Democrats and Land Deals

Blogs and legacy media have been abuzz about the Tony Rezko trial and the potentially negative impact it could have on Obama’s chances to become the Democratic nominee. In fact, the Clinton campaign has pretty much staked its chances on the possibility that some as-yet undiscovered piece of information will sink Obama before the convention or at least prove embarrassing enough that superdelegates can assuage their guilt and vote for Clinton.

To me it sounds a little like Clinton is waiting for voters to realize that politicians have crooked friends. I know, I’m shocked, shocked. If it turns out that Obama got a sweetheart deal on some land in exchange for some favors, is it really going to surprise or turn off Democratic voters–especially if there’s no proof? (I should mention for the sake of fairness that no one is alleging such an exchange at this time; he had a “bone-headed” land deal in his own words, but there’s no evidence of favors or whatever.) And how lasting will that damage be, anyway? After all, Clinton has some land deal issues of her own.

I’m really asking now. What’s the deal with this Rezko thing? The hypothetical Democratic voter or superdelegate cares why? Especially compared to scandal-heavy Clinton?

Advertisements

~ by Gabriel Malor on March 4, 2008.

2 Responses to “Democrats and Land Deals”

  1. The reason is matters is because Barack Obams has held him self out as different. As Honest. As believing in Transparancy in Politics. As someone who doesn’t deal with Change to Washington.
    This is the whole premise of his campaign. If we find out that the man is not being Honest, Is hiding things, Is taking money from special interests, Is presenting FALSE HOPE, then what else does he have to offer?

    I think that if the media had scrutinized him over the last few months, the way the will start to do if he wins the nomination, we would be having a very different primary.

    So many of his supporters are going to be very disappointed.

    I originally thought I would support Barack Obama, but after reading his books and looking into whatever information I could find out on my own I changed my mind..

    If the Media were reporting on this I think many people will react the way I did. I am terrified of this man sitting in our Countries Highest office.

    80 Million dollars was spent by Ken Starr to investigate the Clintons and yet all they could find to try to get him out of the white house was Monica Lewinsky.. I think that all of this just goes to show that the Clintons have been under attack by the Republican Party for a very long time and yet after 80 Million dollars all they could finally do was try to destroy them based on a very personal problem which had nothing to do with his performance as our Predident.

    Think about this, If we spend 80 Million dollars of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama what might we find out?

    I read this article and thought it was extremely informative. Remember Barack Obama says he will be DIFFERENT..

    From Boston.comBy Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007

    But behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
    In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns — $296,000 of $461,000 — came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
    Obama’s US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton’s Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
    In addition, Obama’s own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions — including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries — to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

  2. Correction: in the first line it should be.

    As someone who doesn’t deal with special interest groups, As someone who promises Change in Washington.

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: