home

Rezko Trial Set to Begin: Implications for Barack Obama

Let me start out by saying, as I have before, that I don't think Barack Obama did anything illegal in his dealings with Anton "Tony" Rezko. Obama has labeled his involvement with Rezko and his wife in the purchase of his home "boneheaded." In other words, since Rezko was under federal investigation by a grand jury at the time Obama bought the $1.65 million house, it was bad judgment, nothing more.

Rezko's trial begins next week. It is a trial about the politics of crime and the crime in politics. As I do many such trials, including that of former Ill. Gov. George Ryan, I am going to cover it. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because Barack Obama's name will come up.

It seems the American media, aside from Obama's home town papers, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times, and the New York Post, are mostly lying low on it. Across the pond, as Instapundit notes, it's of interest to the TimesOnLine, which has a three page article on it today.

Also today, the Tribune reports that the Judge has allowed "Public Official A" to be unmasked as Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And that Obama's name will surface during the trial.

[More...]

Another reason to cover the trial is that as the Post points out , while the Rezko trial is occurring too late to help Hillary Clinton, it may be good fodder for John McCain.

Starting with the Post, here's how it frames the issue of the Rezko-Obama relationship:

Obama's ability to make the right call on important issues, and his claim to be untainted by politics as usual, is seriously called into doubt by his alliance with the property developer and fast food franchiser Rezko, a close personal friend and one of his most generous donors.

....While there is no suggestion that Obama has done anything illegal, the Rezko trial will focus attention upon the propriety of a deal between the senator and Rezko that substantially raised the value of the senator's sumptuous home on Chicago's South Side. What Rezko expected from Obama in return remains unclear.

The unspoken question: Does anyone get something for nothing?

The Post delves into the history of the home purchase:

In June 2005, Obama bought a 98-year-old Kenwood mansion from a University of Chicago doctor for $1.65 million, using a $1.69 million advance he received from publishers Crown for his book, "The Audacity of Hope." The same day Rezko's wife Rita paid the doctor $625,000 for the empty lot adjoining Obama's property.

Even though at the time Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration, Obama did business with him, buying for $104,500 a 10-foot wide strip of Rita Rezko's lot, ostensibly to provide space for a fence. The deal left Mrs. Rezko's lot too small to build upon, thereby lifting the value of Obama's home.

Now, the first attack Obama can expect from Republicans:

But that [the home purchase] was not the end of the affair. The senator's claim to have been completely open about his relationship with Rezko was called into doubt on Monday when the senator belatedly admitted that, before he bought his home, he and Rezko visited the property together.

Turning to Rezko, none of his charges involve Barack Obama. But, they are serious charges.

Rezko is a presidential candidate's nightmare buddy. He stands accused of demanding fake finder's fees for payments made to Illinois teachers' and health workers' state pension funds. And he is accused of defrauding GE Capital out of $10 million in loans for his fast-food franchises.

According to court documents, Rezko is also accused of prompting "at least one other individual" to give money to Obama's senatorial campaign, then reimbursing him, in violation of federal election law.

Another issue is the recommendation of people for jobs:

Prosecutors have submitted to the court a 26-page list of those Rezko wanted appointed to posts in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration. The list contains those whom Obama recommended for state jobs. On Thursday it was reported that among those Rezko proposed for a job was the real estate agent who conducted the sale of Sen. Obama's home.

Warranted or not, there will many articles written about Obama's relationship with Rezko which will draw more interest in Rezko's trial. Journalists sitting in on the trial will relay the goings-on to their readers, and it will be in the news.

The links between Obama and Rezko that will be on show in the forthcoming trial may expose a chink in Obama's shining armor. Hard evidence of his at best naivety in the face of political corruption may not come quickly enough to help Hillary Clinton, who must win in Texas and Ohio on March 4 if she is to escape defeat. Most of the coming week in court will be taken up with jury selection.

If the Rezko trial comes too late to alert Democratic voters to the murkier side of Obama's time in Chicago politics, John McCain can be sure to exploit the court-attested fact that the Illinois Senator is not as free from the influence of sleaze as he likes to suggest.

The Post says the case will be the first of Obama's "squeaky clean" image. In light of the pass Obama has gotten in the media to date, I doubt it will amount to much. At least, not unless and until his opponent is John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton.

< The Rules Are What They Are: That Does Not Make Them Right | Inside The Texas Polling >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thinking he did nothing illegal may be irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    When the trial begins, if Obama is implicated and the investigation and evidence reveals a connection that may be criminal, then it is what it is.

    Winning Texas and Ohio might turn out to be the most important challenge Hillary Clinton has ever faced in her political career.

    The results of March 4th could very well change the course of American history.  Imagine if she were to hold on and the shiny image of Obama begins to crumble due to this trial and other vetting that still needs to take place.

    With the wins, Clinton could allows us to make the right choice of nominee.  Without it, we will be stuck with Obama regardless of what we learn from here on out.

    The Media (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    Won't do that.

    They don't shoot their wad on something like this (sorry about the colorful metaphor), they don't want resignments, they don't want to destroy careers, all they want to do is render the politician powerless, dragging it out as long as they can.

    As much as I like the scenario above, they're holding these cards for the general election, and even then, if Obama still wins the General Election, it's still all we'll hear about for the next 4 or 8 years.


    Parent

    I can almost hear (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    a bozo like Boehner calling for a special prosecutor, and I can envision a Democratic AG not wanting to appear biased, and in the interest of "fairness" doing just that - and as usual, we will get bogged down in all kinds of crap that will dog us for years and affect our chances of holding a majority in Congress as well as the WH.

    It's why I hope that Hillary hangs in there - because I do not believe the Rezko trial is coming too late to help her.

    Parent

    the Republican media has a life of its own (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    One month and a half between March 4th and Pennsylvania.  Hundreds of hours for Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News to fill airtime.

    I do believe the media would start reporting "bad stuff" about Obama eventually as long as the right wing noise machine lights the fire for them.

    Regardless of what any of us think, let's agree that it's better for Clinton to have that extra month than not to have it.  At least there would still be hope.

    Parent

    Well Sure (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    I can agree with the extra month.

    I don't agree with Rezko becoming Obama's downfall.


    Parent

    it's irrelevant what you or I think (none / 0) (#75)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    this is my favorite line today, btw. When it comes to this Rezko stuff, none of our opinions matter right now.  But Fitzgerald's will matter a lot.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
      Actually, this is one of the few cases where the Superdelegates provide a valuable check on the system, if as seems highly unlikely-- this becomes a campaign destroying issue, then they can step in(at the convention), if not then the elections on 3/4 probably end the primary season.

     Frankly, I think Rezi, not Rezko may end up being the issue, especially given Obama's rather lengthy record of legislative achievment in open government issues (you can contest a lot of his record, but in this case he has been a true leader, and he along with Feingold, Mccain, and strangely enough Coburn, have been consistent on these issues). The Rezi case shows a recent lapse in judgment for Mccain (Rezko, can be written off due to Keating, at least that's my hope I may be wrong).

    Parent

    This is a criminal justice blog (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    So it is completely appropriate for you to cover the trial and anyone who complains about that is being silly.

    But I don't think you can blame the national media for not covering it given that "none of the charges involve Obama" and Rezko is not a national figure.

    Trial hasn't yet begun. NYT and (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    LA Times have run articles about Rezko/Obama relationship and bail revocation of Rezko.  

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#29)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    The Rezko relationship is fair game.  But Jeralyn's post hinted, and I anticipate other commenters arguing, that if the media does not devote extensive coveage to the trial itself, that will indicate pro-Obama bias.  

    Parent
    I don't think the media will be able (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    to resist this trial.  I expect daily updates in the major newspapers, although most people don't read a daily paper.  

    Parent
    Nightline...300.000 thousand dollars less? (none / 0) (#85)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Nightline reported on it last night. Obama has been friends with Rezko for 20 years and he bought the house from him for 300.000 thousand dollars less than the asking price. Boneheaded?

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#90)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    Obama did not buy his house from Rezko. And what land he did buy from Rezko's wife was not undervalued. Read more here. Many people have the facts wrong about who Obama bought the house from, and Jeralyn's wording on this post doesn't seem to help.

    Parent
    he bought a 10 foot strip of Rezko's wife's land (none / 0) (#98)
    by g8grl on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM EST
    for 100K rendering the remaining piece (that Rezko's wife kept) virtually useless (completely unbuildable).  So to recap, Rezko basically bought a piece of land for $600K so that Obama could buy the house next to it.  Then Rezko devalued his property by selling part of it to Obama for 1/6th of the price and making the rest of his investment worthless.  Sure it's not illegal, but it sure is fishy.  It's obvious that Rezko was expecting something in return.

    Parent
    But the is no Quid pro Quo (none / 0) (#122)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    Frankly, I think the fact that Obama had a friendship apparently with Rezko softens the implications, friends help each other (and there was no apparent legislative help), like the article cited notes, a Rezko friends son got an internship. Don't try to make something appear where there isn't anything, its like the GOP deal on HRC's cattle futures stock, where she got a tip from a friend and turned a grand into 100,000 dollars, but nothing was given in return.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#129)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    You are the first person which I have read that understands this facet of the transaction. The sellers could have cared less who paid what at closing, they only wanted money that totaled the amount for which they wished to sell the property. By selling the garden of the home the value is decreased. By slicing off the edge of the lot the value of the lot is decreased. I have found that people do not understand that decreasing the amount of surrounding property in an estate type home decreases the value significantly. The corner lot which was the garden has easements on both street sides, and the area does not allowing building on zero lot lines, therefore the building footprint would be small and limiting that which could be built. The informed buyer would not buy an estate home which could have a possible development of townhouses or condos built next to it as it would decrease the value. A bank or mortgage appraiser would also take this into account if it was known at the time of the mortgage appraisal. The issue is in kind subsidy from Rezko.  

    Parent
    Bingo NOT (none / 0) (#142)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    That's a very compelling paragraph.  Unfortunately it is completely and demonstrably false.  Rezko sold the rest of the lot to another developer for $575,00, resulting in a total profit of $54,000 including Obama's purchase.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    I hate when reality comes crashing down on Internet theory.

    Parent
    The current owner is a (none / 0) (#183)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Rezko attorney per ABC news story and is for sale currently. The property is being sold around in a circle of associates. Mr Rezko has been telling the Feds that he is broke and out of assets but he owns this lot so he got rid of it. The selling price can be for a nickel and a hug but what matters is what it is worth. When looking at real estate the appraisal is what courts and banks go with not the asking or selling price. Your story is dated 02/07 where the ABC story was in 2008. I do not think this was a crime but rather an ethics violation.

    Parent
    If you knew about the current owner (none / 0) (#189)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    you were being dishonest for not mentioning that in the previous post.  Your insinuation that a $575,000 real estate deal involving someone who is currently under federal investigation is a sham does not pass the laugh test.  And as I'm sure you know, but didn't mention, the lot is on the market for $1.5 million.  But I know, I know: that's a sham too.  Even though nobody pointed that out in the Sun-Times story.  

    Parent
    He put it up for sale (none / 0) (#191)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    only after he was indicted.

    Parent
    Landmarks Commission (none / 0) (#213)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    Michelle Obama was on the Landmarks commission.  One of the issues about selling the property was getting certain approvals from the Landmarks Commission.  Well, gee whiz, Michelle was on the Commission and quite right before the purchase.  She was able to make sure the waivers would get approved.  

    Parent
    The story (none / 0) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
    was that Rezko bought it to develop into condos.  Really? In that kind of neighborhood with Single Family Zoning?  In what planet?

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#149)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    Well, here's what's what reported:

    Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

    But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006.

    So we learn the quite reasonable fact that the price of a plot of land does not, in fact, scale linearly.  This seems like a pretty reasonable model -- there's a base price that reflects the fact that the plot is large enough for a house, and then the value will scale based on size.  If anyone who works in real estate would like to correct this, I'd be happy to know about it.

    Second, if a 1500 sq ft plot was one-sixth of the plot, then the total Rezko plot, after selling the strip, was 7500 sq. ft.  Obviously, this is more than enough land for a house to sit on.  (Or one really huge garden!)

    Parent

    thats obviously not true (none / 0) (#217)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    since Ms. Rezko subsequently sold the remaining parcel and did not lose any money on the two deals.

    Parent
    Nightline. (none / 0) (#99)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    You should write to Nightline and tell them they got their facts wrong. They reported it last night. So Jeralyn's wording is in synch with abc news.

    Parent
    that's wrong (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    Michelle Obama made three offers on the house. The owners accepted her final offer. Rezko wasn't the seller of the house. His wife bought the lot next to it. Obama later bought 1/6 of the lot from her at the no discount.

    There are questions about where Mrs. Rezko got the money to buy the land -- not about whether he got a sweetheart deal.

    Also, I believe the sellers had made it clear they would only sell the land and the lot together. So without Mrs. Rezko's purchase of the lot, the Obamas could not have purchased the house.

    I'm sure Obama supporters will correct me if I'm wrong.

    Parent

    I believe this is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by g8grl on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    Again, what's left unsaid is that by selling 1/6th to the Obamas for $100K they rendered the 5/6 they didn't sell useless to anyone except the Obamas as a garden plot.  So essentially they got $100K for a $600K investment.

    Parent
    It amazes me (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    that people know what the value of the property is sight unseen.

    Why would 1/6 of the property being taken render the property useless?

    Parent

    I'm guessing its zoning laws? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    The operative word (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    being "guess".

    Parent
    Local building codes? Zoning laws? (none / 0) (#128)
    by magisterludi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    Zoning (none / 0) (#216)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    Something I don't understand.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    ...I haven't been following this at all cause so pardon my ignorance, but if the homeowners wouldn't sell the house without the land, why didn't the Obama's offer to buy the house and the land?

    Parent
    They couldn't afford the house and yard. Barack (none / 0) (#154)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    approached Tony Rezko to help him buy the house. The house and side lot were being sold separately for the first time and the owners were stipulating that both had to be sold at the same time because the owners were leaving Chicago.

    So Tony got Rita Rezko to buy the side lot and they closed on the same day so the owners could leave. If Tony's wife hadn't purchased the side lot then the Obama's couldn't have purchased the lot with the mansion on it because they couldn't afford both.

    rezkowatch.blogspot.com and hillaryis44.org have alot of the backstory on this if you're interested.

    Parent

    Presumably (none / 0) (#155)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM EST
    the fact that purchasing the extra lot would have cost an addition 600K.

    Parent
    I'm no Obama supporter (none / 0) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    but clearly, since apparently seller would only sell both properties at once, and since the OB's couldn't or wouldn't buy both properties, for them to be able to buy only the house, someone else - anyone else - had to simultaneously buy the vacant lot, and their pal, Rita Rezco, stepped up to the plate.

    Not a big deal really, as the Rezco's are/were real estate developers and I assume they easily could have built a home on the lot and sold it.

    However, they sold 1/6 of that lot to the OB's for 1/6 of the $625K (or whatever) they paid for it, and the remaining 5/6 of the lot is now too small to build a home on, according to the local zoning regs, so no one can build a home on that lot.

    Therefor, it would make sense that now, since there can be no home built on that lot, that vacant lot is worth a lot less than 5/6 of the $625K (or whatever) Rita initially paid for it, so the Rezco's took a loss on the deal. And since the OB's home will never have a house next door on that lot, the value of theirs home should get some benefit.

    Also, buying a home for less than the asking price is pretty common. Whether buying for ~15% less than the asking price is common, I can't say, but I will say that's not much more of a % less than I bought my home for.

    An allegation some are making is that because the Rezcos were buying the lot at full price instead - of dickering for a lower price as most every buyer does - the seller was more inclined to accept a lower price on the home, which would indicate additional benefit the Rezcos gave the OB's.

    Ultimately I think any real issues are based on timing, and since Rezco was indicted at the time of the deals the OB's look bad, and rightly so.

    Is this a really big issue for OB? I would think not, but then I tend to poo-poo all these soap-operatic type (imo) campaign issues...

    Parent

    addendum (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    It looks as though Rita Rezco did sell the remaining 5/6 of the lot to another developer and has profited about $50k between the OB's and the other developer.

    And it looks like the OB's are going to get a condo development as a next door neighbor. That, presumably, will reduce the value of their home.

    Parent

    Kudos (none / 0) (#171)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    to you for the correction, s-u-o.

    Parent
    I don't think Rezko was indicted (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    at the time Obama bought the house, he was under federal investigation though.

    Parent
    Really? Thanks. (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    That makes the issue even more murky and, imo, less of a problem for Obama.

    Parent
    Why Would Only Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    Correct you if you were wrong? Sad but true though..

    I pulled the primary lever for Hillary and would correct you if I thought you got something wrong about Obama.

    I guess it is that I am not high on either candidate.

    Parent

    Couldn't You Find a More SINISTER Looking (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    picture of Senator Obama for this piece?

    Holy....

    And it's not that sinister (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    Sheesh.

    Parent
    Have you noticed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    all the "sinister"-looking photos of Hillary at TPM, dkos, and all over the corporate media for months and months?

    Parent
    that's the photo that accompanies (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    today's TimesOnLine article.

    Parent
    Hat Tip To Murdoch (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    Not suprised to see this at TL. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Disappointed, but not surprised.  Oh well--less than a week left.

    Do you anticipate FP of (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    DK will cover the Rezko trial?

    Parent
    not really (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    Did you actually read Jeralyn's post? Go back and do so. This is going to be a problem for much longer than a week.

    Parent
    I'm sure you hope it will be (none / 0) (#48)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    But in reality there isn't much there.

    Parent
    Given the trial doesn't begin until (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    March, it seems premature to state "there is no there  there."

    Parent
    If you've ever been involved in litigation (none / 0) (#55)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    you know that by the time the trial starts almost all the important facts are out.  Perry Mason moments are quite rare.

    Parent
    I have been involved in a great deal (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    of litigation.  Given this trial is partially about allegations of bribery in Chicago government, it seems to me there may be information known to the prosecution and defense that is not yet public knowledge.

    Parent
    uh, ok (none / 0) (#66)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    You think anyone here wants McCain to win? You're crazy.



    I think this is a situation that looks bad for Obama, even if there's no genuine substance.

    Parent
    many people here care only about Hillary (none / 0) (#78)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    And don't really care if McCain or Obama wins.  It's Hillary or nothing for them.

    Parent
    The authors of this site (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    are not among them. We will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. We want a Democrat in the White House.

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#170)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    I will donate to HRC's campaign and happily vote for her if she is the nominee.  Unfortunately  Hillary-haters and Obama-haters appear willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    Parent
    I listened to Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    and took her lead. When asked whether she would support Hillary if she won the election, Michelle said she would have to think about it, and that it depended on the issues, the tone of the campaign etc.

    Well, her tone was plain nasty, the tone from the Obama campaign has been underhandedly dirty against Hillary; the Harry and Louise ads, the Spanish radio ad in Nevada, distorting her statements, and the nasty behavior of his supporters who demonize anyone who disagrees with him.

    Hillary has been called Billary, B**tch, the beast, she-devil, etc, etc.
    Yep, I don't like the tone and Michelle, if it's good enough for you and Barak, it's good enough for me.

    So JJE, you should be happy some of us are actually honoring the Obama's way of doing things and what Michelle is on record as saying she would do... Lead on Obama, lead on!

    Parent

    No she didn't (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    When asked whether she would support Hillary if she won the election, Michelle said she would have to think about it, and that it depended on the issues, the tone of the campaign etc.

    Michelle Obama did NOT say that.  

    Hillary has been called Billary, B**tch, the beast, she-devil, etc, etc.
    Yep, I don't like the tone and Michelle, if it's good enough for you and Barak, it's good enough for me.

    If you don't like reading hostile nasty rhetoric don't read political blogs where anonymous jerks can say whatever they want.  Regardless, I fail to see what that has to do with Michelle Obama.

    Parent

    Excuse me but I was watching good morning (none / 0) (#136)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    america that morning and she did say that among other things.  It may not had been the only thing she said but don't say she did not say it.

    Parent
    No she didn't (none / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    She was asked whether she would be willing to WORK to support Hillary Clinton.  It was pretty clear.  

    I hate when people drop words from quotes that utterly change their meaning.  And nevermind it was a loaded question.

    The quote....

    ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

    OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

    ROBERTS: That's not a given?

    OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

    Start off with a negative hypothetical, at least in her view, and then ask her a loaded question.  

    Parent

    You are absolutely correct. That was the question (none / 0) (#192)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    However, when Bill Clinton was asked if he would campaign for Obama if he was elected as the nominee, he without hesitation gave a resounding yes!

    Although you are correct about the question being about campaigning for HC. Michelle's tone and body language left no doubt in my mind that she would not support her.  

    Again, technically you are correct, but in communication; body language and tone, are as important or more important than words.

    OBAMA:  I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

    It was a negative hypothetical, but Michelle is an educated woman. She is a lawyer. Are you telling me she doesn't know how to handle a "loaded question" and use it to her advantage?

    That's how lawyers make their money.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#176)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    Your position is motivated by petulance and anger over something a candidate's spouse said.  Fortunately most people have a better sense of perspective.

    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#186)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    She speaks for him and shares his ideology. It gives me insight as to what kind of uniter he is.

    If he disagrees with her he should say so publicly...like they forced Bill Clinton to apologize.

    It's only fair.

    Parent

    more about my position (none / 0) (#196)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    I support Universal Healthcare. Obama's plan is not universal. Hillary supports the Latino community, Barak, according to Dolores Huerta, has never been near a rally to support Latino workers.

    Hillary is ranked higher in progressive issues than Barak.

    She has passed countless legislation to benefit Americans.

    Barak voted present over 100 times in IL. Hilary took a stand in controversial issues that are now causing her problems.

    Barak lied and said he passed a nuclear safety bill but in fact the bill never passed and worse he watered down the bill after consulting with Excelon.

    There are countless issues for which I support Hillary and not Barak. So no, I am not motivated by petulance or anger over what a candidates wife said.

    Your attempt at dismissing my opinion by making me out to be an emotional and uninformed voter doesn't fly with me.

    But of course this is all typical of Obama's supporters ammunition.

    Personal attacks!

    Parent

    Mexboy, you appear to be confused (none / 0) (#199)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    The issue is whether, if Obama is the nominee, hard-core Hillary supporters, a class of which you appear to be a member, will vote for him.  You said you wouldn't and referred to something that Michelle Obama said.  I pointed out that that position is rather irrational.  In response you have listing various pro-HRC talking points and specious and contradictory anti-Obama falsehoods that you have apparently swallowed wholesale, as if they had something to do with the question of voting for Obama in the general.

    Pointing out that your arguments are nonsensical is not a personal attack.  You may be the epitome of sweet reason in 99% of your life.  That does not, however, render your stated rationale for not voting Obama in the GE a rational one.

    Parent

    You're in for a rude awakening (none / 0) (#209)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    if you think the hard core HRC supporters are going to vote for him.

    Parent
    "Rational" Bullying 101 (none / 0) (#220)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    Frankly, JJE, this post and your earlier one addressed to mexboy sound like a personal attack to me. You seem to think your opinions are facts and that if mexboy doesn't agree with you he must be irrational, because I'm sure you view your own opinions as the height of rationality.  You may not realize it, but your post sounds very demeaning, and not only are you NOT making any (rational or otherwise) points with mexboy by this kind of talk, you likewise aren't winning any other converts with  this kind of emotional bullying.

     

    Parent

    Thanks tree (none / 0) (#224)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    I had to take a few breaths in order to keep it civil in my response.

    Parent
    First of all don't patronize me (none / 0) (#221)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    and don't insult my intelligence.

    The issue is not as you state:

    "if Obams is the nominee, hard-core Hillary supporters...will vote for him."

    The issue to me is whether I should support someone just because he is a Democrat or whether I have a right to expect them to have integrity.

    I brought Michelle up to illustrate one of the dirty tactics of the Obama campaign. He is clearly using her as the attack dog. She was sending a clear message to Obama supporters that they should not support Hillary if she is the nominee. Barak is on record saying Hillary's supporters will vote for him, but he is not sure his supporters will vote for him. I take offense at him and his campaign taking my vote for granted.

    You then went on to say:

    Your position is motivated by petulance and anger over something a candidate's spouse said.  Fortunately most people have a better sense of perspective.

     So, I gave you specifics as to why I support Hillary, but what do you do?  You again question my intelligence and say I'm quoting talking points and swallowed the falsehoods. They're not falsehoods if they're facts and talking points are not necessarily falsehoods. (I hope logic doesn't short-circuit your sense of superior reasoning skills and intelligence too much.)

    In response you have listing various pro-HRC talking points and specious and contradictory anti-Obama falsehoods that you have apparently swallowed wholesale, as if they had something to do with the question of voting for Obama in the general.

    What is false? That the bill didn't pass? That he watered it down after meeting with Exelon?
    And yes his record and behavior have everything to do with me voting for him in the GE.
     

    I understand how my logical reasons for supporting Hillary confuse you. I'm sure you've a very nice person 99% of the time as well, but what else can I expect from someone who responds to esoteric speeches where you are exhorted to recieve the illumination that will descend from the heavens and enlighten you into voting for Obama.

    Parent

    I know Clinton supporters have been (none / 0) (#108)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    hoping for it to be a problem for him.

    Of course, blogs used to be about critiquing unfair media stories instead of piling on.

    Oh well, the Republican and Clinton blogs are acting in unison on this one.  

    Parent

    Yes, Geekesque, (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    blogs USED to be about critiquing unfair media stories instead of piling on, until Obama was teh beneficiary of the unfair media stories, and his supporters were the ones doing the piling on, at which point it became A-okay!

    Don't expect sympathy from this Clinton supporter now that Obama finds himself on the other side of the equation.

    Parent

    sympathy? (none / 0) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    No one is asking for sympathy.  We are simply asking you not to be the executioner.

    Parent
    Not even that. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    Just asking them how they're going to feel about this when Clinton drops out of the race--either in a week or in a month or in three months.

    Parent
    Should Jeralyn stop doing what she does? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    That's a lot to ask, IMHO.

    Parent
    timesonline.co.uk more REZKO SADDAM TIE (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    Either go to captainsquartersblog.com  and scroll down to the article about Saddam and find the right's take on this and the link to this article in the times london...or go directly there.

    So why can't Hillary lose Texas and wait until Penn. and see how this Rezko trial goes?  It helps the Dems and gives an opportunity to see if this will blow up in Obama's (and thus the Dems)face.  Why the rush when the trial is just starting March 3?  Maybe that's why the Rethugs want to Dems to choose by March 4.  Because who knows what things will look like by the time of the Penn. primary.

    Senators are prohibited (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    from receiving anything of more than $200 in value. According to what this post says, the Rezkos let Obama buy part of a lot which lifted the value of his home by making their lot too small for building on. So it appears they decreased the value of their lot substantially by this sale, and he gained more than the $104,500 he paid for the strip of land because there would not be a house close by. That sure sounds like a sweetheart deal to me.
    If I am reading this right it looks like a violation of the Senate gift ban.

    But how could that be? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    He's Mr. Ethics!

    /sarcasm

    Parent

    I've often wondered what, if anything, (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    Senator Obama included on his disclosure forms regarding these transactions.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    there was also an allegation that Rezko's wife bought the property next to the Obama's at the same time and then sold the small strip to the Obama's at a price UNDER fair market value.

    Parent
    I've read Rezko's wife was the purchaser (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    of the adjoining lot and she sold 1/6 of the lot to the Obamas at 1/6 the fmv of the entire lot.  

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#87)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    If that's true then I stand corrected. Looking back over the news articles I can't find anything that supports my recollection so it(my recollection) must have been wrong.

    Parent
    What I don't know is whether that fmv was at (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    the time she sold to the Obamas and whether it took into account the fact the remainder of the lot was not longer buildable.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    ... such an allegation would be quite easy to prove.

    So is there any evidence for this baseless attack?

    Parent

    I've asked several (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    people who have posted diaries at DK on why Rezko/Obama relationship is irrelevant to Obama's candidacy, if the have any information of an independent comparable sales analysis.  No answers from the diarists or others.  

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#77)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    It would seem to me that those who believe that it IS relevant would have the burden of proof.

    Parent
    The diarists argued it wasn't (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    relevant to Obama's candidacy and proceeded to give the reasons it was all smoke but didn't care to address my questions.  Lots of "facts" but not all the facts.

    Parent
    that's what trials are for (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    Why did Mrs. Rezko buy the strip of land? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    Just for the heck of it? You can't paint this is a nice little coinky dink that a friend of the Obama's guys a piece of land she can't use for anything the same day that Obama's house closes. It was obviously a favor. That much is obvious. It was at the very least a favor to friends, wasn't it?

    Parent
    Maybe to make money (none / 0) (#143)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    She bought the lot in June 2005 from Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick for $625,000. In January 2006, she sold the Obamas one-sixth of it for $104,500. Then later sold the rest of the lot in December 2006 for $575,000. So that means she sold the land for $54,500 more than she paid for it. Now maybe it's not as good as turning $1,000 into $100,000 with cattle futures, but making $54,500 on a real estate investment seems worthwhile.

    Parent
    54,000 is a nice flip. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    Not all of us can get a 10,000% return like Hillary!

    Parent
    Did anyone ever consider the possibility.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    ...that the Obama's could have bought another house if they couldn't afford this one on the terms in which is was being offered? I guess that would be too big of a sacrifice.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#178)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    How dare the Obamas try and get more house than they could afford.  That is so Unamerican.

    Parent
    Well since this thread is sort of about..... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    ...judgment then I'll let others decide.

    Parent
    No, Obama got no price break (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    on the land strip. That's well documented.

    Parent
    Has anyone considered (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    that Obama lives in an historic district with a board that oversees all land sales, therefore there is no way in he*l they will allow apartment buildings or townhomes or anything of the sort to be built on that lot?

    Based on current zoning laws, the area can only have single family homes.  The lot--again, based on zoning--cannot be built on (unless you want to put a 250K house on an allegedly 1.5mm piece of land)

    Read the Taylor Marsh breakdown and the Chicago Trib articles.  It's all in there.

    Does it oversee all land/home sales? (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    Or just the ones that involve historic/landmark homes? Not a trick question, I don't know the answer.

    And, fwiw, developers often get properties re-zoned and/or variances approved. That's often how they turn $500K lots into $1.5K lots.

    Parent

    Gutter Journalism (1.00 / 5) (#25)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Yesterday, a photo of Obama in native Kenyan garb released by the Clinton campaign, which they still have not denied. Today, an attempt to rewrite a NYT column by the Clinton campaign that simply pointed out the obvious; Clinton's chances are fading. Now, a release on this site filled with vague allocations and Jeralyn stating, "nothing will come of this."

    She reports the American media hasn't picked up this story. Odd, I've read the same stuff for weeks and weeks. Kind of like those health care ads the Clinton campaign just discovered..ha! Is the point that the reporting never gained enough traction to satisfy Jeralyn or Big Tent?

    The Republicans drag out Dick Morris, White Water, failed attempts at health care, impeachment, bad judgements on the part of both Clintons..

    Let me help you (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    edit your first sentence for accuracy.

    "Yesterday, a photo of Obama in native Kenyan garb ALLEGEDLY released by the Clinton campaign, which THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIED RELEASING."

    If you are trying to help your chosen candidate it helps if you don't blatantly lie. If you do, you are just considered a shill and ignored, and in the end you do more harm than good.
     

    Parent

    Jane, you are on thin ice here (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    your comments have been insulting to Talkleft, me and Big Tent Democrat and you shill for your candidate.

    Now you are trying to hijack the thread to a discussion of yesterday's photograph.

    Stop. I'd rather not ban you but I will if you don't lose the nasty tone and follow our site policy.

    Parent

    Obama was on the pension board (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    for three months time, during which the Senate prevented the consolidation of state pensions, which would have stopped Rezko's pension bilking.
    I think that is a troubling coincidence that requires explanation from Obama.

    fromRezko

    is the theory that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    Rezko funneled all of this money into Obama's campaign coffers because he just liked the guy?

    Maybe you could ask Norman Hsu (none / 0) (#52)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    Why shady people donate to political campaigns.

    Parent
    I just got off the phone with Hsu (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    and he said to ask you why political campaigns like Obama's go begging shady characters like Hsu for donation.

    Obama Finance Director pressed Hsu for funds.

    Hsu Steered Major Fundraiser to Obama

    Parent

    Of course we should that is why (none / 0) (#60)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Julianna Smoot, national finance director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, originally sought the support of Norman Hsu.

    Parent
    too bad for her Clinton got there first (none / 0) (#70)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    Rendell must have convinced her that Hsu really was one of the 10 best people he'd ever met.

    Parent
    Actually Smoot knew Hsu (none / 0) (#81)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    from her tenure as finance chair for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  He was known to be bundler for the Democrats.  If you weren't so convinced in Hillary's evilness you would understand that Hsu gave money to the Democratic Party as a whole not just to Hillary's campaign.

    Parent
    Actually I'm not convinced of Hillary's evilness (none / 0) (#166)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    Because I like her just fine.  I am rather suspicious of those who think Rezko is a huge issue for Obama but ignore the problems Hsu poses for Hillary, as it suggests an overly personal identification with a political campaign rather than the underlying values.

    Parent
    Hsu is not (none / 0) (#195)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    a long time close personal friend of Hillary's. He is just a big donor to lots of Dems. Including Obama. In contrast Obama is so close to Rezko that he used to call him his "political godfather" before he became "a person I know". There is a big difference. That being said, it does not mean that Obama did anything illegal. I still think there may be a problem of ethics if the deal benefitted Obama more than $200. That is an issue even if there was no quid pro quo, as I understand it. And talk about bad judgment! You go to a guy who you know is being investigated by the Feds for corruption to get him to help you buy your house? And one of your claims to fame is being the guy who is so into ethics?

    Parent
    Asking fundraiser for help with home purchase (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:04:04 AM EST
    Yes, big difference, involving a fundraiser in helping you to buy your house (when the lot next door must be purchased on the same date and the fundraiser's wife is willing to do it).  

    Then worse judgment follows when Obama tells reporters he remembers asking Rezko about the property, during an event they attended but after that just going through his real estate broker.

      NOW he finds he must admit that he took Rezko on a tour of the house.  Obviously he wanted to keep private earlier this more personal connection on the house.  Why?  Because he had a sense it was not great judgment.  NOT "right on the first day" ...

      I really find it unusual that a politician can even use that  description of himself, in general, and then treat it as a promise of what the voters will get.

     

    Parent

    Involving a fundraiser with bad press (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    I forgot to add that the fundraiser had already received months of bad press for complaints about his financial dealings.  And yet, it's Rezko that Obama went to when he needed help from someone with money to buy the lot next door.

      So, besides not being 'right on the first day' about something so personal, yet public, what about his sense of ethics?  Was it that he was just mired in the old-politics of Chicago and Illinois and ones environment forms ones sense of right and wrong?  That explains Alice Palmer and also invalidating the ballot entries of the others so he could run without the problem of other candidates.

      It also speaks to an incredible energy directed at winning and as early as possible.  It has seemed good energy but obviously I've wondered.  As soon as he focused on the presidency, after a year or so in the Senate, he then decided not to hold meetings for his important subcommittee because, he explained yesterday, he's been busy campaigning.  He was given the chairmanship of that subcommittee, affecting Europe/Afghanistan dynamics, over a year ago.

    Parent

    IIRC Norman Hsu Also Contributed To Obama n/t (none / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    About how much is (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    "all this money?"

    Parent
    No predidential campaign money (none / 0) (#105)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Rezko has not donated or raised money for Obama's presidential campaign. All the money given mentioned was for Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate race.

    Parent
    ps: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    Obama bought a 98-year-old Kenwood mansion from a University of Chicago doctor for $1.65 million, using a $1.69 million advance he received from publishers Crown for his book

    Not sure about how this is worded.  It makes it sound as if he used the money to pay cash for the house.  

    Publishers don't just give you a check for the full amount.  You get some on signing, some on delivery of the manuscript, some when the hardback publishes and then the rest when the paperback publishes.

    Then, your agent gets 15% and the government gets around 40%.  So, before royalties and foreign sales, that would leave him around 800K over the course of a couple of years, give or take.

    It says an advance (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    I think you get that all at the signing, don't you?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    You get it proportioned out over the course of the publication.  On signing would've been around 500K, then delivery, then publication of hardcover, then paperback.  Royalties do not come until you have completely earned out the advance, which in this case would mean those Walmart sales of Obama's books are coming in handy when it's time to pay the mortgage.

    Parent
    But does he have a mortgage? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    Not that it matters but, he didn't pay cash for that house did he? I would have put some away for a rainy day.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    The Obamas bought the house in June 2005 for $1.65 million--some $300,000 less than the asking price--and secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust.

    Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the adjoining lot the same day, paying the full $625,000 asking price with the help of a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey. The Rezkos declined to comment for this article

    .link

    Parent
    It depends (none / 0) (#58)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    If you write a technical or computer book (my field), the advance is likely to be in the form of a single, up-front payment.  But if it's something that will have, you know, actual readers in a mainstream audience, and likely in large numbers, then I could definitely see a publishing house wanting to spread it out in chunks.

    Parent
    I am not... (none / 0) (#63)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    ... really sure why this is an issue.

    He still could have used his advance to buy the house, even if he didn't pay for the house in cash.

    He could have used the advance to make a large down payment.

    I don't see how whether or not he bought the house in cash or not is an issue.

    Parent

    It's not an issue at all... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    ....but if he had put 20% down on the house, then he could have afforded to buy the lot. :)

    Parent
    he didn't pay cash for the house (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    He got a $1.3 million loan.

    Parent
    None of this would bother me (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    If it wasn't for Obama supporters who said these kinds of things should bother me about Clinton if and when these kinds of things did crop up about the Clintons.

    Business and Politics are dirty.  Hands get dirty.

    People like to make money too, I don't hate them for that.

    Now.  Even if it was proven that Obama is totally blameless in this deal, it will still just get in the way and be a distraction.  It will make it impossible for him to unite the country the way he says again.

    I know it won't be his fault, but it will be there nonetheless.

    Poor guy!

    Here's why I don't think it'll be a big deal (none / 0) (#9)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    I'm trying to picture the Swift Boat ad that will sink Obama here, and I keep failing.  The narrative falls short, especially because I have yet to hear the bit where Obama did Rezko a favor.  Where's the hook that explains it all in 30 seconds to someone who hasn't been following the case and thinks Obama is a nice guy?

    The whole thing with Swiftboat attacks (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    is that they don't have to be true. Spinning facts to make your candidate look better is something all campaigns do.

    Swiftboating is lying. It is not spinning, it isn't twisting or trying to put your best foot forward while planting said foot on opponents neck. Swiftboating is lying. It has no business in any candidacy of a person of integrity. Even politicians should be held to some kind of standard other than how much money they can raise.

    Parent

    really, it won't matter? then i (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    have a nice swiftboat for sell too. the ones who will be affected or the ones who don't know obama and are on the fence between repubs and dems. they are referred to as the reagan democrats. also the disgruntled dems who wanted hillary will be sitting on the fence.

    kerry was a war veteran for heaven's sake. cleland lost two legs and an arm in viet nam, and they labeled him a terrorist symypathizer. it worked and will work again. how soon we forget! kerry was running against a guy who dodged the war and heaven knows what else. still they called him a coward, etc quite successfully i might add.

    Parent

    I'm not going to give up on the election (none / 0) (#42)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    Yes, the Republicans will try things.  However, they're not magical.  They tried things in 2006 too and they still lost both houses.  

    It's not going to be a free victory or anything, but any scandal that requires three or four "mights" in it, isn't going to be the tipping point.

    Parent

    Remember Congressional elections are (none / 0) (#50)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    decided by popular votes not electoral colleges.  All they have to do is get enough states and ooops.

    Parent
    the repubs are lethal. don't forget it. (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    it is fine to support your candidate, but don't be naive and assume. that is the mistake kerry made.

    Parent
    Swiftboating Obama (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    Over this is a laugh. Compared to the issues, albeit utter BS, regarding Kerry's ordeal this is a mote of dust.

    Most americans will admire Obama for getting a good deal from a crook with no quid pro quo, no matter how many books are thrown at Rezko.

    Parent

    famous last words! (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    The real estate deal (none / 0) (#10)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    appears to be somewhat favorable.  That's why it was "boneheaded."  But McCain lives in a glass house.  So I think this will be an issue in the GE, but not decisive.

    Parent
    Don't forget Michelle Obama's role (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    in the whole deal.  She was on the board of the Landmarks Commission - this house had Landmark status, which meant a lot of hoops to jump through in order to subdivide the property into two lots and still maintain the designation, which I believe came with favorable tax treatment - and she shephered the property through that process.

    I don't know whether it has ever been satisfactorily answered - or answered at all - who paid the costs associated with the subdivision - it is typically an expense of the property owner, and not inexpensive.  Makes me wonder, at least, about Obama paying less than asking price for the house and Rezko paying full price for a lot.  

    She also resigned her board position after the deal went through.

    It's not likely that the trial will cover the minutiae of the real estate deal, but it may be that coverage of the trial will bring it out into the open.

    Parent

    and Rezko recommended (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    the real estate agent who handled the sale of Obama's house for a state job -- that's in the Rezko pleadings. She didn't get it.

    More on Rezko's involvement in politics here.

    Parent

    resigned from the Landmark commission before the deal went through.

    Parent
    She resigned after the subdivision was complete (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    and the house listed for sale.  You are correct that at the time of settlement, she was no longer on the board.

    At that point, she didn't need to be - the deal was effectively done.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    Got a link?

    The landmarks commission was involved after he bought the house, in order to build a fence.

    Here is a link to the Chicago Tribune story.

    Michelle Obama resigned from Landmarks in March 2005, House closed on June 2005.

    It is amazing to me that HRC supporters who are Obama haters would try to make this story into a big deal. Pretty thin IMO.

    Parent

    My reading has indicated the opposite of yours (none / 0) (#116)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    After the both sides had been bought and after the sliver of land had been sold to the Obamas they still had to jump through the LMC hoops in getting the fence approved when they decided to section off the areas.

    The Obama's paid for the architect and legals fees involved with the fence while the Rezkos paid the 14k dollar cost of the fence.

    Parent

    A lot which is now worthless (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    except as a buffer for the Obama home.

    "Too small to build on," reportedly, in one of the articles Jerayn links to.  

    That smells to high heaven.  Rezko's wife sells the part of the property which makes it viable for building to the Obamas and just sits on the rest of the now useless lot at THAT price?  That smacks of a hlaf-million dollar gift of open space and buffer to the Obamas which they didn't have to pay for.

    If he's elected, we (the taxpayers) will probably buy it from Mrs. Rezko for the Secret Service outpost.

    Great.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#145)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    This is false.  

    A land sale recorded this month ended the neighborly relationship between U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and indicted political insider Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Obama's friend and former fundraiser.

    On Dec. 28, 2006, land records show, Rezko's wife, Rita, sold the garden lot she owned next to Obama's home, transferring it to a company that plans to develop housing there. That sale deed became public this month when it was registered with the Cook County recorder of deeds.



    Parent
    No, you are wrong. The lot is currently (none / 0) (#156)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    worthless because the owner cannot do anything with it. It only has access from the Obama property and a little security group called the Secret Service doesn't allow the new owner of the lot to even set foot on his land.

    Parent
    You are insisting on demonstrable falsehoods (none / 0) (#173)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    In the face of irrefutable facts.

    Parent
    I am? (none / 0) (#188)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    The lot has been on the market since Oct 10th '07. And I saw the NBC story on Michael Sreenan and Donna Schwan complaining that they can't even get access to the lot because it is fenced in and the SS won't allow them to set foot on the Obama property and use the only entrance to the lot that exists.

    Parent
    For $1.5 million (none / 0) (#190)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    You are unbelievable.

    Parent
    do you have any clue (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    about real estate these days? There are thousands of properties on sale for a laughable price these days. No one that doesn't believe in magic ponies thinks that any of these properties are going to sell for the asking price or anywhere near it. So the fact that the buyer, who was supposedly originally going to develop it, is now asking for 1.5 million for it means nothing until it sells. The sales price might tell you what its worth. Unless a friend or associate buys it, and then who knows whether its a fair market value price or a favor for a friend?

    Parent
    That is ridiculous (none / 0) (#205)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    The claim is that the lot is worthless because it can't be built on -- even though it is 7500 square feet.  That in itself is absurd in itself for anyone with a "clue about real estate these days."  Now the claim is being defended even though the lot has already been sold once and is being offered for almost three times what Rezko paid for it.  Please.  

    Parent
    Commendable contortions (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    It wasn't easy to get to that rationalization.

    So the person who bought it from Rezko decided to buy a worthless piece of land?  Maybe they are in on the conspiracy as well?

    Parent

    Obama wrote letters that helped Rezko (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    get government money to build his substandard housing.

    Parent
    And while that also may ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    not be criminal.

    But visions of Obama actually helping a slumlord in his evil ways isn't the image he wants to project right now.

    Parent

    Will it matter though? Republican (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    voters may not care, given they may not support subsidized housing.  And Obama may already be the Dem. nominee.

    Parent
    It depends on how well ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    the "Oh, he's not really a Republican" spin on McCain is working.

    Parent
    And, of course, whether the (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    potential Obama voters who are not registered Dems. care about the issues re Obama/Rezko relationship.

    Parent
    well he can't be the nominee for a while (none / 0) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST
    Even if Clinton were to suspend her campaign, there would still be quite a bit of time before the convention and the nomination is not official until then.

    Obama may become the defacto nominee but still could be vulnerable to a collapse for matters that we have yet to anticipate.


    Parent

    Right ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    if Obama collapses for this or any other reason, the Super Delegates can keep anyone from winning on the first ballot.

    On the second ballot, delegates can vote any way they want.  Clinton, Gore, Edwards.

    We may even have the Gravelanche!

    ;)

    Parent

    It would be outrageous if it wasn't Clinton (none / 0) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    Considering she has won about 50% of all the delegates.  But maybe they will force her to take Gravel as VP... just because.

    Parent
    Gravelanche (none / 0) (#133)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    I know he wouldn't win, but I'd love to see Gravel and Mccain debate, then they could share pictures of their grandkids and Mccain could go crazy about the Pentagon Papers.

    Parent
    Ok, that's something. (none / 0) (#22)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    I hadn't heard that.

    So, the ad would have to explain who Rezko is, what the letters were, why they were bad, and how it might have related to a real estate deal 7 years later.

    That just doesn't sound like a story that will hold the public's interest for 7 months, unless something huge comes out in connection with this.

    Parent

    Did you forget (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    Whitewater? Believe me, they'll find a way. They just won't gin it up until the general election is in full swing.

    Parent
    No I didn't forget Whitewater (none / 0) (#35)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    However, I remember that the Whitewater stupidity was so effective that Clinton only was able to win consecutive terms, and that was at a time where we were doing so well as a country, that we had time to worry about this sort of thing.

    With the endless Iraq War and the economy looking dour, it's a lot easier to change the subject.

    Parent

    So your point is not that (none / 0) (#45)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    Rezko can't be spun, but rather that its easier to change the subject now.

    Parent
    The Clintons were ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    really helped by the fact that they lost money on the deal.

    It will probably help Obama that it's hard to see how exactly he benefited.

    But having a shady benefactor who helped him since he was in his twenties, in a corruption trial, won't be a good thing.

    Parent

    He benefited by (none / 0) (#132)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    gaining valuable property he didn't have to pay for...the unbuildable lot next to his house which now functions as buffer and open space...costing Rezko's wife a half million dollars.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    that Ms. Rezko already sold the lot.  

    Time to find a new line of attack.

    Parent

    So she sold it... (none / 0) (#230)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    is anything I said inaccurate?

    Parent
    Not the ads (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    The problem is far more than what anyone can wedge into a 30-second ad, it's what happens when FOX and their ilk give the swiftboaters almost unlimited, unchallenged air time.

    That free media was 1,000 times more damaging to Kerry than was any paid ad time.


    Parent

    Who (none / 0) (#134)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    The problem is their aren't any surrogates here, seriously, who are they going to put up to do the swiftboating?

    Parent
    Unless there's some kind of... (none / 0) (#14)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    ...smoking gun(or, more accurately, "smoking check"), I think Obama will have little difficulty handling this.  A corruption scandal has to be explicable in one or two sentences in order for it to have an impact on most voters.
    I do expect there to be more digging by Republicans into Obama's family background, church, youthful use of drugs, etc., but I don't think he's nearly as vulnerable on this particular issue as McCain will be(Keating 5, Iseman, having lobbyists running his campaign and conducting lobbying business on the Straight Talk Express, etc.).

    Just so I'm clear (none / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    Are you covering this from a criminal justice perspective or a purely political perspective?  Because your post has Obama's name referenced more frequently than Rezko.  

    And the fact that Obama's name is mentioned 27 times, by you and the quotes, where as Rod Blagojevich's name is mentioned only 3 times, eventhough he is considered a potential defendant, suggests that this diary is about Obama.

    I find it disturbing that a Liberal blog would use the New York Post as a referential source.


    Was it also "disturbing" (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    that almost all liberal blogs used Drudge as their source yesterday?

    Parent
    I find Liberal Blogs (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    Disturbing in general.

    Parent
    Well hopefully nothing will come out of this (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    I will vote for him if he is the nominee, the alternative is too awful,
    Personally I went sour on Mr Obama in 1996 but then he is just another politician.

    clarification please Jeralyn (none / 0) (#79)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    In other words, since Rezko was under federal investigation by a grand jury at the time Obama bought his $1.65 million house

    To me this implies that Obama bought his house from Rezko, which was not the case. It's maybe just been an oversight or lack of clarity on your end, but it's a common misconception that people have been using to make the deal look even worse.

    To be accurate, Obama bought his house from the couple Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, who have no connection to the Obama campaign. Rezko's wife, Rita bought an adjoining plot from the couple for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price. Rita later sold 1/6 of that plot to the Obamas for exactly 1/6 what she paid for it.

    i don't think it's unclear (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    Obama bought his house, means Obama's house. But I can change the pronoun, no problem.

    Parent
    fair enough (none / 0) (#93)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    I don't think you were intentionally being misleading. But unfortunately many people have the misconception about who Obama bought his house from. So when they hear Obama bought his house for $300k less than asking they assume it was some sort of quid pro quo gift from a tainted donor. This is clearly not the case.

    Parent
    What do you mean by this? (none / 0) (#102)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    To be accurate, Obama bought his house from the couple Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, who have no connection to the Obama campaign.

    Do you mean they never knew the Obamas or they never donated to his campaign(s)?

    Parent

    No evidence (none / 0) (#111)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    So far there is no evidence that the sellers of the house, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, had any connection with the Obamas or ever donated any money to an Obama campaign.

    Parent
    As I recall, the Obamas and the sellers (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:51:39 PM EST
    were acquainted through Michelle Obama's employment.

    Parent
    Never seen a connection (none / 0) (#131)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    Whatever you may recall, I've never seen anything connecting Barack or Michelle to the sellers previously. And the fact the Obamas put in 3 bids lower than the asking price, the first two rejected and the third accepted, would seem to support that as well. But if you have a link to something that connects them previously I'd love to see it.

    Parent
    It is probably in the Chicago Sun-Times (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    articles.  I don't have time to retrieve at present.  Later.

    Parent
    Thanks, that's what I'm getting at. (none / 0) (#137)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    I know they all worked in the same hospital but I saw a recent blog post that I'm trying to find that stated they were also donors. I'll see if I can find it.

    btw there is a Rezko blog called

    Rezkowatch.blogspot.com that is pretty good.

    Parent

    A week or so ago (none / 0) (#127)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    Lynn Sweet had a story about McCain hitting Obama with the fact that he hadn't released his earmark request from '05 and '06. I bet those earmarks become a bigger issue once this trial gets underway or that 527s will claim that the Rezko kickbacks are hidden away in them.

    Post story wrong (none / 0) (#144)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    The Post story says

    The deal left Mrs. Rezko's lot too small to build upon, thereby lifting the value of Obama's home.

    However, in 2007 Rezko sold the rest of the lot for $575,000 "to a company that plans to develop housing there."  This resulted in a profit of $54,000, including Obama's purchase.  That is from the Chicago Tribune.

    Commenters who have argued that Rezko subsidized an increase in Obama's property value must retract their comments.

    Who owns the housing dev co? (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    hmmm (none / 0) (#161)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    Rezko's former business attorney, according to the link.

    Parent
    Developer sells land (none / 0) (#184)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    to business associate.  Man bites dog.  This sort of innuendo is unacceptable without researching the facts.  

    The Chicago newspapers have been on the story for well over a year.  Their conclusion is the deal in itself was completely legitimate but (as Obama admits) a bad decision given that Rezko was under investigation.  That's it.  This is a question of facts and making insinuations without knowing them is irresponsible.

    Parent

    This is an issue that is growing as more (none / 0) (#208)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    information is released. I am not accusing anyone of doing anything illegal, but I am saying that all of the information is not out. Taking associates word on this is fine but it is not the whole story. I will explain to the best of my ability. This is a transaction for the purchase of a beautiful older home with a sizable property with it. The two lots as I understand it have been a contiguous property since the home was built about 100 years ago. I will describe this as an estate home because it has a garden which was the second lot to the side of the home. To many part of the value of a home such as this is privacy and sound reduction due to the green space around the home which is very valuable in an urban setting.
        Most of the value is the home itself, but a significant part is the garden or green space. In municipalities the lots are appraised separately for taxes as property is described legally by field notes or subdivision plat description. Most cities make a guess at value of the lot but are quite accurate with the house. The problem with selling the lot is will there be a market for it and how to price it. The sellers of this home wanted to sell both together because they did not want the hassle would be my best guess and it is reasonable for them to want to move on.
        The Obama's did not want the second lot and why is really immaterial. The fact that they were sold separately on the same day is the issue and that a political contributor purchased it is what raises eyebrows. The appraisal value rather than the purchase price is what can clear this up in a minute. The fact that the house sold  for 50 cents and the lot for 17 million is perfectly legal in most transactions. The issue is if the house was undersold and the lot oversold by a public official and a contributor.
         The sale of the strip next to the Obama home further complicates matters. Did the sale of part of a residential lot which is heavily regulated with easement, zoning, and building covenants significantly decrease the value of the property by making it unbuildable or of limited marketability because of its reduced size. Did the addition of the slice of the lot increase the value of the Obama home and by how much. Again if this were ordinary citizens no one would care, but it is not and so it does matter.
         If and I do mean if, prices of the two lots were manipulated that is the problem. If the value of the lot were compromised to the benefit of Sen  Obama that is also a potential problem. Since values would have been changed in the property this would be classified as a subsidy. Again I do not know all of the facts because the documentation  is not public.
          Because Sen Obama is a public official there are many laws and ethics rules that cover all of his business transaction. Some may not be fair but they are still there and must be followed. His suggestion that it was boneheaded I can sympathize   with, but he is a Harvard educated attorney so the standards are even higher. So he has two levels he has to clear, that of a US Senator and of highly educated attorney.
          I do not have all of the facts because they have not been released. I have read everything I could find because of interest and personal background. My views are not based upon innuendo but what has been reported in the press. I cannot take the judgement of the Chicago press over potential legal or ethics committee findings. Has Senator Obama had the ethics committe review this? This is where Senators go for legal opinions on their personal business dealing to avoid problems.
          Again I will state that I am not anti-Obama, but anti-Republican. I do not want him smeared with something that can be cleared up fairly simply with disclosure. Buying a beautiful home is something they should be proud of achieving and having friends who care enough about them to help them reach their goals is a good thing. I view this a potential ethics issue, and he should disclose, take his lumps if any, get it out of his way, and head for November.  

    Parent
    That sure took a lot of words (none / 0) (#211)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:51:05 PM EST
    to say there is no evidence that Obama did anything wrong.  

    And most of your so-called questions have already been answered -- for example, your absurd suggest that Rezko's 7500 square foot lot is "unbuildable or of limited marketability because of its reduced size."

    Parent

    First, (none / 0) (#212)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    according to the Chicago Sun-Times:
    Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?

    BO: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.

    Regarding the house undersold/lot oversold question, form the Sun-Times:

    Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

    BO: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.



    Parent
    I thought Rezko's lawyer (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    bought the lot.

    Obama bought 1/6 from her. She then sold the rest. Is that not right?

    Readers can't amend comments. Comments can only be deleted by me or Big Tent. Even we can't edit them.

    Parent

    From the link: (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    The vacant lot once owned by Rita Rezko will be developed by a company owned by former Rezko business attorney Michael J. Sreenan. Rezko has no involvement with the new development, Sreenan said. "He's not a silent partner or anything like that," Sreenan said.

    He said he has hired an architect and is discussing plans with the alderman and the city Landmarks Commission.



    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#167)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    But the numerous commenters who have said that selling 1/6 of the lot to the Obamas rendered the other 5/6 worthless and therefore represented a subsidy to the Obamas are completely wrong.  

    I understand they cannot delete or edit their comments but they should admit that they are wrong.  

    Parent

    Current lot owner (none / 0) (#159)
    by BeBe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    is an attorney who worked for the Rezkos previously if I recall correctly from the ABC story from a few weeks ago. It is currently for sale and there have been no takers. The current owner is not developing if he trying to sell it. That story linked is dated 02/07. The Rezko's had to get rid of it because they had told the feds that they were basically indigent which is what got him put in the pokey for lying recently.

    This is why this story is so fascinating to me. It just gets more and more complicated with each piece of info that comes out. I am not anti-Obama, I am anti-giving the creep Republicans any ammo. I want full disclosure and get this out of the way, the sooner the better.

    Parent

    02/07 (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    Great point.

    Parent
    I assume you are living up (none / 0) (#177)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    to your name here?

    Parent
    BeBe (none / 0) (#182)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    If you have information about the current state of the lot next door to the Obama residence please share it.  

    Also, please explain why you earlier you called the deal an "in kind subsidy from Rezko" knowing that Rezko sold the lot at a profit.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#185)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    It is on the market -- for $1.5 million.  

    I think you're going to have to change your story now: it's Obama who's doing favors for Rezko.  

    Either that or it's just part of the conspiracy: It's really worthless, they're just asking $1.5 to cloud the issue.  And nobody who the Chicago Sun-Times has talked to has pointed that out.

    Meanwhile, the fact that you knew about the current owner strongly suggests to me that you already knew that Rezko sold the land at a profit when you commented earlier in the thread that the land deal represented a subsidy from Rezko to Obama.  Unbelievable.

    Parent

    of course... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    now it's on the market for 1.5 cause it's the house next to Obama.  I can put on the market anything at any price, does not mean that it has the value.  The portion of that land has an estimated highest and best use, as far as anyone knows, the zoning is single family, not multi family.  So, the alleged higher value is derived from the star value of being next to Obama.  Until a sale is closed, the 1.5 means nothing.  Unless of course another Obama supporter buys it to bail out Rezko and Obama.  Which is probably in the works.

    Parent
    So no matter what happens (none / 0) (#222)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    Obama is guilty in your eyes.  

    Parent
    A big Yes (none / 0) (#223)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    Considering his big piece of legislation in Illinois was on ethics and Obama supporters talk about it as his landmark achievement, he had zero room for boneheaded.  Period the end.  

    Parent
    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#204)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    that this mess won't hurt Obama. How can you know someone for almost 20 years, watch and be involved in how he operates, and yet not know what he is all about? And if you know how corrupt someone is, and yet still schmooze with him for almost 20 years, how can you say that you are pure and about a new kind of politics? This whole thing just reeks of hypocrisy. Whether there is anything "illegal" that can be pinned on Obama or not isn't the only question it raises. It's also what it reveals about him.

    It Depends On (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    Whether or not your hands are clean. The GOP has been associating with criminals for over twenty years and they have survived quite well, that is except for the ones indicted.

    Parent
    It's alright, I did my own research. (none / 0) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    Despite what some diarist at MYDD, or whatever, wrote Chicago Landmarkshas nothing to do with sales of lots, nor approving nor not approving the sale of a Landmark-designated home, nor zoning.

    You cannot put up a (none / 0) (#210)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    townhome development in an area that is zoned for single family without a variance, and I seriously doubt people living in 2+mm homes are going to allow that variance.

    In historic districts, no matter whether it's a lot or an existing home, you cannot change anything within the DISTRICT without the approval of the board.

    Believe me--I have owned a vacant lot for almost a year now as my architect and builder have gone to meeting after meeting with the historic district and the local zoning board to get the approval for my home design. Every detail on the outside has to be historic and adhere to the tenets of the building guidelines that the historic society laid down decades ago.  It has been a nightmare, but that is why people designate districts: to make sure that they control the quality of housing that is built in the neighborhood and to ensure that their properties are not devalued.

    Parent

    The lot in question is a corner lot, (none / 0) (#214)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    at the corner of S. Greenwood Ave. and E. Hyde Park Blvd./E 51st St.

    E. Hyde Pk/E. 51st St. is a relatively busy through-street.

    The other three corners across from the corner the lot sits on consist of a commercial building (a synagogue) and two very large 4-story apartment/condo buildings.

    In me experience, due the existing use of the three adjacent corner lots, they have a decent chance of re-zoning or getting a variance for this last, undeveloped, corner lot.

    Parent

    please do not post Obama's (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    street address here. You were off by a few numbers but still, that isn't done. While it is available somepleaces, most U.S. media outlets don't post it.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#229)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    I also posted a modification of one of my subsequent posts regarding the corner lot to remove the exactness of it's location but keeping the meat of the information regarding zoning/variances, in case you wanted to delete the one with the more exact location.

    fwiw, I found the approximate home address via google maps street view. It took about 5 minutes, max...

    Parent

    Oh, and... (none / 0) (#218)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    the lot was almost assuredly part of the Kenwood District when it was part of the historic home property the Dr. was selling.

    However, now that it's not part of that historic home property, is it still part of the District? Can a developer get it removed from the District if it is still a part?

    Parent

    The lot in question is a corner lot, (none / 0) (#228)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    on a relatively busy through-street.

    The other three corners across from the corner the lot sits on consist of a commercial building (a synagogue) and two very large 4-story apartment/condo buildings.

    In me experience, due the existing use of the three adjacent corner lots, they have a decent chance of re-zoning or getting a variance for this last, undeveloped, corner lot.


    Parent

    Question: Ethics law and Obama (none / 0) (#225)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    If Obama's major achievement was the landmark ethics bill in Illinois, would you tolerate a boneheaded mistake by the man who is identified as that being his major achievement?  Is boneheaded within the range of tolerance?  I don't think so.  So based on his evaluation, boneheaded, and his desire for legislating ethics, he is guilty in my eyes and has no excuse.  

    Sorry Josh and company, to me this is in the same range of the Cuningham and Alaska Stevens deals, maybe not as obvious, but sleazy and frankly not becoming.  

    Gee (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:43:13 AM EST
    Let's see normal buyer having to go through clearances, ex Commissioner buys property and aces the process.  One of the reasons the property was not selling was that the Landmarks issues were daunting,  Once again, how are we not supposed to ask questions about this?  I know about local government and I know about real estate.  

    Really? (none / 0) (#234)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    One of the reasons the property was not selling was that the Landmarks issues were daunting,

    Now you are just making sh*t up. The only reason the landmarks commission was involved was to put up a fence. That took place within the month after the purchase.

    And BTW, neither Obama nor Clinton are "normal" buyers, and that is not to say that a normal buyer would have any different response from the Landmarks commission about putting up an tasteful, architect designed fence.

    Parent

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#235)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    You are absolutely, 100%, wrong on this. You may know a lot, as you claim, but you know nothing about this specific issue.

    Chicago Landmarks has NOTHING to do with individuals buying and selling Landmark-designated homes or homes in Landmark-designated districts. There are no "clearances," no "daunting" Landmarks issues to buy or sell a home there, NOTHING.

    Their duties and powers, from the Chicago Landmarks website:

    The Commission on Chicago Landmarks [...] is responsible for recommending to the City Council that individual buildings, sites, objects, or entire districts be designated as Chicago Landmarks, thereby providing legal protection. [...]

    The Commission is also responsible for reviewing any proposed alteration, demolition, or new construction affecting individual landmarks or properties in landmark districts as part of the permit review process.



    Parent