imply otherwise is absurd in the absence of demonstrable links to violent radical groups, be they Islamic in name or otherwise. These questions of dual loyalty were the same lobbed against Jews in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries as newly created nations and nation-states struggled to explain the place of "the other" in their midst, even if "the other" had resided in the nation's "homeland" just as long as the nation had.

2) The Israel issue. Some Jews care about more than just Israel. You know, we're not all a big monolithic voting group that huddles together before the election, and decides things based solely on the issue of Israel.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:36:00 -0000

http://online.wsj.com/artic...
http://www.washingtonpost.c...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/...

http://www.nypost.com/seven...

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

Don't hate me because I'm anonymous. The point I was trying to make is that there are still a lot of concerns about Obama and the media is beginning to look more closely at him. All questions cannot be brushed off as 'smear tactics' when these issues will surely surface in time for the general election. I am not a Clinton or McCain supporter, nor am I fully on board with Obama, in part because of what I have been reading lately.

I was hoping to see if his most ardent supporters here at this blog could refute.

I welcome an enlightening discussion.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

D. — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:14:00 -0000

I have a strong dislike for anonymous posters (both here and at my own blog).

As far as the 20 questions above (it's really 7), I'm interested in knowing the answers myself. I don't believe that Obama's dealings with Tony Rezko were criminal, but they seem to have a Keating Five-esque ring to them...

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Craig Hickman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:01:00 -0000

Roger, you beat me to it.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Roger — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:49:00 -0000

I'd love for "anonymous" to a) post his/her name (you *can* do that, you know) as well as links to sources supporting those "questions"(aka smear attacks). And lest "anonymous" thinks otherwise, a lot of people are well aware of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and we know that he is NOT anti-Semitic and his political rhetoric is about Black self-help. It's funny how, when Black folk begin talking about relying on ourselves and our own resources for community development and isn't about butt-kissing powerful white elites, it becomes threatening.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Nita — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:00:00 -0000

please, stop her tomorrow. she must be stopped.

and i agree with everyone who says that the 'muslim' card being used is just an excuse after the fact. kind of like how i feel about certain people and the 'mcclurkin' card, but worse. or the 'iraq flew planes into the world trade center and that's why we're in iraq' card, but less. same difference.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:55:00 -0000

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:54:00 -0000

A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."