Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Stupidest thing anyone has said this campaign season goes to Lawrence O’Donnell:
John Edwards is a loser. He has won exactly two elections in his life and lost 31. Only one of his wins and all of his losses were in presidential primaries and caucuses. He remains perfectly positioned to continue to lose with a Kucinich-like consistency. Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.
A couple of points worth making (though I’m sure there will be many more):
1. People in New Hampshire had their asses handed to them making these kinds of pronouncements before the primary. O’Donnell seems to be the only one who didn’t get the memo. John Edwards has earned the right to stay in the race as long as he wants to and can, he’s a serious candidate and his presence is not a matter of anyone else’s convenience.
2. Edwards has pretty much single handedly driven the populist, anti-poverty message this campaign, which both Clinton and Obama have been heavily appropriating of late. Just as Bill Richardson made a valuable contribution with his "no residual forces in Iraq" promise in the debate, so too has Edwards dragged everyone kicking and screaming onto the "dangers of corporate America" turf. That has value, and that value is ongoing unless you want to boil the slog to November down to simple horserace politics.
3. It is hardly fait accompli that Edwards votes would accrue to Obama. One diarist over at MyDD observed that as a Clinton volunteer on the ground in New Hampshire said were actively (and successfully) targeting the Edwards vote with low and middle income voters. So while CW had it that Edwards remaining in the race was a spoiler for Obama, that may not in fact be true. Nobody — and certainly not Lawrence O’Donnell — knows for sure.
4. Jerome Armstrong: "Certainly, Obama and Clinton have a monetary edge over Edwards, but don’t discount earned media or Edwards having enough funds to compete well enough. All of the post-Iowa national polls have shown Edwards trending up into the 20 percents, and he’s viable. There is no frontrunner."
5. The ugly identity politics on display here is a prime example of the place that nobody — especially liberals — wants to go. The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose. It is, abjectly, the stupidest thing that can happen in this campaign season.*
They’re already mocking O’Donnell’s ridiculous statement over at Kos. And rightly so. It’s offensive on so many levels it’s hard to count.
Update: * To clarify: I think there are very good discussions of race and gender that need to be had and hopefully having the these two candidates be our frontrunners will lead to that happening. What I meant to say, and probably didn’t say clearly enough is that a bunch of gender and race baiting that leads everybody to run off into their identity corners — which then becomes the arbiter of who supports whom — is a bad day for everyone.
Update II: Chris Hayes, writing about the Edwards campaign in The Nation: "Few remember that the signature economic policy of Bill Clinton’s presidency, balancing the budget, originated as a plank in the platform of his primary rival Paul Tsongas. If the next Democratic President manages to pass universal healthcare or a carbon cap-and-trade, we’ll owe the Edwards campaign a significant debt.
Related posts:
- Does Obama’s 2008 Campaign Have a Lesson for Saving Healthcare Reform?
- Aravosis Calls Out the Human Rights Campaign, Because Someone’s Got To Liberate the Veal Pen….
- GOP Will Target Blue Dogs Who Vote “Yes” on IMF, Senior Republican Campaign Official Confirms
- GOP Candidate Scozzafava Suspends NY-23 Campaign
- Lieberman’s Filibuster Threats Run Counter to 2006 Campaign Rhetoric





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Jane!
Hey Jane.
Yes, I vote for boiling slog.
Jesus – if Edwards were to drop out and go home, where are Hillary and Barack going to get their campaign slogans and issues?
I gave them a shout below.
Maybe O’Donnell just wants everyone to watch his head explode after SC. jeez.
Let’s not forget that Edwards outpulls most if not all the GOP creeps. That kicks butt in my book.
Great. Now, in addition to sexism and racism we have backlash against the white male.
Mr.O’Donnell, re. the “loser” meme: kettle, meet pot.
Re: identity politics:
Progressives have to be careful not to let race and gender short-circuit each other the way that happened in the 1960s. In that decade, the civil rights movement elided gender, while the first and second wave of feminism elided race. In the latter, in the name of universal sisterhood, white feminists elided women of color (in the US and in the third-world), who stood at the nexus of gender and race. As I said in a Jane thread yesterday, we have to be careful with these identity-politics categories of difference.
“So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.”
That is the kind of thinking that is denying the citizens of the United States of America from having a chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. It is the American people who deserve something – not the candidates.
The media blackout of Edwards really pisses me off. Blatent manipulation of our primaries. They would love to force Edwards out of the race, and for that reason alone, I hope he stays in.
Runner Up:
“Impeach? Sorry, Nancy’s still Speaker.”
don’t hit me. i know, i know… /s
All of this is so Rovian….get rid of the good candidates, don’t let the Dems vote for their candidates, and then shove McCain or Mitt down our throats via voter fraud….and the neocon machine will role on.
Impeach.
Good post. As someone who supports Obama, but likes Edwards alot, I find the article to be quite insulting. If Obama should win it should be because he was able to sway the electorate with his own arguments. To suggest that it is somehow Edwards job to hand it to him is just plain ridiculous. Edwards has a real message of his own and even those he is not “winning” he has garnered support from many Democrats who presently do not feel comfortable with the other two major candidates. To drop out just for the sake of expediency will deny many people the right to express themselves at the ballot box and keep the focus on many issues that need to be addressed.
Absolutely!
Trying to read through some of the Illinois legislation that Obama claims he took part in, that Health care for all children. In a reading through the eligibility section it appears in a legal sense some children in Illinois especially mental heath types and Institutional types are not covered. I need to go over it some more to be certain. If thats correct, Hillary may well be correct not all children are covered by Obama’s so called heath plan. Yet he rants that they are. If so, did he write it all, if so what page and what line did he write. There are 26 lines per page and some 52 ( maybe off) pages to the document. He should be able to know.
Now, having a time getting through just the prologue in his book “Audacity of Hope”. Obama has some startling admissions that clearly show no vision.
Ladies and gentlemen of Ameica this guy is starting to scare me. Sit down and grip your chair and have an anti acid to help your newly achieved nausea.
On page ten Obama says ”That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don’t. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables and ten-point plans”.
Ladies and Gentlemen of America I am totally, totally, disappointed in that statement coming from a college graduate that taught Constitutional principles at the University of Chicago. Please to me there is no recognition here to believe at least in the simple and fundemental unifying foundations in the Constitution? You know a preamble, stuff like the articles, maybe the first amendment at least. Ok, I have not finished the book maybe later Obama will help me recover from this disappointment. Lets see what happens, but for now there are a lot of questions Mainstream Media is just avoiding, likely doing a lot of blow, having fun and avoiding the important stuff.
That O’Donnell statement makes me want to suddenly phonebank my ass off for Edwards.
All of this is so Rovian
Perhaps literally? Bear in mind that polling shows that Edwards beats all Republican candidates more easily than either Obama or Hillary.
The Obama campaign needs to steer clear of identity politics. To this point, the genius of his campaign has been to campaign in a post-identity political mode.
The Obama campaign should also stop soliciting endorsements. First, they are mostly worthless, but more importantly, they step on his theme of being the outsider that can bring change. In short, the endorsement game is an old school establishmnet tool.
Me too, because they keep floating the rumor that he’s gonna bail.
From each other. then people would get confused and have to look at their records and discover they are political twins.
this is the message of the Obama campaign.
Yes, literally.
LD needs to get himself to a drum circle, stat!
Although, I have to politely disagree with your #5. I think gender and race need some discussion because it seems to be on everyone’s mind anyway. Why not spend a few days on it if for no other reason than to get it out of the way?
I am in complete accord with your opinion of Audacity of Hope. I’ve slogged through to page 39, but the only thing keeping me reading the book is that this man may one day be prez. My general description is: shallow descriptions full of cliches.
So is the idea now that we dispense with the democratic process and just have Lawrence O’Donnell email us who our candidates are? How efficient.
I used to listen to Left Right and Center until Lawrence O’Donnell so completely nausiated me.
I could suffer Tony Blankley’s BritWhine, but O’Donnell’s ‘insider’ superiority was unbearable.
He personifies EVERYTHING wrong with the Democratic establishment.
I just got done reading this post. What a dumb sh*t thing to say. Just another example of the corporate press deciding who we should be voting for. For shame.
I usually like what Lawrence has to say. Just what was he thinking when he published this drivel?
Wow, that is the most mindboggling dumbest thing I’ve seen for awhile. It’s not right, it isn’t even wrong.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s all just listen to Tom Brokaw from now on.
Larry, dude, yer harshin’ my buzz.
Signed
A DFH
jesus fuck. i am beyond sick to death of these gasbag assholes who can’t keep their ignorant mouths shut. nothing like picking up the race meme and beating it to death to further divide the democratic party.
the closeted racists in new hampshire is gaining currency and being pushed by the gasbags to provide cover for their abysmal performance tuesday nite; then jesse jr; andrew jr; and odonnell.
shut.the.fuck.up.
I’ve started dropping little hints in public that I’m really really angry. Furious, actually. People ask why. I say, “Politics”.
The MD looked confused.
The lawyer looked baffled and a bit nervous.
The sister-in-law gave the time-honored [eyebrow raise].
The cashier in the grocery store, homeless for awhile recently, scrabbling to pay the bills with her hourly wage, paying sales taxes on everybloomin’thing in her life?
The cashier nodded and returned my attempt at a smile, and we shook hands.
She promised me she’d be sure to vote. I know she will. We shook on it.
Deligates. It’s about delegates. I don’t want this contest to end before it begins by making it a race between two. Maybe after eight years of Bush and the either-or mentality, people no longer can’t multi-think.
I don’t like the culinary union stating its support for one candidate over another in an open caucus. This does not allow the individual to decide for her/himself. Imagine if Joe Worker stands with the Clinton people and not the Obama. He’ll end up in the meat freezer for defying the union. At least no one would know in a secret ballot.
Corporations and unions declaring its support of any candidate in an open caucus is another way of throwing the election. Nasty business.
As for Kerry, he is the grinch that stole Christmas. Meow! Sour grapes.
Change – Here are a few leaders who brought “change”: Mao, Stalin. Soeharto, Hitler, you get the picture. I won’t vote for any candidate on “change”. I’ll vote for them on the specifics of the change they are committed to bring.
Here is where the evangelistic speakers have influenced politics. They are all Elmer Gantry motivational speakers. Fiery speeches with no substance.
I am reminded once again, the masses are asses.
They’re already mocking O’Donnell’s ridiculous statement over at Kos. And rightly so. It’s offensive on so many levels it’s hard to count.
Good, maybe they can get back to understanding the “Jimmy Carter” editorial at the Onion was P-A-R-O-D-Y someday.
He promised in his New Hampshire speech he wouldn’t bail. I’d be really pissed if he did.
Linda? Wrong side of the bed? LOL
Chapter Three is “Our Constitution” (note the “Our”, not “The” in the title to get an idea of his beliefs) so he is not dismissive of what Bush has done to distort the Constitution.
Lazy buttheads. There is so much airtime to fill you’d think someone would figure out that this is a great opportunity to discuss ISSUES. But no, we’re treated to a sulpherous souffle of baseless bile.
{{{You got that right}}}
Re: race and gender and identity politics:
And so it begins:
Read on. Obama apparently says a mouthful in that book that pissed off one lefty historian at BlackAgendaReport.com
I think there are very good discussions of race and gender that need to be had and hopefully having the these two candidates be our frontrunners will lead to that happening. What I meant to say, and probably didn’t say clearly enough is that a bunch of gender and race baiting that leads everybody to run off into their identity corners and that becomes the arbiter of who supports whom is a bad day for everyone.
I think biodun in #8 said it well.
Even more than that, Elizabeth E. promised, in a voice that rang true.
What. A. Gal.!!!
Great. so now people identified with the Democratic Party have managed to offend just about everyone. I really think that the candidates should get together and collectively call out the idiots like Jackson, Jr., Cuomo, Jr. and now this slug.
I just learned you can go to Edwards web site and download his 80 page book.Has any one done this yet?
DING!
I’ve been having unusual conversations crop up. Recently, in a waiting room in a doctor’s office. There were 5 of us – all female, different ages and very different socio economic levels, judging by appearances. Instead of the silent magazine flipping that people normally do, a spirited political conversation broke out, everyone expressing their disgust at the way things are going in our country, their anger at the Iraq War and state of health care and the economy and the lack of objective media. It was quite remarkable.
Exactly.
I think she might have a little Eleanor Roosevelt in her. She seems to make corrections for her husband a lot. I think that’s actually good. Because Eleanors raise civil rights issues with their husbands among other things. I say elect’em both.
I sent you an email Biodun
I would add that O’Donnell’s attitude is terribly insulting to Edwards supporters, like me. I resent columnists that think that they have the right to pass judgments on who should run and who should not and why. Only the electorate has the right to make that judgment. O’Donnell should STFU and let the election follow its own path.
What jane and biodun said.
I’ve been wanting to thank Biodun also for so eloquently stating why and how a feminist could vote against HRC yesterday and still reside within the ranks of feminism (vs. tokenism). Thanks!
I am another Elizabeth Edwards fan.
Laurence O’Donnell pissed me off last summer when he tried to make a case for my daughters being drafted.
Screw Larry O’Donnell!
Running into the same thing up in Alaska, where Kos commissioned a poll on the AK-AL race that inaccurately characterized the Dem primary race as being non-existent, and lionized one of the three Dem candidates in that primary race. When I pointed out at Kos that there are three viabel candidates in the primary and that we have no way of predicting who will show up to vote on the Dem ticket in that crazy primary, I was e-mailed and commented to death that my candidate should just withdraw from the primary, because “Kos knows best for Alaska.”
When did this stop being a freee friggin’ country – and why is the kind of push like in the O’Donnell hit piece – always put up against the most progressive candidates?
*sigh* I remember when FDLers tried to find his schedule during the summer break. Golf course.
Well, never mind then. ;-)
This is one reason why I support Edwards, because he understands and appreciates the value and companionship of a smart capable woman.
So Arianna is allowing this kind of drivel by Lawrence Odonnell on her site? We all know the Larry, Jr. is just a blow hard trying to get a couple more gigs as a pundit. I would love to send him a note with my thoughts. Any word on how to contact him?
I don’t think being a feminist requires that you vote for or against a candidate on the basis of their gender.
That said, yes, it would be a proud day for this country to elect our first female president, or our first black president. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support Edwards.
Jane @ 41:
Thanks… You’ve made my day–maybe weekend…*g* (And I saw your 48…)
Mui,
You know politicians can’t be believed. Alas, John Edwards is no different.
-G
eCAHNomics @ 24
Thought I was going nuts when I started to read his stuff in comparison to how Obama is appearing on the campaign road. Please don’t get wrong, Obama seems like a nice personable young man who is very good in his speech presentations. He is gripping and convincing. But as he said in his book very broad in ideals. Nowhere enough details to really define himself.
So far from what I have read, this guy Obama is a real salesman, so good he would have been able to sell Jesus a box of band-aids on the way to crucifixion.
LOL.
Ooohhhh YES! ;->
I got so fed up at this attitude that I posted this on Kos the other day:
It makes sense. Not all woman politicians are feminists. I mean check out the republikan side of the aisle for proof.
Gotta run. Greg B. I was looking for a youtube video of Urge Overkill’s the Candidate. It’s gone. But I wanted to play it in response. It’s a funny satire of the demagoguery.
Did something weird just land at the lake?
What got into O’Donnell? Everything I had heard or read from him to this point made some kind of sense. This shit is both silly and mean, and way beneath the person I thought he was. Has he done this sort of shit in the past?
Remember the national conversation on race the Clinton’s started.
Some of those forums were great. I learned alot about how little I understood about racial insensitivity
I am just going to ignore this one ….
You have incoming…
Here is my comfort with the Nevada primaries. Most people don’t pay much attention to who said what about the candidates. In fact, they are busy going to and from work, getting home late, fixing dinner for the kids, helping with homework, bathing and getting the kids ready for bed, doing dishes and cleaning up after dinner, and, finally, hitting the sack at eleven o’clock only to arise five the next morning and start the grueling routine the next day. O’Who?
Breaking News:
The Bush administration will push the UN for a kayak and water-tube embargo on Iran.
-G
Read this to see how slippery Obama is
http://www.blackagendareport.c…..8;Itemid=1
Does not sound like a man of principle.
Huffington is a bigtime Obama supporter.
Re “Identity Policts” — there is only one “identity” that is permitted — white, heterosexual and male.
Chris Hayes, writing in the Nation about Edwards:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/hayes
So she is letting her bias influence her editorial content. Hmmmmm.
They are cacuses and they have a lot of wierd rules
The Culinary Workers Union is expected to dominate the caucus…at least that is there plan
This posting from O’Donnell is appallingly stupid. Perhaps John Hinderaker hacked into O’Donnell’s computer and got his password.
Carolyn U. Wow. I say keep it up. Don’t be silent. It’s time to speak out, and I’m not particularly talking confrontational, either.
I find it works far better just to raise the subject, but drop it at that point if someone bristles. Angry response may indicate ambivalence & embarrassment. Leaving the subject right there, hanging in the air… might have best results in some cases… because you know you poked some nugget of awareness. It might grow on its own. Poking too hard all at once tempts people to wrap their preconceived notions in a hard, impenetrable shell.
Like it or not, people, especially proud stubborn people, need to be allowed an escape hatch. Think of a cornered, panicked wild animal. Many, if they’re allowed to escape, will dash far enough to feel safer, but then turn around and look.
Also, that’s better than over-reaching and perhaps triggering a “throw ALL the bums out!” reaction. KKKarl would like nothing better than to tar everyone…
Hope this ramble makes some sense.
You’re welcome…
And about time too. The Iranians have had a covert water park program for years. The last thing I want to see is Iranian kayaks threatening American kayaks in the Strait of Hormuz.
The last really honest to goodness decent man in politics was George McGovern. A non-ego driven man of principle who witnessed war first hand and who had courage and compassion.
The well has gotten progressively emptier since he passed from the political scene.
This includes the entire crop of Democrats.
-G
Re. O’Donnell, my late friend Cathy Seipp appeared on an NBC show with him once and he bloviated so loudly she thenceforth referred to him as “Larry O’Scary.”
Stooopid comments from O’Donnell, indeed. But right up there was Andrew Cuomo (who I’m generally happy with as my AG) with his asinine “shuck ‘n jive” comment yesterday. I was horrified, even if it wasn’t a direct reference to Obama, that such language is even contemplated by any democrat!
Although the union is coy about how many of its members are registered to vote, the endorsement is expected to give Obama at least 10,000 supporters in the caucus, in a contest whose turnout estimates have ranged from 28,000 to 100,000.
In a caucus, supporters of a candidate literally stand together on one side of the room, demonstrating to everyone who is supporting whom. Many Strip shift workers, Culinary workers, will be voting at so-called “at-large” caucus sites on the Strip. This means Culinary members, for whom unity is a creed, will be able to enforce discipline. Clinton can no longer expect to win many delegates at those at-large sites.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/new…..epicenter/
A lotta southern Reagan republicans of my personal acquaintance really like John Edwards – they are leery of both Hillary and Obama because they come from northern, urban states and don’t feel either one of them cares about their issues. Edwards has always been and remains a hugely viable candidate. I only hope we don’t look back on this election and wonder what we were thinking, not nominating a very electable guy like Edwards.
Everyone has become more clever in recognizing gender, race and class issues. Opposition can now easily set out to create divisiveness among these groups. It keeps us fighting amongst ourselves. This has been undermining the progress of women for several years now.
general observation…kind of a six degrees from Kevin Bacon thing…
What’s up with CT politics?
Who does Lamont run against in CT: Hojo.
Who is/was Obama’s mentor: Hojo.
Who does Hojo endorse: McCain
Who was running for Prez from CT: Dodd
I’m really scratching my head. I don’t think the teams are called Dem and Rep anymore. I throw this out there with hands up, shoulders shrugged, and a big “Huh?”
Sad to say, but Arianna has a history of moving on to the next new best thing.
I, for one, will not forget her passionate political embrace of Rootin Tootin Newton in the mid-90s.
we are going to need a list of words that are not acceptable
“We feel more excited today and I feel more invigorated than ever before,” said Yahoo Chairman Terry Semel, who has made more than $425 million cashing in his company stock options since becoming chief executive officer five years ago.
Dan Rosensweig, Yahoo’s chief operating officer, said the company has formed much closer bonds with its audience than other major Web sites, making it easier to extend its reach into mobile computing devices and
other opportunities.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/…../605180397
“We don’t feel like we have to shuck and jive to find new businesses,” Rosensweig said.
choochmac @ 36
Hey Choochmac, I know and I saw the other chapters before I started reading, what really grabs me is the ideal of the comment of –NO unifying theory of American Government— here at point in the prologue, I jumped through several chapter to try to find his position on Gay marriage or civil Union’s. Again floor by some of what he said one of the last chapters. I am drawing the conclusion this guy is an incredible hypocrite. He talks great but his head is all over the map.
Actually, choochmac, I bought the book to understand more about how his basic early Islamic schooling impacted him. It shows, very much, even though Obama openly practices to be a Christian. I am at the point right now that Obama is in sort like a Lieberman that parades around as a Democrat, changes to an Independent, then winds up supporting a Republican. Sheesh. LOL got to keep smiling these people will drive you crazy.
Wow! Eloquent! I couldn’t have said it better myself, so I’ll just say Wow, to both you and Jane!
Like I wrote last night:
Welcome to France, Ambassador Leiberman!
So now that Musharraff has said that any US incursion into Pakistan will be viewed as an invasion, will the morons in both parties stop talking about invading Pakistan?
Oh yeah, let McSurge know that his success includes the safe haven of Kurdish terrorists in Northern Iraq and that Turkey has resumed shelling inside of Iraq today.
Sounds surge-tastic.
-G
She has a rockin’ blog site that’s for sure, but as Stephen Colbert says “your touch burns me”.
I admire her networking skills.
The vast majority of Americans don’t get a choice in who runs in the general. That should bother and scare the hell out of everyone. If you want to get outraged about something, this is it.
The stupidist thing that was said and done far and away, was by the American People and the DNC and the RNC and whomever else allows the idiot system of primaries. Driven by the even dumber media, this insures that that people in 48 states, nearly the entire population of the U.S., gets no vote on all the candidates, and cannot pick and choose who is running from their party.
The most intelligent objection to something like this is now showing up, since we have had 7 years of a government that has ignored the people, and an inept Congress that has enhanced their ability to do that (can you spell S. 2248 and what it is and what’s going to happen when it hits the Senate Floor again? If you can you’ll get the picture.
Some voters are waking up to this entire clusterfuck by the United States, and make intelligent posts like these two last night from LS in Texas–I think every voter should have the same concern:
LS said last night LS1 and LS2
Forget the States — Let the Regions Pick the Candidates
Let’s Stop the Stupid Byzantine Primary System Now!
From LS at the links above–to me the best insight and observation yet by far:
My point is that all the states bunch together because there is so much pushing to be first like 3 year olds lining up for candy. Take a look at what a clusterfuck Michigan has become (Marcy’s word and Marcy is in Michigan, and it’s appropriate).
And it’s not longer for some of the candidates. All but 3 of the Dems are out now; and we’ve only had one caucus and one primary who were 5 days apart. It wasn’t very long for them or for people in the other 48 states who wanted to vote for them or have some say in the vote.
From the NYT editorial:
Iowa is 92% white where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population,; New Hampshire is 95% white. Why should they have such a huge say as tiny states in picking our candidates?
Obama has a huge problem and it is called “Rezko”..if it is not delt with now, it will kill his general election campaign. Some examples:
link
link
Poor Larry; he is so bigoted he comes out with a bigoted anti bigotry statement that even he can’t understand!
remember, pundits are going to explode and harm each other if you don’t puncture them once in a while to let the waste heat out.
what will the new independent party look like? What do you say Al?
That’s right. They need to earn it in every state, every day. I hope Edwards is in it all the way to the convention. The more he’s seen the better it is for all the Dems.
I saw that and thought, as much as I would enjoy a trip to France, I don’t think Hojo would be so easily pushed out of the way of the movin’ and shakin’ in DC. But good idea!
Yesterday, several of the talking heads on MSNBC talked about “getting down to a one-on-one race between Obama and Clinton” as though that would somehow be an intrinsically good thing. This news came in as I was thinking exactly the opposite, i.e., that Edwards being in the race gave progressives some leverage in the promises Obama and Clinton might have to make to get to the presidency.
So, perhaps what O’Donnell and his ilk fear is this residual progressive influence in the 2008 presidential race. Fuck ‘em!!
Excellent point.
It also goes back to Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass.
O’Donnell’s is a really dumb statement. I’m bothered by the degree to which almost everything sets off a wave on factionalism among partisans of the three major Democratic candidates.
Progressivism is a relative term. It doesn’t mean precisely the same thing and encompass the same values to everyone. Even for those who believe in the exact same things, there is disagreement regarding the methods of reaching those goals. From my viewpoint, the worse thing which can occur for any version of progressive causes is reelection of Republicans in the legislative and executive branches. The greater and more bitter the divisions among people who consider themselves progressive, the more likely that is. Each news item during primary season seems to whipsaw the increasingly bitter criticism from one candidate to another.
That’s my Rodney King viewpoint for today.
Interesting that the media can allow a wide open race for the GOP but the field has to be narrowed down to two after just two contests in the Democratic field. What kind of a moronic process is this?
You have every right to oppose Obama if you feel that he doesn’t have what you need. However, please do not use the “Islamic schooling” and “openly practices to be a Christian” language given the specious rumors about him. He attended a Catholic school and then secular public Indonesian school while he was a CHILD for two years. I think his inclusive language has to do with his whole life experience.
I don’t think ODonnell remarks are media driven. The Kerry message in SC and today’s ODonnell column are all from the Obama campaign and designed to get Edwards out.
As far as I can tell Wigwam, to date 48 states have not even had a vote in this primary season. As far as I know there has been one frigging caucus and one frigging primary held on January 3 and January 8 five frigging days apart in two tiny states, where
Iowa is 92% white where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population,; New Hampshire is 95% white. Why should they have such a huge say as tiny states in picking our candidates?
When we are down to 3 candidates, and 48 states and the vast majority of the population has had no say whatsoever in this, unless you want to count the insipid influence of exit polls done by college kids who don’t know a thing about polling after 5 days of the primary season, that is to me completely insane.
It doesn’t hurt me as much personally, because my dog is still very much in the hunt–and I hate to say it and I know it burns a lot of people, but a fine candidate John Edwards is now in the position of possible King Maker with his delegates because many of his loyal voters and workers have not had a say yet, and won’t until February 5 or even after.
We have firepups working very hard for Edwards, who are in states that won’t vote until Feb. 5 or after. They have to be frustrated beyond belief because their candidate may have already been relegated to kingmaker with only Obama or Clnton in the race.
I’m not making predictions, I’m just trying to realistically look at the cards we are now dealt.
What I suspect is that big money supports both Clinton’s and Obama’s campaign not just because they have contributed heavily to them, but also because they know they are both ultimately beatable by McCain, who will certainly, one way or another, be the rethug nominee.
I think both candidates have the potential to massively rally the dispirited rethugs. Hillary might have the edge here.
Have you had enough? Time to Flush Bush? Bu-bye, big boy.
Pete,
FWIW, the vast majority of US citizens have never had a choice of candidates to decide who runs in the general elections. That is the reality. And if we went with regional primaries and such, we wind up with the money candidates getting the nod as they’re the ones who can afford the big ad buys which dominate that type of process.
By starting with small states to winnow the field a bit, at least the voters in those small states (and it doesn’t have to be necessarily Iowa and NH, they just have been first because that’s when they’ve always done it), it forces the candidates to meet with real life humans and address human concerns.
Just like with Democracy, it’s the worst system there is – except for all the other options. If you want to bring about a Parliamentary system and change our entire system of government, feel free to spend the rest of your life on a losing effort.
Now that is a cut-to-the-chase post, Jane.
And it’s a goodern. Grazie. :o)
If John can’t cut it, support-wise, he won’t stay in as spoiler. I think he’ll pick the candidate that comes closest to his positions, and endorse he or she.
Re:
Hmmm, sounds a bit hyperbolic to me. I’ve looked into the Rezko deal. Looks like honest graft to me.
i always thought o’donnell was one of the good guys. obviously he’s just another mmm (multi-millionaire media) twerp.
I’m going to make myself a power drink. I’ll check in later. Keep the bright light shining.
Is anyone here the least bit concerned that the results in NH might have been “gamed” by a Diebold connection?
It’s too late to influence this 2008 election, but I think after that we should go after the media with everything we have. There are lots of problems to be dealt with but let’s face it, the media has chosen our candidates and it has to stop. That is not a democracy and even Thomas Jefferson hated the newspapers. We should complain every day to the networks and the newspapers and magazines about their coverage. If they hear from a lot of people and their readers drop they might listens.
In fact, Steve Rexko is not even a nanoblip on the radar of the bell shaped curve of Americans.
We have the huge problem, and I say this out of consideration of the many bright hard working Edwards backers, at the Lake, and in the country.
There have been two small states who voted within 5 days of each other in one caucus and one primary–Jan. 3 and Jan. 8. This system has eliminated all but 3 candidates, and Edwards, who is a terrific candidate, and he’s not my first choice, Obama is, is now probably a kingmaker because 48 states who have people who have worked for Edwards and would like to make their vote count for him, will not get to vote until Feb. 5 or after.
That, and money, are creating a huge problem for all those people in 48 states, and for John Edwards IMHO, and Rezco has been beat into the ground for 3 years now since 2005 and it has resulted in Obama leading in delegates right now.
I respectfully submit Rexco is so miniscule, it’s not on the radar, but what the system has done to Edwards and the rest is the huge problem for our country. We do not pick candidates fairly, and we eliminate many candidates and many people from having a say in just 5 days of the primary season.
*rummaging in closet for plumber’s helper*
I’m pretty concerned about all the optical scanning equipment around the country and the software used to run them. Fair elections? Yah, right.
Yeah, I’m concerned. I’m feeling the strings of the puppetmaster all around…just can’t figure out where it’s coming from exactly.
Seriously, we risk ending up with another Repub. I’m not optimistic at all.
OT
Again, sorry.
I just got an Email from Wexler on his effoerts to push impeachment on DeadEye.
He has pulled people from his re-election effort to help with it.
he is going to buy advertising with Google so that anytime someone Googles Dick Cheney the ad for impeachment comes up next to the results.
I just love devious thinkers like that, whoever came up with the idea.
Edwards is the ONLY chance we have to pull Obama or Hillary back from the right towards the center. If we don’t nail them down NOW, once elected they will just float to the right
like Harry, Nancy and all the other Vichy Demson all kinds of issues that this community cares passionately about.Larry O’Donnell just convinced me to send Edwards some cash.
Err, I am concerned at the risk of being blown out of the lake. at first this morning I was happy that Kucinich wan’t a recount, but after reading this I’m not so sure. http://blackboxvoting.org/ Chain of custody is the issue. Unlike what some commenters think, the GOP doesn’t need to parachute “election-rigging squads” to change an election. It’s all in who counts the ballots, who has the ballots. When I worked as an election judge we hand counted the ballots that had damaged chads, we had custody of the ballots, we didn’t turn them over to someone else to count.
Wexler may be our best hope at this point to thwart the tyranny.
As I understand it, the exit polling was completely consistent with the election results. Anyone aware of evidence to the contrary?
You are very correct, Twain, but also the timing of this system with two states having such big impact who are tiny (Iowa is 92% white where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population,; New Hampshire is 95% white. Why should they have such a huge say as tiny states in picking our candidates?) has caused this problem in concert with the media.
The most important function that any of the non-nominees serve is to put forth ideas that the eventual nominee can co-opt. We need them all sharpening up each other and exchanging real ideas and plans. Getting any of the races down to two for the convenience of the chattering class is stoooopid.
Lawrence O’Donnell is nothing but a rich white elitist myth maker who will always be a sucker for celebrityhood. Better to have fought and lost than be a kool aid swilling sucker He represents what is wrong with the Democratic Party, fear of the base actually having power.
;->
I have no idea about the Chicago Politics involved but the stories about Obama getting money and contracts for Rezko while African-Americans were freezing in Rezko slums; well that needs to be addressed.
Actually, when I was in NH last weekend I was interviewed by a VT station – I think it was an ABC affiliate – and I complained about the lack of coverage for the Edwards campaign ( I also plugged FDL! ) – I suggested there was a deliberate black out by the media. They didn’t put my bit on air. Hmmm….
That school in indonesia was in the island of jakarta not sure of the spelling but at that time this island was totally very Islam. Still Islam Not secular. There is a small section in Indonesia that is catholic, but its another Island. Here, school does’t only matter just being surrounded by the culture is plenty effect of the customes and believe to be burned in at an early age. At this a huge amount of chaos and corruption. Plenty of uncertainty.
The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards.
O’Donnell
Fine and dandy. Let’s give the Democratic Party a round of applause for maintaining the foolish optimism that a brain-damaged electorate (Re: 2000 and 2004) is mature enough to consider an African-American male or a Woman as President.
NFW.
Idealism be damned. This republic is seriously fucked up.
Want another Republican basket case to follow Bush?
Great. Nominate either of the “front-runners” and that’s what you’ll get.
“… fear of the base actually having power.” Or even influence.
They don’t want a democratic process for the democrats, Remember who owns MSM… they are just doing the rethugian bidding! Just another suppression of true democracy, voter caging and id laws for voting. I would like to know is voter Id required in the constitutions of those states that have passed such laws? And yes Rove is behind it all… no profe, but why else did he the White House but to work on the election. They sure must be scared of Edwards…
The O’Donnell statement sounds like canned heat from the DLC… this
is the old Dick Daley attitude from ‘68 that tore the heart out of the
party after the murder of RFK. Wann wird man je verstehen?
I’m one of thje Edwards supporters you speak of. I’ll be fighting hard for him in the Feb 5 Alaska caucus. Both HRC and Obama have offices here, Edwards doesn’t. The unions are lining up behind Obama mostly, HRC a bit less, Edwards not at all. I expect Edwards will come in 3rd here, but we have sorta proportional rules, so he can carry delegates all the way to National.
Edwards might win the nomination, but probably not. But pressure from other candidates or their surrogates for him to withdraw so very, very early is highly anti-democratic, and anti-growth for the Democratic Party.
Here in Alaska, we have to grow the Dem Party A LOT to claw our way back to power, which we lost a generation ago. To spend efforts on infighting and whining now will reduce intake of new members, and turn independents off, depressing the size of the November electorate.
It sure does.
Not put on-air? Don’t get too discouraged. Urge others to follow your example & pester the daylights out of them. In fact, you just did.
Thanks! I’ll have some of what you’re having! ;->
“First they ignore you…”
From what I understand the exit polls were off slightly (towards Obama winning by less than one percent) but was probably bad methodology. I don’t think there is any evidence of a stolen election and I am pro-Obama.
I’m pretty concerned about all the optical scanning equipment around the country and the software used to run them. Fair elections? Yah, right.
I recommend Greg Palast’s Armed Madhouse. He makes a very convincing case as to how the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen, without even addressing the issue of electronic voting machines. Caging, sending old and ill-functioning machines to poor districts (which produced physically flawed ballots which were then disallowed, not sending enough machines to poor districts to handle the number of voters, rigging the addresses of polling places, the near-automatic diversion of voters of color (Hispanics and Native Americans) from voting machines to Provisional Ballots (which were then largely ignored), etc.
IOW, there’s plenty to worry about, still, without even getting to the problems withe the machines. All of which are still alive and well, and might well be assumed to be bigger and better than ever for the Repub’s.
James, if you go back the last 3 days to threads that were up there has been much written about the voting machines and Carmen has been pretty articulate about the potential problems.
We are well aware of the shortcomings of Deibold-esque machines, how easily Rubin and his MIT group hacked them, repeatedly in 5 minutes, and others, and how little the states have done about this. Also people like LHP have done a lot of legal work and devoted an awful lot of time into watching for voting irregularities in a careful, methodical, legal and scientific way.
The lack of paper trail and the primary system are the two big elephant in the room problems to me.
Two links for you:
Verified Voting: Mandatory Manual Audits of Voter-Verified Paper Records
Black Box
I don’t have any specific evidence on New Hampshire, but the links are specific evidence of a potential huge problem in the 2008 elections because of apathy among the states and we the people.
I’m gonna say something in defense of ALL Of us. At least, we’un progressives and even the MSM which has done such a shitty job.
One of the infuriating things about all of the bushCo fuckups, is that there seems to be no resolution; it’s like the fuckin’ house is on fire, and the bush administration is talking about what a great marshmallow roast we’re having. For YEARRRS they’ve been doing this, as they desperately try to skate out of the responsibility for what they’ve created in Iraq.
A lot of americans are tired; VERY tired, of seeing the english language used for a republican jack-off rag.
We want some resolution; we crave it; I think that even the MSM which has toted the hod for bush and the clusterfuck, craves it.
And to that end, they’re nearly compulsive about making pronouncements which have some finality to them.
Initially: “Hillary has it won. Let’s help her pick her cabinet”
Then, after Iowa:
“Obama’s on his way; Clinton’s on life support.”
Now it’s: “Edwards is road-kill. He should get out.”
The first two obviously were not true, and I don’t believe the third one is, either. As Jane so honestly points out, Edwards has raised some awfully good issues; good enough that both Obama and Clinton have co-opted them to some extent. That’s okay. It’s what politicians do. But let’s give him credit for doing it, and let’s also keep in mind that if Iraq even goes back to the pre-surge levels of chaos (which is a pulsating possibility) forget totally imploding, that the political landscape will change almost instantly.
It aint over. It’s a horserace, and well it is. Whether there are three horses, or two-and-a-half-horses, we need the horserace.
Good luck to us all; we’re gonna need it.
The exit polling was consistent with EVERY match-up except that betw Obama/Clinton. That was the only race that showed a discrepancy in Hillary’s favor just like the results in Ohio that had Kerry ahead going into the day and showed him losing at the end of the day with absolutely no valid reason for his lose and after, again, secret, locked door vote counts.
The sooner there is a clear winner on the Democratic side, the sooner the Republicans can start smearing him/her. Edwards presence in the race obscures the matter of who will eventually win, so I can see why Republicans would like Edwards out asap. And, perhaps that reveals whom O’Donnell works for.
Yes.
Lieberman beat Ned with his:
ET, IIRC, all the Dem party primaries and caucuses abide by the proportional rules established by the McGovern commission in the early ’70s so long as they receive at least 15% of the votes
Thanks…I’ve been away and just had a chance to go over yesterday and today’s posts w/o having a chance to read through all the comments.
I’m just very worried that “our” candidate is being anointed for us by people who I wouldn’t let wipe my ass.
Call me crazy, but I don’t trust polls, PERIOD!
I think people who vote regularly, people who think deeply about what they’re doing and follow through with action, people in general… are SICK. TO. DEATH. of attempts to poll them.
gaw-bless caller i.d. ;->
I’ve also sent more money to Edwards. Sorry, Larry. I will vote for the candidate whose positions are closest to mine, until I am no longer afforded that opportunity. If Obama was talking about taking on the corporations and addressing the very real disparity between the rich and the poor, he’d have a chance at my vote – same with Hillary. Edwards addresses my deepest concerns and I will support him as long as he is in the race.
I believe KO on Countdown last night pointed out that the polling was in fact in line with the results Obama received. The methodology screw up was that the number of women voters was underrepresented.
I don’t understand why unions chose Obama or Clinton over Edwards or Kucinich. It appears the unions like NARAL are much more interested in being aligned with front runners than champions of their cause. It’s all so self defeating.
I gotta go get somethin’ done, pups. Thanks for all the great discussion.
Progressives rule! (i can dream, can’t i?) Oh. Wait!….
Thanks jayt. I’ll check out Palast’s book. I actually followed quite a bit of that in 2004, and was GOBSMACKED and that there was NO coverage of election rigging in Ohio, and other places. (Except for Keith Olbermann.) I was already angry after 2000, 2004 catapaulted me straight to rage. And it wasn’t just the theft of the election, but the complicity of the media in hushing it up.
That’s when I stopped watching or reading any corporate media. Instead I began ferreting through the net, searching for information. And found people like Jane and Christy and Emptywheel.
One of the the things that is of concern to me is that we usually don’t mount poll watching/ election monitoring efforts during primaries. Why? because the “permanent” election monitoring organizations (both parties) like the party machinary itself CANNOT take a position until the party has a nominee. You cannot expend party money in a primary.
The only way to have election monitoring in a Primary is for the campaign to do it themselves. Any campaign who wants advice on how to set up and run their own election monitoring system –and I mean ANY campaign including the Republicans, fair elections are good for the whole country–
Drop me some contact information and a shout out in any thread, I’m sure it will get to me eventually, and I’ll get you some expertise.
I’m serious, fair elections are a fundamental thing and are necessary for the system to work.
U have company ;->
Me too. Repeatedly.
From James:
From PhysioProf:
While I don’t have any documentation or evidence in New Hampshire, the fact that 81% of the machines are Deibold with no paper trail and they can be hacked by a precocious middle school student, and Rubin and MIT have hacked every Deibold type machine known to man in five minutes in wide-spread demonstrations and have published repeatedly in the IT literature is a problem.
Are you telling me PhysioProf that this situation (look at the map in the link) is hunkey dorey with you. If you are a Prof of Physics or Physiology I doubt that’s the way you work. Take a look at how vulnerable most of the states are to hacking here:
Verified Voting: Mandatory Manual Audits of Voter-Verified Paper Records
I’m interested in this information. carmen at humus com I’m not just a whinger (sp. from yesterday), but a doer.
Thanks
We like Edwards in this house. I suppose that makes us losers too. Well Mr. Obama, if it comes down to you and HRC in the primaries, we have decided to vote Clinton.
Absolutely Edward. I’m very concerned that all the Edwards people, and the people who supported the candidates now gone have just as much a voice as everyone else. Among their number are some of the most committed and well-informed voters in this country.
My comments on the way the primary unfolds so early and the media influence on it are out of concern that everyone should get to have an equal say for their candidate–that is a basic right and it’s not happening in the current system.
The irony is that all the rhetoric and Hoopla about New Hampshire and Iowa and their people’s committment and the sanctity of the ritual those two states completely ignores that the rights, input, and say in this election of the other 48 states are being trampled by this system.
Thank you much for reminding of that link. We’ve had some substantial ‘puter turnover around here lately, & some former bookmarks are still lost in the ethers. *sigh*
Thanks lhp.
Alicia, was that “Sorry…” directed at me? :o)
(My name is Larry. :o) )
And, I’m very much still in John’s corner. :o)
The “way I work” is I look for evidence supporting (or rejecting) a claim. That voting machines used in NH can be hacked doesn’t tell us whether they have been hacked. This question is independent of whether it is a good idea to use less-hackable voting methods.
O’Donnell represents the Money Party.
Social progressives with strong pro-business (anti union) stances.
They are firm believers in trickle-down.
Senator Obama. I like you fine as a Senator. But for president? Forget it. For now.
At least in the case of the Culinary Workers, Obama has been with their local in Chicago in a long and bitter strike against the hotels. They mentioned it in their endorsement.
Had lunch yesterday with a guy who sat down saying he’s voting for Obama. He asked me why I’m voting for Edwards. I gave him a list of reasons. Among them there was this: He says that on his first day in office he’ll close Gitmo. My friend stopped me and said, “That right there is enough to make me switch to him.”
Wow, Bush is in the M.E. and what happens? It snows for the first time in 100 years!:
http://dailykos.com/story/2008…..189/435105
Hi Kiddo! We in this house refuse to give up on our favorite candidate until our own state primary is held, harumph. ;->
Ot a little levity for all:
A Short Love Story
A man and a woman who had never met before, and were both married to other people, found themselves assigned to the same sleeping room on a Trans-continental train.
Though initially embarrassed and uneasy over sharing a room, they were both very tired and fell asleep quickly… He in the upper bunk and she in the lower.
At 1:00 AM, the man leaned down and gently woke the woman saying, ‘Ma’am, I’m sorry to bother you, but would you be willing to reach into the closet to get me a second blanket? I’m awfully cold.’
;
‘I have a better idea,’ she replied . ‘Just for tonight, let’s pretend that we’re married.’
‘Wow! That’s a great idea!’ he exclaimed.
‘Good,’ she replied. ‘Get your own f#@kin blanket.’
After a moment of silence, he farted.
The End
I don’t think the Rethugs need to wait for a clear winner to let the smearing begin. After all, the more they smear the Dems, and the more Dem leaders they smear, the better for them. The idea is not just to devastate the presumptive frontrunner, of which there is none currently; the idea is to devastate the party! I’m surprised they haven’t used bigger guns already, and the reason for not yet using the bigger guns that I can see is, they’d rather that we slash and burn and eat our own again. Makes us look bad.
Sorry for the repeated posts. Something glitchy is going on … getting a message window saying posts don’t register when they do.
“…Just like with Democracy, it’s the worst system there is – except for all the other options. If you want to bring about a Parliamentary system and change our entire system of government, feel free to spend the rest of your life on a losing effort.”
Alas, we are no longer the free-est of the free. For example, in freedom of the press, the U.S. ranks only 16th. I’d like to see a country-by-country rating that is more sophisticated than that of Freedom House, in which the US gets a #1 rank, along with about 20 other countries, as being “free”.
Bob in HI
Evidence: KKKarl’s fingerprints and trail of drool.
Wow, Bush is in the M.E. and what happens? It snows for the first time in 100 years!:
http://dailykos.com/story/2008…..189/435105
Hell Freezes Over!
Elections are only as good as the factual counting of votes cast. Never trust a computer….some one may be lurking and skewing the results of your key strokes. I was a computer Admin and I have seen the results first hand…code can be made to do what the writer wants it to do!
Always, always paper verified voting. The only sure way!
“5. The ugly identity politics on display here is a prime example of the place that nobody — especially liberals — wants to go. The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose. It is, abjectly, the stupidest thing that can happen in this campaign season.”
THANKS
“The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose.K YOU…now repeat after me
“The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose.K YOU…now repeat after me”
“The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose.K YOU…now repeat after me”
BT’s upstairs lowering our taxes.
Here in Vermont we have about 70 percent of our precincts using optical scanners, with paper trail. We lobbied the secretary of state to conduct manual audits after the elections, regardless of any outcome. To her credit, she switched her position from “not necessary” to “fine, we’ll do it.” But we had to keep at her to fine tune how it was done. Manual audits are useless unless they are publicly and randomly selected. Then audits themselves must be completely public. Using a diebold affiliated program to allow computers to “select” which precincts to audit won’t work.
Do it out of a hat, in public, and likewise, televise the audit, or invite the public in to bear witness.
Our Sec of State, Deb Markowitz, agreed to all of the above (after a bit of pummelling). But just for the last election. Looks like we have it all to do again.
I don’t know if you wuz snarkin’or not, but in case you were serious:
It’s Tony Rezko –they guy Pat Fitzgerald indicted for defrauding a public housing program in Chicago. They guy who helped fund the purchase of Obama’s house. The guy who’s been Obama’s mentor for somethig like 17 years.
Tony’s trial starts in February, which is why, if Edwards has one working brain cell in his well coifed head (and I suspect he has many many very smart brain cells)he will stay in the race past February. We don’t know what’s gonna come out in that trial
I totally agree with you. Inability to verify is absurd. However, wouldn’t the print verification process also be easily sabotaged?
Thanks LHP. Wow. Just. Wow!
and from a sophistickyated voter like meself, that speaks volumes.
p.s., always read & appreciate your comments. hope you’re doing well these days. ;->
yes — the Rezko association has had me suspicious of Obama from very early on…
I’m sticking with Edwards!
Because “leadership” of both parties are merely corporatist servants.
Experienced (LD) or rising (MK) party operatives come closer to power when they please the leaders.
Through purchasing both parties’ leadership, the corporatist/investor class create structural disincentives for progressive operatives.
And “Kos knows what’s best for Alaska”.
Of course – it’s whatever the leaders want.
That why lies opportunity – for the operatives.
I like Obama . . . Hillary not so much.
But if Johnny’s name is on the ballot when I get to vote, I’m marking it with an X.
I don’t care that the media has ignored him. Pretty soon it will be my turn.
Moi, aussi, joze46 …
Me, too, re: the Obama who “…has some startling admissions that clearly show no vision.”
We’ve got company.
1. Of Obama, Michael Moore said:
“But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy“.
“In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.” AND
“So Barack, you can talk all you want about “let’s put the partisanship aside, let’s all get along,” but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.“
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/
2. Economist Paul Krugman said:
“On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, “Let’s make a deal.” The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.” AND
“To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn’t been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush’s Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.”
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..mpaign.php
3. David Sirota’s checklist of Money Party People and People Party People (NOT distinguished by R’s or D’s after their names) …
“On the Democratic side, this (populist) dynamic is probably the most intense. Reuters just today publishes a story headlined “Iowa Voters Take Democrats to Task Over Jobs,” noting that trade and globalization are becoming more and more prevalent on the campaign trail. This is likely to be fueled by the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton (D) and Barack Obama (D) have both come out for the Peru Free Trade Agreement – the controversial bill that expands the NAFTA trade model. It is also likely to be fueled by Clinton surrounding herself with more and more Wall Street titans.” AND
“This is precisely what Edwards has been railing on, not only in his specific critique of NAFTA-style trade policies, but in his general critique of lobbyists and the status quo.”
From “Edwards, Huckabee & The Rise of Iowa’s Huey Longs” in Huffington Post, 11-09-07
4. And for pure “creeped out” and sensations of “nasty piece of work,” check out BO’s home turf newspaper investigative report on his “hardball” tactics going back to his first political campaign in Il.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..3097.story
Exactly..Trial scheduled for Feb. 25..Obama appears to be up to his neck with Tony Rezko…It will be very bad press for Obama..Getting money for Slum Lord…African Americans living in Rezko slums without heat, etc.
There are many fine qualities in John Edwards. But from a legal standpoint, there is nothing whatsoever that is a problem for Obama, and as far as I’m concerned there are no “appearances” that are a problem for him.
Let’s look at the facts. Pat Fitzgerald was investigating Tony Rezko in 2005, who happened to live next door to Barak Obama. Obama bought the house from a physician at the University of Chicago Medical center, who knew Michelle who also worked there. In October of 2006, Rezko was indicted by Pat Fitzgerald for his role in an alleged pay-to-play scheme designed to fatten Gov. Blagojevich’s political fund. Rezko also was accused of bilking a creditor.
On Tuesday January 8, Judge Amy St. Eve refused to delay the Rezco trial in Chicago. The trial starts February 25. In this country, although FRE and FRCrP are stacked against the defense bar, you are not convicted prior to trial, except in the media, and probably in this case the Right Wing Blogosphere. Rezko is charged in a separate case with defrauding the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million.
If a US Attorney investigates your neighbor, and you buy something from the neighbor legally, does that create a reputation problem for you? At no time did anyone from Fitzgerald’s office dream of approaching Obama on anything connected to Rezco. They know who Obama is, they know where he is, and they aren’t stupid. When Obama was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted Obama and asked him to be a development partner. He said no. Obama’s wife Michelle socialized rarely with his next door neighbor’s wife–that’d be Rita Rezco the next door neighbor.
In January of 2005,looking to increase the size of his land, Obama bought a strip from Rezco his next door neighbor in the subdivision of Kenwood.
Other politicians distanced themselves from Rezco. Big frigging deal.
Any time a US Attorney indicts anyone, they have a 94% chance of being indicted with the dumbest litigator on board for DOJ, based on FRE and FRCrP alone, not to mention that judges come from two classifications: 1) Former DOJsters who bring their prosecutorial agenda intact with them from DOJ. 2) Inexperienced lawyers with political ties who have never litigated in a federal courtroom, and some haven’t litigated period which is astounding who are on the federal appellate trial or appellate bench–and make a sizable component of some federal circuit benches. I won’t even start with twits like Monica Goodling vetting immigration judge candidates who never practiced immigration law, and Goodling never practiced any kind of law except breaking it.
As part of the schadenfreude dynamic, people run from the target like rats on a sinking ship.
Obama has answered every question about his next door neighbor and his land purchase known to man by the news media back in 2006.
But show me any single component of the Tony Rezco story that creates a scintilla of a problem for Barak Obama, either legally or ethically. Please bring it to me. This is laughable. I know because I’ve seen the trash that Rexco is a popular topic on Republican and Right Wing blogs. Everytime I hit one, I have a huge grin on my face, because devoid of issues,these people are clinging at the most ridiculous straws immaginable. Rezco is one.
Rezco associates gave money to Obama’s Senatorial campaign, and nothing to the Presidential campaign, and after Rezco was indicted Obama returned 33,000 to charity, just as Hillary Clinton returned money donated from Hsu and Edwards will return money ($130,000) donated from Geoffrey Fieger if he is convicted, and I sincerely hope as a political target of Bush DOJ, Feiger is not convicted.
Anyone who tries to ride Tony Rezco to hurt Barac Obama in the coming months is riding a very dead horse. And huge problem for Obama as one person said, I have three words “In Your Dreams.”
From what I read, Rezko and wife weren’t next door neighbors. The wife owns the lot next to Obama’s house, a vacant lot. Originally, both the house Obama bought and the lot next to it were offered for sale as a single deal, right? Wrong? And Obama asked Rezko for some “advice” about the real estate deal because he said the house was pushing his budget and he couldn’t swing the purchase of the land as well, which the seller wanted to close on the same day as the house sale. Sooo, Rezko’s wife buys the land, then later sells a bit of it to Obama. If I’m wrong, and that vacant land now holds the home the Rezko family lives in, I’d like to know about it. It would help me see this deal in a different light if that’s the case. But if the land was purchased and nothing was done with it and nothing’s planned for it, other than the sale of that strip of it to Obama, I’d wonder why Rezko’s wife bought it. And if nothing’s sitting on the land the wife still owns, is it buildable per housing codes now that some of it has been sold off? Communities generally have minimum lot sizes for building, so I’m curious.
LOL–you are funny. Can you give me the concrete evidence, facts and law as to how Obama is up to his neck in respect to his former next door neighbor Tony Rezco? I mean it’s easy to make sweeping nasty insinuations–Right Wing Bloggers taking a cue from Rove and Gillespie have been doing it for years.
Say what? What is you smokin’? Do you mind butressiong your sweeping claims? African Americans and many others are living in slums right now. They don’t have health care either–and I’ve given it to plenty of them back in the day. Do you have substantive points here??????
Obama is the one who is best suited to try to help African Americans get out of slums. I do believe he knows they are in them as well as you do, and has probably been in and visited many more of them than you have. I think I have too.
In regard to Rezco, Steve in Arizona, you have a comical perception of “up to your neck.” If you think Obama has
See my comment Obama’s Rezco Problem is a Right Wing Blog Fixture and Now it’s In Your Dreams @ 186
Looseheadprop@183; relative to that trial thingy about Rezko, Hillary’s in about the same position.
As has been punned: Norman Hsu is the other shoe waiting to drop. :o) And drop, it will, especially if she’s nominated. The repubs haven’t had much to say about this, and it’s because they don’t want to waste it in the primaries.
http://www.boston.com/news/nat…..upporters/
Hiya LHP–I am aware of the Rezco trial and I believe I detailed a little context for it and the attempted smears towards Obama that are replete on Right Winged blogs and have been for 3 years–just check ‘em.
Obama’s Rezco Problem is a Right Wing Blog Fixture and Now it’s In Your Dreams @ 186
As you’re aware, sights like this one below have been all over the walls of the web for 2.5 years.
http://www.obamarezko2008.com/
While you were typing this, I provided some facts and contacts on the Tony Rezco allegations.
I was not snarkin’ at all. Someone wrote
I love the terrific quality of your analyses at Marcy’s site, the legal expertise and your analysis here at FDL and your front page posts, but forgive me if I withold the wow here on your comments with respect to the Rezco trials (two cases now) plural.
What is it if anything that you think could come out in this trial, really that helps Edwards and hurts Obama. I’m surprised at you.
Wow but for a different reason. Since you’ve stated that you believe there could be/or you have substantive information that incriminates Barak Obama that will come from the trial before Amy St. Eve in Chicago, do us a favor. Let us in on the inside baseball that you are implying.
LOL–Rexco was indicted. My dog knows he’s on trial, and understands the relationship with Obama. What in the world fact wise or law wise do you have that implicates Obama in a scintilla of wrongdoing?
Obama took money in his Senatoria campaign but not the Presidential campaign from people who were associated with Rezco, none of whom were then indicted, and Obama had no more knowledge that they may have been involved in anything illegal or involvement with them than Hillary Clinton has had with Norman Tsu or Edwards has had with Feiger.
I’m going to read between the lines, LHP, and take it that you’re for Edwards. If that’s the case, then Edwards has snagged one more very savy talented lawyer in his camp. But I am shocked knowing how gifted, constructive and experienced an attorney you are that you really believe that Edwards, who is unfortunately reduced to a Kingmaker in all probability now by this wretched primary system, should pin any hopes on Rexco’s first trial where voir dire does not start anyway until Jan. 23. I know that Ziegelmueller, Rezco’s attorney will be all over the political preferences of the jurors but so what.
Here’s what will make my day. If you think that there is one substantive scintilla of an allegation against Barak Obama that’s coming out in the Rexco proseuctions (pleural) please share them with us. I know you like and respect Pat Fitzgerald. Many of us do. Do you really believe that if he had any reason to prosecute Obama, that he’d back down from doing so? Of course not. Additionally, Obama is not on any witness list in this case that I know of.
The prosecution of Feiger who is at least a $130,000 contributor to Edwards is one anyone who was ever associated with DOJ should be ashamed of. And if Feiger were to be convicted, (I sure hope not)–he’d give the money back or to charity.
I fail to see how you believe the Rezco trial is going to help Edwards, already significantly out of money and somewhat marginilized in this campaign by the stupidity of having two states in 5 days do that, is helped by the prosecution of Tony Rezco. I am furious that this is the case, by the way, even though I’m in Obama’s camp. It’s not fair to John Edwards and it’s not fair to the American people and I’ve written about that above. I can’t wait to get back later and see if you’ve shown me what I’m missing here.
You think that Edwards (who knows every chapter and verse about this) is fired up because Rezco goes to trial Feb. 23? Wow again. As you know, many of these campaigns have seasoned attorneys like yourself who are all over situations that could potentially help their candidate.
A friend who teaches at Harvard Law School just got back from Iowa helping Joe Biden in just that vein. If you think you are on to something hot here, by all means get in touch with the Edwards people. But please, please share what you implied and didn’t state with us.
I only offer a great return on the money my backers have put towards my campaign. I wl split the Edwards vote.
Senator ‘More of the Same’
Why, from the GOP playbook -the way they’ve been doing it all along when they panic.
1. Say it with me Barack: “There…is…no…Social…Security…Crisis…PERIOD.”
2. Dear Senator Clinton -please stop implying in not so subtle terms that if we don’t vote for you the terrorists will get us.
Edwards should stay in the race if for no other reason than he allows the Democratic Party to field a candidate.
LHP–
I know you research your client’s cases and your pro bono work a lot more thoroughly than you did this. You said:
That’s not factual. Neither claim you made can be butressed by facts. You’ve had a few mentors in your life. I can assure you Tony Rezco hasn’t been Barack’s “mentor” since he met him when he was President of Harvard Law Review. Where on earth did you get this information?
Obama on Rezko deal:
Just a parting thing here before I have to run out:
That didn’t work before:
The fact that John Kerry endorses Obama does not endear me to Obama. In fact after Kerry wimped out about contesting the 2004 results, it makes me more inclined not to support Obama. Am I the only one that thinks Kerry’s support of Obama is not necessarily a good thing?
here’s the link that doesn’t work I’ll try writing it out
http://www.opednews.com/articl….._remar.htm
What most surprises me about this thing he wrote is that SOMEONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACTUALLY WROTE ABOUT EDWARDS! –of course, if this is what we get, i’d rather they go back to ignoring him, i think.
I did not say that Fitzgerald, or anyone else, had indictable information about Obama. I also know, that in the old DOJ–the one I remember–you were not supposed to indict someone while they were running unless you were coming up against the Statute of Limitations or thare was some other time critical reason not to wait. Why, because whether you were able to convict or not, you would screw up the election and it would make all your actions look politicized.
What I said is that press accounts have Rezko as a mentor of Obama’s for years. And Don King as well. These are not exactly a choir of angles and it concerns me.We lived through how much of this kind of crap during the Clinton years.
I would also direct your attetnion to LiberalHeart’s excellent comment at 192, which really sums up the bulk of my concern.
I’m sorry, but it looks an awful lot like a laundered interest free loan to Obama. It makes me uneasy. Also, as we learned from the Libby trial (and every other trial I have ever seen up close) stuff comes out at trial that nobody anticipates. So, I stick by my actual statement, rather than any statemetn anyone else wants to put in my mouth:
If I were Edwards, I would hang tight until after the Rezko trial unfolds before I made any decisions about getting out of the race. I don’t what’s going to come out, but an intelligent person would want to have some certainity that nothing bad has come out, before doing something as momnetous as dropping out of the race. That’s all, no further.
Econ including market tank – Edwards goes up.
Clinton left to propose X Billion dollars of plans.
CA declared fiscal emergency – why – poor, middle-class, and rich borowers that are not going to be able to pay their loans and walk away (sub-prime and more). To many houses, and nobody making enough to buy them (or even get loans that banks will now allow). Next stop their car loans and credit cards. On at least the house once they walk away the bank will have to sell the house (to who…for how much?).
The strike is also going to hurt.
Lastly due to inflation but knowing that Corporations and businesses are not (even if they could) ever give raises to keep up with inflation…
Anyway it was all summed up above – what Edwards talks about is what the moderate clones talk about a few months later. Still it all comes down to framing it (and getting reported on) in the next 6 weeks. Or perhaps to the convention depending on the splits.
Wake up Michigan and SC, time to choose the blue or red pill (both between parties and withing each party).
I don’t have a link handy, but it might have been a john Kass article inthe the Trib?
I agree that talking about the issues of racism and sexism are important. But the panic from some rubes holding up an “Iron My Shirt” sign and Edwards allegations sexism and masochism was a frenzy debased from reality and issues/policy that made me tune out as much as I could for days (and impacted the primary). In addition I will now never watch Hardball except for Fox like reseach purposes (due to real sexism and stupidity). The Iron My Shirt tools – one had a Clinton sticker on his pack, and from what I read are from a large multi-media corp owned radio station in Boston (WBCN) – maybe they did not know if was more than an intern prank. I do not think this was a Clinton thing, but I do think someone sent those guys there (Republicans trying to game things?). I could give a damn about crying, there is going to be a lot more of it soon.
RE Voting Machines.
If you look at the NH exit polls, they clearly have Hillary winning. For example, via CNN, she won voters who had children in the house under 18 and voters who didn’t (in other words, 100% of all voters). The exit polls matched the results. The networks were just slow to admit that because they were worried about how off the exit polls were from the pre-election polls.
I admit I’m not objective since I was one of the Clinton volunteers (thanks, Jane, for linking my diary), but Clinton had an amazing ground organization in NH. Not me, I was just a volunteer, but she had folks working for her for 6-8 months in lots of different small towns across the state, a lot of them with NH grassroot ties.
And we saw movement over the weekend. Just in our area, a sizable number of voters flipped on Sunday and Monday to Clinton. It was not uncommon for canvassers to come back with 10-20 new Clinton voters. That may not sound like much, but if you’re canvassing 100 residences, which include already identified Clinton voters, and you still come back with 10-20 new Clinton voters, that’s quite an improvement.
It was weird because you’d spend all day identifying new voters for Clinton and then you’d get back to your hotel room and read about how she was losing badly in the polls. It made you wonder if what you were seeing could really be that localized. Although if you look at the trend late Monday, the pollsters were starting to pick up the shift to her, it was just too late to move the three-day rolling polls all that much.
I share folks concerns about voting machines, but there’s no evidence the machines changed the results in NH.
If peoples candidates abandon them what can you do? Sure campagine finance for money is great – but who is to say that Biden, Dodd, and Richardson did not drop out of the race for Clinton and where made promises?
I live in NH and had about 6 visits from Obama people, 1 from Edwards and none from Clinton. I did get a call from Clinton on election day and think her ground game was good and support solid. Obama had great ground game as well.
I think most conspiracy on the elections was that Obama dropped ~ 2.5 % in DieBold voting versus optical scan/hand count.
I’m not surprised about the difference in visits among campaigns. We were visiting places Obama folks had clearly never been. I think there was a lot of targeting by all of the campaigns and if you didn’t fit their targeting, you got contacted, but not swarmed. So I’m sure there are folks who barely heard from the Clinton campaign, just as we ran into folks who seemed to have had little to any contact from Obama’s campaign.
As for the scanner issue, NH uses paper ballots. If the Obama or Edwards campaign wants a recount, it would be easy enough to do. I believe they’re recounting on the Republican side. I’m all for every vote counting.
Yes, by all means. I think we should use the word “fuck” a lot more on this blog. It indicates a mature mind, articulate speech and language skills, and an intelligent grasp of ideas.
Why Jane allows people like you to foul up her nest, I cannot think.
From what I’ve read over the last few years, Jane is not at all unhappy with FDL’s rep as a foul mouthed fem blog.
James I just got back to a box, so sorry for the late thanks for your article.
If you want to name a link, just paste it in the link box (I don’t know for the world why they have an extra http:// already in it, since any link is going to have one as well, then you can name your link by putting the name in between the >name here< </strong> brackets that come from the link box.
I appreciate your article. We have no excuse really, not to have every state scrub the Diebold like boxes. I wasn’t at New Hampshire, and I can’t produce evidence that someone schmoozed the results, but I can produce plenty of evidence that Deibold and other paper trailess machines can be easily hacked and manipulated in minutes.
That the United States allows these machines to be in play in 2/3 of the states, is egregious, reprehensible and beyond cabal.
We have truly become a Banana Republick and apparently a lot of people revel in the Bananas.
Off topic:
I have to say every show that he does, Chris Mathews makes himself more of a clown. MSNBC is absurd to keep him on the air. If Mathews can have a show, so can everyone who sweeps a McDonalds’ and their commentary would be just as constructive. He absolutely cannot separate his blather from facts.
Mr. Klynn and I had a long talk about the candidates. We started to make our pro-con list. Edwards ended looking the best. Then our conversation centered on the fact that Elizabeth is another key to Edwards topping our list. Of any candidate, she lends a purity and legitimacy to her efforts for trying to make the world and our country better for her children and husband. She is fighting the fight of and for her life. So, her husband’s visions for leading this country match her strong focus on issues. She is not looking at a power grab, she is looking for a better day, a better life for her family.
When a close friend of ours with five children was dying of cancer, she focused all of her energy on making changes that would be for the good of her family after she was gone. The “profoundness” of time and using the time to the best of her family and bring changes for the good of her family was an immense event to witness personally. Her reach in making changes touched a whole community and not just her family. We see many similarities in Elizabeth’s efforts in her husbands campaign. Elizabeth is stronger now, because her vision is sharp and focused. What a great gift for John to have her standing next to him.
When some of those words are used, they seem to be used pretty appropriately and indicate to me that the people that are writing them have what Rod Stewart called “Passion.”
RedX–You raise a good point. I have not watched as many campaigns as closely or with as much interest as this one, and there are probably many people here who know the history of back room deals and brokered conventions well, campaign by campaign.
I don’t know what could have been promised, and maybe if there are deals, we will find out what some of them are a little later.
I’m trying to figure out where the delegates will go now from those who dropped out.
I will forever be trying to figure Michigan out, and why it was allowed to happen this way.
As you know a lot of the people dropped out because funds dried up, and the time invested to raise them is exhausting. So I’m sure it is with a lot of anguish and regret that they felt forced to leave the campaign. I mourn that it’s had to happen in the space of five days in January. There have to be better ways to do this.
Jane, well said.
KLynn: well said.
To your point as well of back room deals – I dearly wish we can abolish this super delegate non-democratic bull shit.
Even if Edwards were to win or come close the super delegets hold enough votes for 39% of the nomination and will go to a DLC “moderate” insider like Clinton or Obama (unless of course there are even more deals in the back room).
In any case its hard to say if there are big ties at the end of a primary who really won the vote of the people…because so many people drop out and the entire process is distored with money and media. Bah, its exhasperating.
Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose
JE has every reason in the world to quit this race and devote his life to his wife and children, he’s got the money, nothing to lose, like O’Donnell says, but maybe, just maybe, he is sincere in his mission to help people, to be the rich guy that does care about the poor, to stay in the race to raise the dialogue to a higher level, to keep the “viable” candidates on their toes and force them to go beyond their campaign rhetoric. He’s not a loser, he just doesn’t fit O’Donnell’s shallow idea of a winner. Campaigning and losing isn’t his life, he’s a guy who can help people, who doesn’t have to help people, but wants to do it anyway. I hope he stays til the end, win or lose.
Very true. In my travels I could see that (different areas of greater support). Also the money was obvious from commercials and the large number of spots that would not have a one or two signs for Clinton but 20 or 30 stuffed on some itersection (a pet peeve of mine – people stuffing 20 signs for one person on public land).
That is why I said they had good ground game.
I agree that Elizabeth Edwards is part of the appeal (some appearances OK, some great – but thats not it) because while I think John Edwards has been enlightened…I know she has.
She will help the world put an end to the scurge of Cancer and health care via early detection amoung other things. I can’t articulate it well unfortunaly. I just know I felt it when a friend expressed worry that John Edwards would go in the tanker if his wife had life troubles – it is just the opposite. Lets live not worry.
Jane…. I took a look at this …. errr… “Person”, Laurence O’Donnell’s, bio on huffpo:
“Executive Producer “The West Wing“
Panelist “The McLaughlin Group”
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance“
If ever there was a person less qualified to comment, ’tis him. No, wait, that would make all 1%ers or there abouts, not qualified. He does teevee show. I’ve never watched. Why pretend when real life is so much more …… dramatic.
Anyway, I disagree :-) The “get behind the chosen candidate and push or stfu” meme was the stupiest by far. It flew pretty well for the turd it was.
Even on the day of the Iowa vote I got an email from the DNC with a big button to push in it indicating “I will support THE Candidate”. I hated to tell Howie……ummmmmm….. No.
I’m supporting the candidate who wants to get our country back…… and our party back as well. Progressives!!! Oh that would be John Edwards, btw.
LHP–
Sorry I could not get back to this for several hours.
I have tried every way I can, LHP, to see how. I don’t think you have one substantive way to show that. I detailed the transaction below.
Stuff always comes out at trial that no one anticipates, but nothing’s coming out of this one that is going to implicate Obama in a laundered loan–or the trials to follow one of Rezco, and the others of his former associates.
Keep sticking by your actual statements. And let’s continue to distinguish between something someone wants to “put in your mouth” and when someone asks you for anything substantive. I’m still waiting for anything you have to substantiate that Obama got an interest free money laundered loan. That’s a helluva claim with nothing to back it up.
With all respect due, you could do much better as to bulk of concern.
Rezco, Don King, and I’m adding for you, Stuart Levine, and Chris Kelly aren’t choir boys. Hey ya think?
There are also allegations that Rezco illegally landed a contract with jailed former Iraqi electricity minister, Aiham Alsammarae, one of the deck of cards. You can’t sling mud at them though, and make it stick to Obama. Why would you try?
Fitz has a dozen ways to Christmas to have a tete a tete with Alsammarae. All he has to do is ask Sylvio Dante Mukasey to have him delivered from wherever Mukasey and McConnel have renditioned him if he isn’t in one of the Iraq Hilton prisons.
Feds probe Rezko’s Iraq contract: Want to ask jailed power chief how
Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges that he joined with another major political fundraiser, businessman-attorney Stuart Levine, to shake down money management companies wanting to invest state pension funds.
Rezko is charged in a separate case with defrauding the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million.
Levine, who also contributed to Blagojevich’s campaign, has pleaded guilty to the charges, and prosecutors say they will call him to the stand.
I know you didn’t say and doubt you believe Obama is indictable. If only the ethics that you were used to at DOJ prevailed now.
I don’t have to catalogue for you the turns of events that have been going on with regard to election timing and indictments with the current DOJ, not to mention the election people in the Civil Rights division like John Tanner, Hans von Spakovsky, and Bradley Schlozman (the Schloz was an interim US Attorney appointment courtesy of the Patriot aka Screw america Act, known for selective prosecution, and his reign of Terror in the Voting Rights Division of DOJ. I believe this is acurate:
Bradley J. Does DOJ
I’d be preaching to someone in a choir who could school me, about the last six years of DOJ. Bmaz had a paragraph that pegged what is happening in many district offices the other night over on EW.
Obama had plenty of mentors, but whatever you’re reading about Rezco being one of them–it’s just not the case. He had mentors at Columbia, and at Harvard Law, and Michelle Robinson was one when he worked at Sidley and Austin with her. She’s still mentoring him. Attorney Judson Miner at Miner Barnhill & Galland,the civil rights law firm was definitely another.
Miner, who was Chicago’s corporate counsel under Harold Washington introduced Barack Obama to a number of political contacts, and he already had a slew of them from his work as Director of the Developing Communities Project when he worked with Roseland and public housing at Altgeld Gardens.
I don’t see how, if you do a bit of research, you can construe Tony Rezco into Obama’s group of mentors. That’s an incredible stretch. It ain’t so. Whatever press accounts your depending on as to a Rezco mentoring aren’t very good ones.
Liberal Heart wrote Liberal Heart @192:
First off as to Liberal Heart’s account: Obama paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he bought from Tony Rezco. I don’t know where Rita or Tony or Rita and Tony Rezco are living now. I can’t draw any inference for why Rezco’s wife bought land if she did, and if you or Liberal Heart can make any factual inference to that, I wish you would. It leads no where to me, and for John Edwards. As to land Rita Rexco or Tony still owns, and its development, that hasn’t anything tangentially to do with Obama. I know that Obama paid again, above the appraised value for the land he bought legally.
Obama did have lunch with Rezco 1-2 times a year, after he was introduced to Rezco when he was at Harvard Law Review, and that was it. That’s not the kind of contact he had with any of the true mentors I named above. If anyone is trying to make a Soprano sitdown of this at the Bing, I think they’re comically flailing their arms.
This bit of information relates to Obama how? Help me with the concept. I don’t think it has anything to do with Obama, and if you are creative enough to translate this stuff into winning material for John Edwards, I’d love to know how.
Some fact: Rezco never gave either Obama any gift, including help with the purchase of his house. That is pure fiction. The sale of the property, which was two adjacent lots was conducted by Miriam Zeltzerman, the realtor that represented the Obamas. The seller, who was an M.D. at University of Chicago Med, didn’t even know Michelle Obama who worked there–and if he had, what of it? The seller, the doc, was the one who required required the closing of both properties at the same time, and he sold one of the properties to the Rezcos or to Tony. I believe it was Rita Rezco for $625,000. I haven’t the slightest idea who the Rezco’s put the land’s name in. I haven’t got time to do the title search in Chicago. That’s hardly unusual in real estate sales where the owner has adjacent land. As they were moving out of town, (the physician and his wife)they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.
Miriam Zeltzerman, Obama’s realtor never dealt with or negotiated with the Rezco’s. She dealt with the doc’s real estate agent. The doc had another offer in another city–they needed to leave Chicago, and they sold the house at exactly what they paid for it.
The Obamas had nothing to do with the Rezco’s negotiation with the doc for the adjacent lot.
His relationship with Rezco was accurately covered in the questions by the Chicago Sun Times I linked.
LHP wrote:
If I were Edwards, I would hang tight until after the Rezko trial unfolds before I made any decisions about getting out of the race. I don’t what’s going to come out, but an intelligent person would want to have some certainity that nothing bad has come out, before doing something as momnetous as dropping out of the race. That’s all, no further.
Tell him. Whatever you have,that’s substantive, I wish you’d tell us.
You can contact David Bonier, the former Michigan Congressman or I’m sure you have multiple emails for the Edwards campaiogn
Phone: (919) 636-3131
Fax: (919) 967-3644
Mailing Address:
Congressman David Bonier
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
or if you think you have something particularly radioactive you could contact Fitz:
United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300
or hit Randall Samborn on his cell, because we are on 1/11/08 and Sup Tue is on Feb. 5.
Randall Samborn, Assistant US Attorney, Public Information Officer
Phone: (312) 353-5318, Fax: (312) 353-1842, Cell/Pager: (312) 613-6700
But I think you’re wasting your time with respect to Tony Rezco and Barack Obama and/or his campaign. I know all the “Hillary is 44″ type blogs and “Hillary” is listening to her own voices (as of last weekend and the voices of Bill’s former campaign advisors) are grooving on Rezco. To me that shows how systemically weak Hillary’s people are.
Your arguments trying to fault Obama for the things done by Rezco are mimetic of the Hillary blog sites almost verbatim.
Thanks for the time you give to your other analyses here and at EW. I always look forward to them with pleasure. They are extremely thoughtful, well done, and thought provoking.
I know. I’m trying to follow the Superdelegate “dealing” as closely as I can with the help of FDL and Marcy’s blogs/comments.
It often feels like a Tsunami that’s hard to predict, focus or stop.
I replied to you @ 224
I’m getting whiplash following your posts. In post 191, you said:
“Let’s look at the facts. Pat Fitzgerald was investigating Tony Rezko in 2005, who happened to live next door to Barak Obama. Obama bought the house from a physician at the University of Chicago Medical center, who knew Michelle who also worked there.”
I responded, saying — among other things — that I didn’t know (or think) that the Rezkos were Obama’s neighbors, living next door … only that Mrs. Rezko bought the vacant lot next to the house that Obama bought and that she did so on the same day that Obama bought his house. But then in post 224, you say this about them being neighbors:
“I don’t know where Rita or Tony or Rita and Tony Rezco are living now.”
Are you suggesting that at the time of the land deal, the Rezkos were living in a tent on the adjacent lot but by now may have found housing elsewhere? Or are you taking back what you said about these folks living next door to each other?
Elsewhere in post 224 you say:
“The seller, who was an M.D. at University of Chicago Med, didn’t even know Michelle Obama who worked there–and if he had, what of it?”
In post 191, you said he did know her. Which is it?
But you’re right. It makes no difference whether the seller knew Michelle. What does matter is how Mrs. Rezko came to invest in that land along side the property Obama bought — some of which she later sold to him.
When you mention that Obama paid above the market value for the land, all I can say is yeah, and so what. Perhaps Rezko did, too, when she paid the full asking price. The reason Mrs. Rezko paid the full asking price was said to have been because there was another party interested in that land. So who else wanted that piece of vacant land at that very same time? Must have been someone who didn’t want a house because Obama was able to a few feet away for quite a bit below the asking price. Or, gee, was the other person who was interested in the vacant land perhaps Obama himself? Did he offer something under the asking price, fail to get it, so Rezko coughed up the full amount?
I’ve noticed how you jump around in your posts on this topic, inserting incorrect or conflicting information — all the while completely missing (willfully?) why this land deal could easily come back and bite Obama in the butt. I think all LHP and I are trying to say is that you shouldn’t be too surprised if it does.
Just found the answers to some of my question re the Rezko deal:
Obama’s landscaper took care of the land that Rezko’s wife purchased and then split to sell some land to Obama. Obama had put up a fence on the property line (he got the permits and had it designed, but Rezko paid for the fence).
The remainder of the lot that remained in Rezko’s hands was sold almost a year ago to be developed into housing, so apparently it’s a buildable lot.
The person who bought it is a former (and from what I’ve read elsewhere, current) Rezko business lawyer named Sreenan who says that Mr. Rezko has no role in the project, not even as a silent partner.
Here’s the link to the story about all that:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..3629.story
Then there’s this about the lawyer who bought the land:
Sreenan’s condo plan revives the politically embarrassing chain of events as Obama’s presidential bid kicks into high gear. Obama has acknowledged seeking Tony Rezko’s advice before buying his house, which led to Rezko becoming interested in the neighboring property.
“In some respects, [Obama] did what any homeowner who had the resources to buy some extra property and buffer their land might do,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Certainly having had a relationship with [the Rezkos] had to have facilitated that process.”
Advertisement
Sreenan has contributed $5,000 to Obama political campaigns but doubts the senator “would recognize me if he saw me on the street.” Sreenan had an inside track to buy the parcel because he knew Rita Rezko was willing to sell it. The property never went on the real estate market, he said.
You can read more here:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti….._n18638982
But wait: Sreenan is no longer going to build those condos. Seems he is just too busy:
The current owner of the lot, Chicago attorney Michael Sreenan, said he purchased the property from Rezko’s wife, Rita, in December 2006. He said he planned to build a six-unit condo building on the land but that his involvement in other ventures prevented him from having the time to work on the project, leading him to put the property up for sale.
(He’s asking $1.5 million for the land.)
Link for that story is here:
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/onl…..on-market/
As far as I can tell they each have one, and only one, issue or slogan: ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman/black.”
They take us back to the Civil Rights era and they both represent the past in that sense. They are the candidates of the past.
John Edwards is focused on issues of today and that’s why he listens to people and studies their problems so closely. He’s the candidate for today and the future.
Maybe I was hasty to say Kucinich shouldn’t investigate NH. If Hillary ‘deserves’ a one-on-one with Obama it is only because of NH.
Yes, let’s investigate NH and prove Hillary didn’t win. Let’s show the world it was Edwards in the debate who really knocked her out of the race and the NH results would’ve shown that if they hadn’t been rigged.
Then, let’s investigate Iowa and how Obama brought in kids from all over to vote.
Americans deserve to know what kind of things have happened. It will look bad for some Dems, but it might also bring a bright light and focus on election fraud in America.
After all, as Progressives we don’t shy from problems, we face them and fix ‘em.
Go Dennis go!
I’d think a lot depends upon the party affiliation of the Chicago prosecutor and judge. And, don’t forget, in Alabama a former governor is now in jail because rambunctious Repub prosecutors (with Karl Rove’s direction probably) went for the kill. His crime? “honest graft”.
“Concerned”? I suppose it depends upon what you mean by ‘concerned’.
I feel absolutely certain they flipped Obama & Clinton’s numbers in machine-counted precincts. Who precisely did it isn’t clear and might never be.
But, I also feel the Iowa caucus overloading with out-of-staters was just as bad.
Why? Because it’s the Law!
This is, after all, a ‘foul-mouthed femblog’ as defined by a Republican senator’s campaign, eh.
PetePierce – personal attacks are not permitted. Period.
If you would like to rephrase your comment, omitting the attacks, and resubmit it, it will be welcome here.
Civil discourse means just that.
I would eagerly await a front page blog on the law reviews on surveys that have been conducted that Bush DOJ is prosecuting identified Democratic affiliates 4:1 or higher over Republican affiliates. Siegelman, and Geoffrey Feiger are but a couple of Bushie Prosecutions orchestrated by the White House. They also are targeted as foreplay prior to elections by the Bushies as the US Attorney clusterfuck and the DOJ current clusterfuck display.
One study is here:
The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok
Currently the gutless Senate Judiciary Committee has held Rove and Josh Bolten in contempt but the gutless Senate has refused to take action on the Senate floor.
House Judiciary has issued contempt citations for both Rove and Miers, but likelise has taken no floor action.
“They should be fully aware of the futility of pressing ahead on this,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. “It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, that the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys.”
That’s true because Bush, Fielding, Addington, and Gillespie view any legal proceedings, actions of Congress that aren’t endorsements of a vote he wants, or Court opinions as a complete joke. However, if a Democrat wins the White House and Democrats are honest about revamping the systemically syphlitic DOJ, then a prosecution could definitely move forward to convict and jail Rove, Miers and Bolton in 2009.
The Edwards people say Edwards is chompin’ at the bit to kick ass and take names. If there were Attorney General Edwards, it would be as easy for him to make it happen as it is currently for Sylvio Dante Mukasey to obstruct everything that comes his way.
Amy St. Eves is a pedigreed Bushie. She was appointed to the bench with little trail experience because she worked for Ken Starr in a colossal pissing away of $60 million dollars of our tax money that resulted in Jim McDougals having an MI while being pressed by a BOP grunt to piss in a cup for a urine drug screen–DOJ wastes millions of dollars drug testing thousands of inmates who have no prior history of drug use–very probably a kickback scheme to the labs–BOP is replete with kickbacks.
They also secured a contempt citation from Susan McDougal. They were after the Clintons.
I always view it as Ken Starr’s Star Example of Legal Masturbation Writ Large.
LOL!
I haven’t made any personal attacks. I did respond to personal attacks you didn’t read or acknolege, however and I quote:
Liberal Heart@227 wrote
“I’m getting whiplash following your posts.”
“I’ve noticed how you insert incorrect or conflicting information intentionally” [i.e calling me a liar].
The detail that was conflicting was because BHL is hung up on whether people I don’t know lived in a house or not, a totally tangential fact, while he could never supply any substantive cogent reason why he accused Obama of accepting a laundered interest free loan while comically asserting it was going to put Obama out of the race or in election jeapordy.Of course you don’t consider that a personal attack. Why you don’t is interesting.
Why don’t you be specific since you want to edit me–and tell me what you construe as “personal attacks” on someone who has personally attacked Obama and implied he received laundered interest free loans and I can edit out what it is you want edited out/find objectionable or modify it.
I truly believe that the answers that you want to fit your premise can be easily found on
1) Hillary fan-gush blogs who embrace the Citicorp robot’s surrealistic behavior of the past week aptly characterized by Bill Maher tonight (the crying, the change and the plaguerism of Obama’s speeches)
2) Right Wing-Nut Blogs and they are easily found.
They all carry the premise and the far flung hope you share with LHP that Obama has done something illegal.
This gardening tidbit is helpful how? This fence sharing enterprise/labor is helpful how?
You might want to try google earth’s street feature to see what’s built adjacent to Obama’s property. The Sun Times reported that there was already a dwelling there in a 1999 article as I clearly repeatedly stated. I’m sure LHP has a contact in Chicago who could do the title searches quickly for you.
Please–relevant how?
Again please. What is “it”–bought what? What project? Please be clear. How does this involve Obama in the interest free loan of laundered money that you and LHP have alleged will boost Edwards and drive Obama from the campaign during or after the trial by Federeralist Groupie and Ken Starr soldier who got her Bushie reward after no significant litigation experience in Federal trials, Amy St. Eves?
Please lend some precision and clarity to this statement.
I’m trying hard not to laugh. How are you connecting Sreenan to any implication of impropriety on the part of Barack Obama?
What Condo project is going up where? Do you mind being specific?
Who, what, when, where, why might impose some structure and specificity on what you’re trying to convey.l
Sreenan/Obama/Uma/Oprah Help me understand please why any of this is remotely relevant? And again where does Sreenan, and a condo project fit into the way I’ve painstakingly explained Obama bought the house and the sliver of adjacent land
Sreenan is too busy to build what Condos where? Obama is involved how?
I think you mean, currently that the land that was owned by Rita or Tony Rezco, adjacent to Obama’s house/lot and the conjoint fence with land tended by the conjoint gardner/grounds keeper–Obama plays roundball for exercise and I don’t know if the Rezco’s ever cut their own grass, but I’m doubting it. No doubt we need to know. I’d be curious as well if Amy St. Eve’s ever gets down in the dirt on her lawn, or Pat Fitz. Is Fitz a Tulip or a Daffodil guy? Blue grass or perhaps turf grass, Zoysia, or Fescue for Amy or Fitzie?
Thanks for the links, I’ll read them carefully and but I’ve sincerely asked you and LHP to connect dots for me that buttress LHP’s serious claim that Obama received laundered, interest free loans from Tony Rezco.
And again, Rezco was as much a mentor to Barack Obama as the thoracic surgeons in LA were helping Britney Spears to become a chest cutter.
I’ve pointed out Obama’s major recent mentors.
And please, Leiberman has not ever been a role model to Obama either. There has been a lot of adaptation of theories from right wing nut blogs lately. I know passions run high.
I have tried hard to spell out that a lot of frustration and anger that is coursing through the veins of firepups of late has to do with a ridiculous egotistical system which has eliminated several candidates within 5 quick days in two very small states–one caucus with Byzantine Red Rover Red Rover rules for picking candidates, and the other a primary.
Both states have a population in which about 10% more or less vote–and the population is 92% white in one state and 95% white in the other. Mexicans and Hispanic voters who have a vested interest in an Immigration system where INS (agency that is part of DOJ) are rude to immigrants–I had to run interference there a couple times myself and they do change their tune when they realize you speak the langauge and can push some buttons to prevent their picking on poor people who are learning language skills going forward. Immigration takes 10-15 years because of an inept, incompetent INS bureaucracy and is complicated by Immigration Judges appointed by DOJ because of a head fake snuck into the so-called Patriot Act by Gonzales and his EOUSA, and veted by one Monica Goodling, she of no litigation experience whatsoever, who were asked if they were good Bushies literally and who have no immigration litigation experience before taking the bench.
I respectfully don’t see how you’ve implicated Obama in anything improper. Surely you know that the Clinton camp and the Edwards camp were informed about Rezco and his associates long before they announced their candidacy, and I do not believe that after White Water St. Eve’s loyal Bushie and Fitzy try this case together really, that anything changes for Edwards or Obama.
Thanks. I tried for a good while to find it.
I’m guessing that this might be in the ballpark of the article you’re referencing, LHP:
The Trib is not letting me pull it up though. I think it’s “Obama Fuzzy About the Fence Tony Built” November 2, 2006.
The Right Wing blogs are rife with this reference, and I was hoping that as sometimes happens someone would quote the article in its entirety. They don’t, and every link to it and in every Way Back Machine type net archive, I’m unable to pull it. The Trib wants you to pay to pull its archives.
Later on I’ll try to piece this together. I know that Kass seems to be the darling of Republican blogs for his attacks on Obama, and Liberal blogs hammer him for being a right wing tool. The trib has a long time reputation as a conservative paper, and many in Chicago complain it’s not conservative enough.
I defer to anyone who consistently reads it or used to be in Illinois.
There are so many hundreds of references to Rezco and Obama, including the blogs, that I’m sure I’ll get the gist of this reference to the fence, and its implications if I read a few more later, and I will as soon as I get the chance and some rest.
Thanks for the links. I was able to read the first and third links’ articles. The middle link did not work.
I now have a better idea of the cost of the land sales. and Obama’s home which is at odds with some of the reports of the Sun Times article I read.
But none of these indicates to me anything other than a lapse in judgement that if you have Presidential ambitions while you are a Senator, and the connections to know when someone is under investigation by a federal grand jury, where anyone including a ham sandwhich can be indicted, you should possibly back off any business transaction. However, I see no indications that Obama got an interest free, money laundered loan from Rezco.
I maintain that something extraordinarily surpising would have to emerge from this trial to impact Obama negatively, although the very existence of the trial during the apeprimary season suggests that Mukasey DOJ and former White Water girl scout Amy St. Eves have staged the timing of this trial to have as much exposure during the primaries as possible.
One would expect no less of a loyal Bushie Federalist Society judge who received the usual girl scout merit badge of an appointment to the trial bench for loyal service in pissing away $60 million dollars with Ken Starr and Ray Jahn to convict Jim Guy Tucker, to put Jim McDougla in the position where stress over a meaningless urine drug test caused him to have an MI, go into V-fib and die, and Susan McDougal spent 18 months for contempt for refusing to testify.
The DOJ tradition of politically timed prosecutions is vibrant, alive, and well at Sylvio Dante Mukasey DOJ, as DOJ continues to function like the Soprano family.
There is some irony though in Obama soon having the chance to really clean house at Main Justice, EOUSA, OLC, and shovel the shit out of a systemically corrupt agency that engenders so little respect.
PetePierce, when you quote me, please do so using the words I’ve actually used. I did not say “intentionally” when I said you were inserting incorrect info into your posts. Also, I don’t know if LHP said anything about interest-free loans or money laundering, but I did not. Please don’t attribute that to me. All I’ve done is talk about a transaction that I believe can cause Obama trouble as the campaign continues. I’ve stated what my questions are concerning that transactions, some of which were later answered by those links I provided above.
In several areas, you ask that I explain to you what my point is or what something means. Let me just wrap it up this way: if you look at the known facts of the transaction and do not see how this can affect Obama’s campaign, no amount of explaining that I provide will help you see it. If you do not recognize what slant Obama’s detractors can put on those facts, no amount of explaining that I provide will help you recognize it. An example of this would be your questioning why it matters who maintained the land adjacent to Obama’s property. Perhaps in your world people maintain the land next door — land they don’t own. In my world, property owners maintain their own land. When someone other than the property owner takes over that responsibility, it raises the question of how ownership of the property is perceived by the parties involved.
If your world differs greatly from the worlds of others who look at the same set of facts, you will naturally put a different interpretation on those facts. Being totally sold on a given candidate can also affect how willingly one opens one’s mind to negative information about that candidate. I’m sure that if this type of information were to come out about John Edwards, I would be struggling to find a way to put the most favorable light on it. And the more someone argued with me, the harder I’d try to redeem him. But in my heart, in my private moments, I’d be taking a long, hard look at the information and perhaps I’d be reshaping my view of my chosen candidate accordingly.
I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the Google map that shows a building on the property in question in 1999. I do know that when the land was sold to Rezko’s wife, it was a vacant lot. What stood on the lot prior to that has no bearing on the issue at hand. The only reason this whole part of the discussion came up was because you mentioned that Obama and the Rezkos were next door neighbors at the time Obama bought his house or sliver of land (at this point, I forget which). That did not match up with the known facts and I was just trying to clarify the situation for you. That’s all.