Barack Obama’s Mob, Part II

What will Oprah say? An alleged financier of Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution, under her billowing tent?

Oprah can’t blame it on her staff. News reports about Alexi Giannoulias and his financing of “Jaws” go back months if not years. We wrote about Alexi and “Jaws” several months ago. Oprah must also know of “Jaws” financier Giannoulias’ big fundraiser and further funding promises to Obama.

Oprah must also know about local boy Patrick Fitzgerald. Oprah perhaps read our article from April 30, 2007 Will Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald Destroy the Obama Campaign?about the pending doom facing the Barack Obama campaign. Chicago legend Oprah must know Chicago legend Patrick Fitzgerald who is well known as the indictor and convictor of Vice President Cheney aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Patrick Fitzgerald also put Illinois Governor George Ryan behind bars for six years. Surely Oprah heard about that.

Oprah must also know that Fitzgerald’s United States Federal Prosecutor Office for Illinois has filed a 65 page indictment of Obama’s other financier and long time friend – indicted slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko .

Oprah must also know about the trial that has been scheduled for February 25, 2008 by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve. Judge Eve called the trial date of Febuary 25, 2008 a firm date. The trial preparations and news will coincide with the first Democratic Primaries and Caucuses in January and February 2008.

And Oprah must have heard that Rezko business partner Orlando Jones went Hsu (who blamed Obama in his suicide note) one better and beached himself.

What will Oprah say?

What did Oprah say when she read the L.A. Times profile of Obama called Obama: A Fresh Face Or An Old-School Tactician?

Here is what we excerpted from that article in Barack Obama’s Mob:

He managed to burnish a reformer’s reputation while swimming in the muddy waters of special-interest- infested state politics.

He worked on a nice-guy image while practicing the hardball and brawling tactics of Chicago-style politics.

Now, promoting himself as a fresh face on the national political stage, proclaiming his distance from lobbyists and the Washington culture of special interests, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has to contend with his own history.

From Chicago to Springfield, his past is filled with decidedly old-school political tactics — a history of befriending powerful local elders, assisting benefactors and special interests, and neutralizing rivals.

Obama may be packaged as something new among presidential contenders, but in this town where politics is played like a blood sport he fit right in.

The Babe In The Woods or as we termed it long ago, The Innocent:

“He knows how the game is played,” said Jay Stewart, executive director of Better Government Assn., a nonpartisan group that honored Obama for helping overhaul state ethics law. Stewart called Illinois politics “deeply troubled, if not corrupt” at its core.

“It is very difficult to come out of a system that is flawed and walk out unscathed. Sen. Obama has done better than most. But it’s not as if he is a babe in the woods,” Stewart said.

The “new” politics it turns out is the same ‘knock ’em off the ballot’ Chicago politics.

In fact, Obama’s first venture into politics suggested he came to the game ready to throw elbows. That was in 1995. He had been invited to succeed Alice Palmer when she left the state Senate to run for Congress.

He reached out to local power brokers and financial backers — among them entrepreneur Antoin Rezko and politically connected Al Johnson, a retired auto dealer who was the late Mayor Harold Washington’s bridge to the business community.

Palmer backed Obama too. But friendly succession hit a bump when Palmer’s congressional bid failed. She asked Obama to step aside and let her run for her old seat in the state Senate.

Obama did more than refuse. The onetime voting rights activist in Chicago’s poor districts challenged the signatures qualifying Palmer for the ballot. Palmer was disqualified, and Obama, then 35, took office running unopposed.

“Some can say it was cold, but that is how the game is played,” said Illinois state Sen. Donne E. Trotter, a Democrat whose district bordered Obama’s.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his pal Obama. When will “reformer” “new politics” big ethics talker Obama return the Rezko money?

That first race cemented ties with Johnson and Rezko that have spanned Obama’s political career. Both made significant donations. And Rezko became one of Obama’s most important patrons. He and his associates are responsible for $160,000 in campaign aid over the past 12 years.

Rezko has helped numerous politicians from both parties. In 2003, he gave President Bush $4,000 and co-hosted a fundraiser in downtown Chicago said to have generated $3 million for the president’s reelection.

Again, when will Obama return all the Rezko money?

But Rezko also represents another rule of old-style politics: Beware of your friends. Last fall, Rezko was indicted here on federal public corruption charges, forcing politicians, including Obama, to distance themselves.

As to the ‘aw-shucks’ ‘this is about you not about me’ ‘people want me to run for president’ I’m a shy innocent, not quite. [Notice, with a man it is called ambition, for a woman it is calculation and worse]:

Armed with ambition Obama arrived in Springfield with another familiar tool from the kit of Chicago politics — ambition.

Cynthia K. Miller, who ran his district office, recalls an incident shortly after Obama’s election. She had taken a longer-than-normal lunch break and returned to find an impatient state senator waiting for her.

He didn’t raise his voice, she said, but he turned stern as he explained the importance of time management and the need to focus on goals. Then he shared his own goal: “I plan to be president.”

“When he said it, he wasn’t just whistling Dixie. I believed,” Miller said. “I thought I needed to work harder” to help make it happen.

Obama, the voting rights advocate who knocked Democrats off the ballot, also loved, loved, loved his monied friends even as his constituents froze in the tenements owned by his monied patrons.

Obama’s state Senate district was a mix of mansions, trendy town homes and tenements. It encompassed the leafy campus of the University of Chicago, where Obama worked part time as a law school lecturer before and after his election.

Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, who is having a fundraiser for Obama at her Montecito estate in Santa Barbara County today, keeps a residence in the old district. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has endorsed Obama, and Minister Louis Farrakhan, head of the black separatist Nation of Islam, live within three blocks of Obama’s home.

Ripublican Dillard loved Obama and even makes campaign commercials for Obama that almost instantly have to be pulled off the air.

He teamed with Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard to revoke a law that allowed lawmakers to convert campaign money to personal use, for some legislators a source of substantial largesse.

“It didn’t take long to see he is a man of intelligence and ethics,” said Dillard, who recently taped a pro-Obama television ad that aired in neighboring Iowa.

Ethics Obama when it is convenient. [Any one wonder what Obama is going to do with all that cash after he pulls out of the presential race? Will Obama follow the spirit of the law and not convert his campaign money for personal use or to another of his campaigns, now that it is not convenient for him because now he is the guy with money, not like when he passed the law which hurt the other guy with money?]

In 1999, Obama voted against an expansion of gambling, even though two of his biggest backers — Rezko and Johnson — were to share interest in a new casino planned in suburban Chicago.

And Obama backed a ban on fundraising on state property — again teaming with Dillard — an action aimed at Springfield lobbyists, like Alfred Ronan, noted for handing out campaign checks in the Capitol.

But there are other, less flattering examples.

Obama later would tap Ronan, who represented state gambling interests, and others in his firm for $10,500 in campaign donations. And in 2003, while running for the U.S. Senate, Obama switched positions and cast a decisive vote authorizing the state to operate casinos.

How much did Ronan make from big gambling profits for himself and his ‘friends’? And doesn’t Obama hate lobbyists? But he will have lunch with them? Isn’t this just free access for lobbyists? [Check out Glenn Thrush and Lynn Sweet on Obama’s relationship with lobbyists in our article Obama Fights The Facts]

Ronan said his financial support for Obama was unrelated to any legislative assistance. “I supported him for U.S. Senate, and I support him for president — and he voted against me 100% of the time; or, maybe it was only 98% of the time,” he said in a recent interview.

The lobbyist also recalled that any time he had lunch or played golf with Obama, the state senator paid his own way.

Obama Fights The Facts nails the lobbyist question but the L.A. Times does a good job too. No wonder Ripublicans love him:

As a presidential candidate, Obama has been critical of the congressional system of doling out money for pet projects. But he is no stranger to pork-barrel politics and the practice of spreading government money around his district. In Springfield he once directed state funds to a nonprofit group headed by a Republican and former ballot foe, Yesse B. Yehudah.

Yehudah barely registered a ripple of meaningful opposition, drawing only 10% of the vote in his 1998 challenge of Obama.

The following year, a nonprofit run by Yehudah, a social services organization called Fulfilling Our Responsibility Unto Mankind, began seeking state support. At the same time, Obama was considering mounting an ambitious challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, a fellow Democrat.

Former foe Yehudah stepped up early to help. In November 1999, five people who worked for the Republican’s nonprofit organization each gave $1,000 checks to Obama’s congressional campaign committee. Yehudah makes no secret of his goal.

“We want [politicians] to know that when we sit down, we’re serious,” Yehudah said. “They know it when a $1,000 check comes in.”

Is this why Obama is running against a Clinton, for revenge? And yes, another Innocent Coincidence:

Obama lost his congressional bid. President Clinton backed incumbent Rush, who received twice as many primary votes as Obama. Obama was left with a $40,000 debt.

Later that year, Yehudah associates pitched in an additional $5,000 to help retire Obama’s debt. The contributions were recorded on Oct. 7, 2000, three days after the Illinois Senate, at Obama’s behest, approved a $75,000 state grant to Yehudah’s nonprofit, state records show.

In an interview, Yehudah said the commitment for the grant was secured months earlier, in July. He called timing of the donations a coincidence.

The donations were modest by political standards, as was Obama’s relatively small assist to the nonprofit group of his ex-rival and new benefactor. But in Illinois, “government actions often occur around the time of campaign donations,” said Stewart of the Better Government Assn. “The answer is always the same: It’s always a coincidence.”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said there was no connection between the campaign donations and the grant to Yehudah’s organization. “Of course not,” he said.

Obama has real good judgment on his friends, doesn’t he?

By 2002, Obama was preparing for his next challenge, a run for the U.S. Senate. Also that year, the Illinois attorney general sued Yehudah over allegations of kickbacks unrelated to the state grant. It was settled out of court.

Three days after the suit was filed, Obama returned one batch of donations totaling $5,000.

Obama the unambitious, unpretentious, aw-shucks guy, always ready to raise money, while publicly denouncing money influence:

In November 2002, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Emil Jones Jr., 71, a 34-year veteran of Springfield and the new Senate leader, said he was approached immediately by Obama.

He “knew if he had me, it would give him power,” Jones said in a recent interview. “Having me would force politicians in Chicago to be supportive. I could leverage folks to raise money.”

Obama told Jones: “You have the power to make a U.S. senator.”

“That sounds damned good. Let’s go for it,” Jones said he replied.

With Jones’ help, Obama got his pick of bills to champion leading up to the 2004 election.

Money, money, money, money.

From his early days in state politics, Obama also opened relationships with moneyed interests that have continued into his presidential campaign, contributing to his record-breaking fundraising statistics.

One of his biggest backers is a firm he helped to land state pension fund investments.

Black-owned investment fund managers came to Obama in 2000 and 2001, complaining that they were “not getting any business from our own state pensions,” he recounts on the campaign trail.

Obama took up their cause and led delegations of minority investment firms to Illinois state pension board meetings, urging board members to shift some of their funds to such firms. During a recent appearance before the Urban League, Obama singled out Ariel Capital as one respected investment house that he had championed.

“I simply said, ‘Listen to what these folks have to say,’ ” Obama said, “and in about six months they got about a half billion dollars’ worth of business simply on their own excellence.”

By 2005, Ariel Capital managed $452 million in teacher pension money. And as his investor-friends won business, Obama received political benefit.

In the four years after he went to bat for them before state pension boards, partners in those minority-owned firms donated $190,000 to his campaigns, including his U.S. Senate run.

Ariel has been particularly generous. Its partners and employees have donated $135,000 to Obama’s campaigns, including more than $50,000 to his presidential run. Two of its principles are among Obama’s presidential campaign fundraisers, having raised at least $50,000 more each.

In 2006, meanwhile, the teacher pension board severed its relationship with Ariel Capital, concluding that returns on its investment were insufficient. Ariel executives declined to discuss the matter but defended their strategy as one that favors long-term returns over volatile short-term gains.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Obama’s long time friend, and business partner of recent suicide Orlando Jones.

Operation Board Games is Illinois’ latest corruption scandal, and the name of a federal law enforcement crackdown on alleged extortion of individuals and companies doing business with state boards.

Obama and the investment funds he promoted are not implicated in any wrongdoing. But the case resulted in Rezko’s indictment last October, sending shivers through the reelection campaign of another of his political friends and beneficiaries, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

The governor’s supporters questioned the timing of that indictment, coming one month before the November 2006 election. Nonetheless, Blagojevich won reelection in a tough race.

On Rezko the L.A. Times falls flat. The Obama/Rezko house story they get wrong. Here is the accurate, and well documented, house story as reported in Obama Fights The Facts (and don’t miss A NewNewDeal’s comments):

In Obama’s $925,000 Question we pointed out that Obama wanted to buy a house he could not afford (See the Chicago Tribune article Rezko Owns Vacant Lot Next To Obama’s Home). Lack of money did not prevent Obama from obtaining the house. Obama simply went to his slumlord friend Rezko and got the slumlord friend to purchase part of the property. Obama obtained the valuable property with a $1.65 million dollar house on it for a discount of $300,000. Obama’s slumlord friend paid full price for a yard full of grass. At the time the slumlord friend was reported to be under investigation for corruption and kickbacks.

[We want to also note that both properties were originally 1 property. This very clear fact is constantly missed. Obama went to the sellers and asked them to split the property in 2 so he could buy the house at a discount and Obama’s slumlord friend Rezko would buy the yard for full price. In the words of the Chicago Tribune, “The same day the Obamas closed on the house, the Rezkos closed on the purchase of the adjoining vacant lot, which once was the estate’s lush side yard.”]

Here is the L.A. Times’s flawed version of the Obama/Rezko house scandal:

It remains to be seen whether any fallout from Rezko’s case will cloud Obama’s presidential campaign.

Already the senator has had to admit to poor judgment in a personal transaction involving his financial patron. It arose during Obama’s purchase of his current house.

In 2005, after winning his U.S. Senate seat, Obama bought a Hyde Park home for $1.65 million. But there was a glitch. The seller also wanted to sell an adjoining strip of vacant land, according to an account in the Chicago Tribune, which first disclosed details of the transaction.

Rezko’s wife, Rita, stepped in to buy it. The Rezkos later sold back a 10-foot portion of that strip to the Obamas, and they have since transferred the remaining strip to their attorney.

Obama, who appears to have benefited from the odd transaction, concedes his role in it was “boneheaded.”

The L.A. Times gets this right:

Rezko remains part of the history that is likely to trail Obama into the presidential campaign. His federal trial is scheduled to begin in February, during the opening rounds of the 2008 Democratic primary season.

Maybe someone can clue Dan Morain (dan.morain@latimes.com) in on the full facts from his otherwise excellent story.

Oprah should read Dan Morain’s article as well.

Share

27 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s Mob, Part II

  1. Well, wow, that’s a long post! haha… but well done, good job.
    Let’s now just hope that the big media actually start picking up some of this stuff, I mean this silly wish of theirs to have a horse race is far gone, so they might as well just bring all this stuff out.
    It’s not like they begin to research just a few weeks before election time, they should know this stuff by now, why not report it?

    And just to comment on a paragraph from one of the articles you link to.
    I find this just despicable, by Oprah, none other: at that fund raiser:Saying she is engaged in making him the next President. Introducing Obama, Winfrey said that “nobody can stand in the way of destiny.” Well….it seems the two of them deserve one another!! Both are like blow up dolls, full of air and high on themselves.

  2. Oprah after being battered may come and say “I made a mistake people…I let my exitment for Obama cloud my judgements. I am deeply sorry. Truth matters” This is what she said after the Million Little Pieces expose to save her skin! It will be no different this time around.

  3. Extremely long post. But there is so much stuff on this guy that needs to be documented for use later on. 🙂 Also, we make sure to document every charge which makes posts longer but also impervious to attack.

    As to the “destiny” part of Oprah’s remarks, hopefully they are not Bush type religious nutjobbery but just Oprah and her ‘visualization’ and “The Secret” techniques that she loves so much.

  4. Secret,

    Did you read the poll I posted the other day on Oprah’s effect?

    Foxnews/Opinion Dynamics Poll: Can Oprah Save Obama?

    Does Oprah Wilfrey’s endorsement of Obama make you more likely or less likely to vote him for president?
    DC pundits have been telling us it’s going to be a huge boost… Okay, here we go…

    Among democrats

    More likely 18
    Less likely 25
    No difference 54

    Among independents

    More likely 7
    Less likely 30
    No difference 60

    Among all voters

    More likely 13
    Less likely 30
    No difference 50

    Alexroa must be pulling his moustache again…

  5. Yup kostner I saw that! And my heart started beating again!! haha, nah nah not that bad, I really don’t care much for her, it’s just that she seems to bring out the worst in me, and I don’t like it when other people have that power over me, makes me realize I can be rather weak who let them, hehe.

    Admin seriously tho it’s a good post, and what makes it so good is the fact that you show the facts!! I hope you have some connections in the big media world and let them know, rather aggressively I hope, that they need to get up off their asses and start typing these stories.

  6. Rudy is confused…

    THE frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph Giuliani, has attacked Hillary Clinton’s attempts to represent herself as a new “Iron Lady” by accusing her of surrendering to the hard left over the Iraq war.

    Giuliani flies into London this week to give the inaugural Margaret Thatcher lecture, organised by the Atlantic Bridge think tank. He will be awarded the Margaret Thatcher medal of freedom by the original Iron Lady, 81, who is revered by American conservatives.

    The former New York mayor has accused Clinton of pandering to left-wing Democrats by casting doubt on the testimony of General David Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq, on the progress of the US troop surge.

    “I don’t think Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting,” said Giuliani.

    He went on the offensive against Clinton after she said Petraeus’s report required “the willing suspension of disbelief”. He won praise from Republicans by claiming she was echoing MoveOn.org, a left-wing group, which attacked General “Betray Us” in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times for “cooking the books” on behalf of the White House.

    Giuliani took out his own full-page advertisement on Friday, accusing Clinton of “spewing political venom” against a decorated soldier committed to defending America.

    When Clinton launched her presidential bid, Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman, said she would be as tough as Thatcher on national security. But the New York senator has been under pressure from Barack Obama and other Democratic rivals over her Senate vote in favour of authorising the Iraq war. She refused to condemn MoveOn.org, despite widespread criticism of its advert.

    Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff and a member of the Iraq Study Group, set up last year to advise on strategy, said Democrats should “certainly dissociate themselves” from MoveOn.org’s attack on Petraeus.

    But Panetta also claimed “Hillary is more like Thatcher” than Giuliani. “Women who have been leaders in recent history have been pretty tough ladies and that certainly fits Hillary Clinton. They have to be tough on national security in order to survive the kind of attacks that the Rudy Giulianis will bring against them.”

    “America’s mayor”, as Giuliani was called after the September 11 terror strikes of 2001, has galvanised Republicans with his attacks on Clinton when he is under pressure from Fred Thompson, the latest entrant to the 2008 presidential race. Giuliani contends that he is the only candidate able to defeat Clinton by challenging her across America. Thompson, the former senator for Tennessee and a Hollywood actor, is picking up strong support from social conservatives in the South.

    Addressing voters in Atlanta, Georgia, last week, Giuliani said: “I’m the only Republican who can carry out a 50-state campaign. If we nominate one of the other candidates, the Democrats can run a 20-25 state campaign against us.”

    Giuliani vowed to make New York, New Jersey, California, Oregon and Connecticut competitive for Republicans for the first time in years. He also brushed off criticism that he is too socially liberal on issues such as abortion and gun control to be acceptable to the Republican party base.

    “It is an extreme asset to be the candidate with the most experience in this race. I’m running against three Democrats who have never run a city, never run a state and never run a business,” Giuliani said.

    The polls support his contention that he is the best placed candidate to defeat Clinton. Nevertheless, she has not only opened a formidable lead against Obama, her nearest Democratic rival, but is also moving ahead of her Republican opponents. The latest polls show the former first lady cruising ahead of Giuliani by 48% to 44% and crushing Thompson by 51% to 42%.

    But Giuliani’s fightback has given Republicans heart. In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, a neoconservative magazine, Matthew Connetti writes that Giuliani’s bold “politics of confrontation” against Clinton “emphasises to conservatives that he is on their side”.

    George Will, a leading conservative commentator, claimed last week Thompson would be like “new Coke” when it launched in 1985. “Then the question was: is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged [into the White House race].”

    Will has described Giuliani’s conservatism as having “the flavour of Margaret Thatcher’s, of whom it was said she could not pass a government institution without swatting it with her handbag”.

    Thompson beat Giuliani to a meeting with Thatcher last summer. The baroness’s blessing is eagerly sought by Republican candidates, who regard her as an earthly representative of the late President Ronald Reagan. Unlike the other candidates, however, Giuliani was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2002 for his steadfastness during the 9/11 attacks.

    Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani’s senior policy adviser, said Giuliani would emphasise the “common goals” shared by Britain and America in his lecture. “We’ve both been attacked and our freedoms are linked. This is a fight we need to win.”

  7. Giuliani is so hapless. He is such a weak candidate against Clinton. Maybe he can run on who looks better in a cocktail dress. LOL. Too bad our girl wins again.

  8. from the article above:

    “He will be awarded the Margaret Thatcher medal of freedom…”

    “Giuliani was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2002 for his steadfastness during the 9/11 attacks.”

    What a shame we people are so easily misled by headlines and labels and so eager to throw ourselves on to someone/something which in the moment can keep us grounded. Only to emerge later to soberness with a thumping headache!!

  9. Guess what? Giuliani’s new ad attacking Hillary uses images of Petraeus without the Pentagon’s permission, lol (via talkingpointsmemo.com):

    Rudy’s new political ad attacking Hillary Clinton features multiple pictures of General Petraeus in uniform — but now the Pentagon says that the General “has not condoned” the use of his image in Rudy’s ad or any other political ads, adding that it was done “without his consent.”

    Rudy’s Web ad — launched yesterday — features images of a uniformed Petraeus as a narrator’s voice in the background accuses Clinton of slandering the General. In the ad, the Giulilani campaign also faults Clinton for not forcefully condemning a MoveOn ad in The Times that also features a picture of Petraeus.

    Giuliani’s ad, in addition to featuring multiple pictures of Petraeus in uniform, also features photos of uniformed American soldiers in Iraq that are “shown as Mrs. Clinton is accused of turning her back on them,” as today’s New York Times piece on the ad puts it. You can view the ad here, on Giuliani’s campaign Web site.

    Defense Department regulations prohibit uniformed personnel from appearing in political ads. And while these are stock photos, meaning that neither Petraeus nor the other military personnel actively moved to appear in Giuliani’s ad, their use in this ad makes the question of whether Petraeus or the Defense Department condone the use of images of him or other military uniformed personnel a fair one.

    It also raises the question of whether the Giuliani campaign perhaps should have asked Petraeus’ permission to use his image in the ad — particularly since the ad is designed to portray him as respectful of the General while painting Clinton as disrespectful, even disdainful, towards the top commander in Iraq.

    So we posed the question to Petraeus’ spokesman, Colonel Steven Boylan: Does General Petraeus condone the use of his image in political ads? He emailed this reply:

    “General Petraeus has not condoned the use of his photo in political ads. Use of his photos in recent ads was without his consent or advance knowledge.”

    We’ve emailed the Giuliani campaign for comment about this, asking whether Petraeus should have been informed of the use of his image in a political ad in advance. We also asked whether the ad would continue to remain posted now that Petraeus’s spokesperson has confirmed that he “has not condoned” its use in any political ad.

  10. The conservatives on McCaughlin, with the exception of Eleanor Clift, who has to scream to be heard…all were very self- satisfied with the week for Bush saying it was a win for him and Petraeus, and they said it was one of Hilary’s first gaffes to say she had to “suspend disbelief” to listen to Pet’s report. I would say they are FOS. What do you guys think?

  11. admin,

    Clark’s endorsement starts to neutralize the rabid pro-war Mattt Stroller, he just wrote a front page diary…
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1380

    Wes Clark’s Endorsement Matters to Me

    In conclusioin, he wrote:”So Clark announcing for Clinton matters to me, because I trust his judgment and his capacity for vision. I don’t support Clinton, I don’t support her policies, and I don’t expect to support her candidacy in this primary. But if Clark believes that she can meet the challenges necessary to be a President who can help America, then that is something I have to take very seriously. Moreover, should Clark hold a cabinet level position or a VP slot, it would show that Clinton is moving in a much more progressive direction, and that is something I would be quite pleased to see.”

    Does inevitability get to Matt or is Matt on a day of rare sanity? Will he go off the deep end tomorrow and return to insanity? We shall see…

    LOL.

  12. Kitforhill, they are not just FOS, they are floridly delusional. First, Hillary attacked the message not the messenger. Second, the progress report omitted important metrics like the increasing number of US casualties, took credit for the sunrise in terms of minor redeployment, and was nothing more than a continuation of stay the course. Third, Patreaus’s boss has a less rosy assessment, has commissioned his own report and will be called upon to testify in the weeks ahead, according to Oberman. Fourth, CNN has a great reporter named Michael Weir who has been embedded in Iraq since the beginning of the war, knows more about the political/military situation than anyone, and his assessment is grim. Under the circumstances the words suspension of disbelief seem rather euphemsitic do they not? The only gaff here is President Bush.

  13. Kostner, the below last 2 paragraphs are an excerpt from a response earlier today to MJ.

    To answer your question it is inevitability getting to the nuts. Recall also that Stoller while supposedly supporting Clark in 2004 indulged at every opportunity in repeatedly attacking the Clark campaign for not being grassroots enough. He was joined in these attacks by Newberry who is less visible these days. But the Big Blogs and Stoller and that type will, even when Hillary has the nomination, attack her at every opportunity to bend her to their will.

    They will in future preface their anti-Hillary rants with “as a Hillary Clinton supporter … [insert attack against Hillary here]… :

    The nonsense that so many are spewing today, that they so much respect Clark that they have to take his judgment into consideration is pure hillarity. Again, Stalinist revision of history.

    “MJ even the dumbest and most self-interested Big Blog owners have to realize that Hillary has this nomination sewn up. Most recognize that Edwards simply does not have the money, the organization, nor the message to get the support he needs to win; Obama has the money but his campaign is so inept and sinking that he won’t make it either. Also, a lot of the Big Bloggers came in with the Dean tide and they still resent Robert Gibbs and his ugly, grotesque advertisment merging Osama Bin Laden with Howard Dean.

    Some are trying to make peace with the eventual nominee and president in order to preserve their little niches. Kos just wants controversy to keep getting hits, ergo ad dollars to his site. Kos will trash all candidates to get those money generating hits.”

  14. This really made me mad as hell. Washingtonpost has another Hus front page story. It’s complete crap. They interviewed lots of donors and found NO illegal activities, they can’t figure out the motivation why these folks would donate. The entire article is full of racist overtone. It is a disagrace. Complete crap!

  15. Justice Frankfurter once said “We should never despair when wisdom comes late because too often it never comes at all.” As you say, in the case of Stroller, we shall soon find out which it is.

  16. Alan Greenspan, former fed chairman and a self confessed liberal Republican, is showering praise on Bill Clinton, scorn on George Bush, over their respective fiscal policies. This is good news for Hillary, and obviously confirms what she is saying. Also it provides a possible line of attack against Saint Rudy since the one stump speech I saw him make on C-Span on fiscal matters sounded like Bush dittohead http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003885603_fedbook15.html

  17. Gosh, stupid EE opens her mouth and launches another tirade against President Clinton…

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1660946_1661334_1661288,00.html

    Fast-forward four presidential cycles, and Hillary is leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination, while Bill is the one learning to fit himself into the supporting role. With a spouse who can be counted on to outshine the candidate, her campaign has had to handle the former president as carefully as a tactical nuclear weapon. “A lot of people might have expected him to be out immediately, and instead, he’s sort of behind the scenes and on the phone and doing fund raising,” says Elizabeth Edwards, 58. “It is clearly more complicated for them … I’m just glad that’s their problem, not mine.”

  18. Even Elizabeth Edwards, for all her outspokenness, agrees. “There are certain baseline things people require in a First Lady — a graciousness,” she says. “There is sort of a sense of maternal capabilities that we might be looking for. I don’t think that in any way disqualifies Bill, but I do think that if it’s a woman, they’re looking perhaps for something like that.”

  19. Ok, sidetrack- I’ve decided maybe Kos was doing me a favor not posting a front page after my post. I found myself referenced on other blogger sites as “a guy for daily kos was there”. I’m a girl, though. But I have to admit it was fun to diary something that got over 1000 comments. So, perhaps I should not have criticized.

  20. Wow, I think the Clark endorsement is even bigger than I thought. Lot’s of former Clark supporters are on her blog saying if he’s for her, they are too!

  21. The Clark endorsement has taken the wind out of the sails of the opposition. Here is another article which details why Hillary is so strong.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucds/20070915/cm_ucds/hillaryclintonisnowtheonetobeat

    “These things happen quietly, subtly, without pronouncements, sometimes without anyone ever noticing they are occurring. But often — not always, mind you — one candidate surges to such an advantageous position in the fight for a presidential nomination that the contender suddenly becomes the front-runner. It just happened.

    It’s not quite clear what celestial or temporal event prompted it. No one took a straw vote (the Republicans did that, and they still have no front-runner), and no one caucused. It’s not a mainstream media conspiracy, either. It’s just a discernible adjustment in the political climate. But find me someone who thinks, deep in his or her heart, that Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t in the strongest position right now in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.”

  22. As Hillary will be revealing her Health Care proposal tomorrow, I read this piece and thought I’d throw it in here, slightly off topic tho, I apologize.

    Romney asserted. “The last thing we need is ‘Hillary care.’ The last thing we need is socialized medicine.”
    You know MANY countries around the world, especially in Europe has this, and it’s wonderful!!

    But check out the response from a Hillary spokesman, it’s a beauty:
    Mark Daley, a Clinton spokesman, brushed off the comments. “Considering Governor Romney’s penchant for flip-flopping, he will be the first to endorse it on Monday,” Daley cracked.

  23. Wes Clark will be on the CNN show Late Edition today.

    Jim Webb will be on C-Span’s Newsmakers today.

    Check local listings. Newsmakers usually airs at 10:00 a.m.

  24. New York Daily News Reporter Michael Goodwing has asks why Hillary said the surge was working a few months ago, then criticized the Patreaus report. Tactically, it may well be working in the short term based on selective metrics. Strategically, however, the opposite is true, because the political reconciliation, which is sine qua non for sustainable success remains elusive as ever. In short, these two statements by Mrs. Clinton are entirely accurate. I suspect the Admiral Fallon will say the same thing when he testifies beore congress. In sum, there is no inconsistency here.

  25. I think the Hillary campaign waited for the right moment to release the Clark endorsement, and Saturday was the perfect time because it came in the middle of Rudy’s stupid attacks.

    BTW, kitforhill, I wouldn’t worry about people on the McLaughlin panel. Conservatives are desperate for any sliver of good news, so they’re all excited about Rudy going after Hillary. Let ’em.

    Should Rudy win the nomination, he’ll be in for he fight of his life against our girl.

Comments are closed.