What was Obama thinking? Very difficult relationships to explain......

[deep]

there is a paper trail

and why is Obama saying "his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake"?

 

[U2isthebest]

i do agree that there was really nothing there with the NYT McCain article


but the same claim can not be made regarding this Obama story

I'm glad Obama admitted he may have made a mistake in the real estate situation. I can't see anything illegal or immoral about that situation, but if he feels he made a poor choice; I'm glad he was willing to admit it. As for the second part of the statement, if the money was in fact donated to to the Obama campaign, which has not been officially confirmed, I still don't understand how that proves any wrongdoing on Obama's part. If Rezko gained the money allegedly donated to the Obama campaign illegally, that's wrong. However, how could Obama know that? Is it possible he truly did not know of Rezko's shady business dealings at the time? It's not as if he, or any politician, can do a background check on their donors or an in-depth investigation on the source of the money that comes in to their campaigns.

 

[Vincent Vega]

there is a paper trail

and why is Obama saying "his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake"?

Because he should have known that it would backfire no matter if he was involved in anything, I guess.

Is there any evidence he knew of the sources of the $10,000 donation mentioned above? So far, it is money that went to his campaign for the senate, but no indication whatsoever that he knew what kind of money it was.

In a court filing, prosecutors described how $10,000 of alleged finder's fee money was subsequently contributed to the campaign of an unnamed "political candidate" for whom Rezko was a fund-raiser.

Chicago media have reported that the money went to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

And...?

 

[anitram]

The same could be said for those who hold the NYT article against McCain.

This to me is just as bad.

I didn't think the McCain story would resonate with the voters and I don't think this one would either.

I think a lot of people (on this thread included) are totally missing the plot. This election year is different. I don't believe it's 72, and I don't believe it's like any other year either. The electorate has changed, but the conventional thinking yet hasn't.

It feels very much to me like when mp3s came out and the record companies dug their heels in and believed that the same ol' would work. I might be wrong, we'll see shortly. But the staunch unwillingness to consider that there has been a fundamental shift is really kind of baffling to me.

 

[anitram]

The one thing in the Dem's favor is the turnout in the primary has been extraordinary.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[U2isthebest]

You have just taken a HUGE step up in my book. :O)

Thanks!

 

[Harry Vest]

If this really does cost Obama the election, and the American people vote for more years of war just because of this, then they can't blame anyone but themselves for being dumb.

Well said!!!

 

[deep]

What was Obama thinking???

Was he fibbing in Ohio to get votes??

Canada says didn't misrepresent Obama over NAFTA
Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:59pm EST

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada on Monday denied it had tried to sway the U.S. presidential election by misrepresenting Democratic candidate Barack Obama with the suggestion that he didn't really believe his criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Obama and rival Hillary Clinton -- who both blame the deal for job losses -- say the United States could quit NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico agree to major changes.

Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[U2isthebest]

What was Obama thinking???

Was he fibbing in Ohio to get votes??

So because an organization said he was lying that automatically confirms it?

 

[Irvine511]

[Q]March 2, 2008

My goodness - I mean where there is smoke there must be fire!!!!! For someone who represents himself as an outsider and not beholden to the special interests.....an anonymous source indicates this man has helped fun Obama's political career with his shady deals.





Good thing we don't hold grudges in FYM over guilt by assosciation

Have at it!

dread, is it really necessary to tease me?

you know i'll give you what you want.

 

[Irvine511]

The same could be said for those who hold the NYT article against McCain.

so, Dread, tell me: what did you think about the Washington Post article about McCain?

 

[anitram]

There was a bruhaha about this in the House of Commons today that was quite funny. I think the video is floating around.

 

[Irvine511]

i'm feeling a bit picked on here, and i haven't had a chance to really read this Obama stuff -- i've been in a vortex for the past 8 days -- but i will stay, again, what i said, before, about the McCain thing.

it's an interesting story insofar as it examines the relationships between lobbyists and politicians, and specifically how the perception of access is a lobbyist's best weapon. the affair was pretty much the least interesting part of the McCain story. it was a mistake for the NYT to include that in the article -- and, everyone, please, read the WaPo article, since it says the same thing, has the same information, only without the affair details, but i don't see anyone even talking about that, it just seems to be an excuse to bash the NYT -- not because it was inaccurate, no, as the editor said, the inclusion of the affair was a more accurate representation of the concerns of McCain's aides. no, it was a mistake because it gave such an easy way for the right to circle the wagons and an easy way for a sloppy reading of the various articles in various news publications to dismiss the story.

i'll get to this. give me a bit.

but, really, at first blush, it seems that this story might function in the way that the lobbyist story resonated. it conflicts with what is one of the central narratives of the Obama campaign -- that he's untainted by the system, especially in comparison to the hoary battle axes like McCain and Hillary. just like the McCain article provided evidence that McCain is every bit as likely to curry the favor of lobbyists, or, more critically, that McCain's favor -- something he says he gives none of -- and the perception of having favor by McCain is as much currency in the DC lobbyist world as is the perception of access and favor of any other politician.

but, hey, that's a whole lot of nuance.

 

[U2isthebest]

i'm feeling a bit picked on here, and i haven't had a chance to really read this Obama stuff -- i've been in a vortex for the past 8 days -- but i will stay, again, what i said, before, about the McCain thing.

it's an interesting story insofar as it examines the relationships between lobbyists and politicians, and specifically how the perception of access is a lobbyist's best weapon. the affair was pretty much the least interesting part of the McCain story. it was a mistake for the NYT to include that in the article -- and, everyone, please, read the WaPo article, since it says the same thing, has the same information, only without the affair details, but i don't see anyone even talking about that, it just seems to be an excuse to bash the NYT -- not because it was inaccurate, no, as the editor said, the inclusion of the affair was a more accurate representation of the concerns of McCain's aides. no, it was a mistake because it gave such an easy way for the right to circle the wagons and an easy way for a sloppy reading of the various articles in various news publications to dismiss the story.

i'll get to this. give me a bit.

but, really, at first blush, it seems that this story might function in the way that the lobbyist story resonated. it conflicts with what is one of the central narratives of the Obama campaign -- that he's untainted by the system, especially in comparison to the hoary battle axes like McCain and Hillary. just like the McCain article provided evidence that McCain is every bit as likely to curry the favor of lobbyists, or, more critically, that McCain's favor -- something he says he gives none of -- and the perception of having favor by McCain is as much currency in the DC lobbyist world as is the perception of access and favor of any other politician.

but, hey, that's a whole lot of nuance.

I seriously want to hang out with you one day and just discuss politics and current events for hours.

 

[martha]

I seriously want to hang out with you one day and just discuss politics and current events for hours.

And brunch.

 

[U2isthebest]

And brunch.

Will you come too?

 

[Irvine511]

And brunch.

 

[Irvine511]

What was Obama thinking???

Was he fibbing in Ohio to get votes??

i eagerly await the Clinton tax returns.

 

[martha]

 

[Irvine511]

so what did Memphis and yer man discuss? Radiohead?

 

[deep]

that is one topic?


not two

 

[LPU2]

Get it out there. Quick! The appearance of wrongdoing. That's all it takes sometimes. McCain fathered a black baby and was seen with a lobbyist. Clinton made millions in cattle futures, then killed Vince Foster. Obama associates with crooks. And he's a Muslim. A flibbertigibbet. A will of a wisp. A clown!

It would all just be merely annoying if so many people didn't automatically assume the mountain is the truth rather than the molehill.

I'm really starting to believe that we deserve the presidents we get.

 

[martha]

so what did Memphis and yer man discuss? Radiohead?

 

[Irvine511]

that is one topic?


not two

if you come to DC, we'll invite you to brunch as well.

 

[U2isthebest]

if you come to DC, we'll invite you to brunch as well.

So, Irvine, Martha, deep, myself, anyone else want to come to Hypothetical D.C Brunch '08'?

 

[Irvine511]

So, Irvine, Martha, deep, myself, anyone else want to come to Hypothetical D.C Brunch '08'?

let it be said,

you are all invited to break eggs Nova Scotia with me and Memphis.

and when we have our own place in a year. or two. perhaps three. we will have brunches there.

 

[U2isthebest]

bloody marys with me.

In that case, can we do this in Canada and make mine a Cosmo? Or can we hold off until after August of 2009?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

if you come to DC, we'll invite you to brunch as well.

heyyyy, so I only rated a couple of beers and not the coveted brunch invite? hmph.

 

[Irvine511]

In that case, can we do this in Canada and make mine a Cosmo? Or can we hold off until after August of 2009?

there's the virgin bloody mary. you get all the antioxidants, yet none of the vodka.

though i could always order a shot of Stoli. and when no one's looking, it could somehow deflower said drink.

 

[Irvine511]

heyyyy, so I only rated a couple of beers and not the coveted brunch invite? hmph.

i owe you an email. i apologize. you can ask Paulette --- i've been mad busy.

but Memphis and i are near professional brunchers. we can do it anytime, anywhere.

ahem.