« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Obama Spends 3 Hours with Chicago Press to Chat about Rezko
Late last week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) sat down with The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun-Times for 90 minutes each to answer questions about all things Tony Rezko.
As a result, the Tribune's editorial board pronounced themselves satisfied:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.
The outcome of the more combative Sun-Times interview seemed similar, so that near the end, there was this exchange:
Q: Comparing the benign-ness of the fact pattern and the trouble it's caused you, do you think you've mishandled this at all?A: I think that running for president is a series of gauntlets you have to run. And I think that we could have - setting aside the initial mistake which I deserve some blame for, I have acknowledged publicly - I think that understanding that there would be heightened interest in me, that Rezko had been finally indicted and arrested, that there was gonna be a need for us to do this again, I think was, it probably would have been good for us to do earlier. There's no doubt about it.
The main revelation of the two interviews was that Rezko had raised about $100,000 more for Obama than the campaign had disclosed before, making it a total of approximately $250,000. The reason for the discrepancy, Obama explained, was that it was impossible to discover just what contributions Rezko had been responsible for in his state senate and run for the House in 2000. Obama estimated that Rezko helped raise between $50,000 to $60,000 in his run for the House and the remainder for his three state senate campaigns.
And about that house deal. Obama was much clearer about the timeline of how Rezko came to be involved in the deal. Remember that Rezko purchased the side yard of Obama house, raising suspicions that Rezko had helped out as a favor to Obama.
But Obama explained for the first time that there had been a bid on the yard before Obama had even bid on the home, a bid by a developer who had worked for Rezko in the past. Obama did not know how Rezko was able to take over that bid, but was clear that the purchase of the side yard had nothing to do with his purchase of the home:
"The house purchase was negotiated between ourselves and the seller. It was not contingent on the lot. The lot had nothing to do with the sale of the house, and the sellers confirm it."
(The Tribune has posted an email (pdf) from the seller, who has refused to speak to the media, confirming the main points of Obama's story.)
And then there's the question of what Obama knew about Rezko's legal troubles and when he knew it. As we pointed out in our timeline of Obama's ties to Rezko, Rezko's troubles had broken onto The Chicago Tribune's front page before the house deal closed, and well before Obama purchased a sliver of land from Rezko in January of 2006.
Obama explains that he had been reading the Tribune's stories (which by late 2005, had made it clear that Rezko was under federal investigation), but that he had been inclined to give Rezko the benefit of the doubt, because over their fifteen year relationship he "had never asked me for anything." That was why he was "not as focused as [he] should have been on the potential appearances involved." Still, Obama said that he should have been more aware about "the potential conflicts of interest" involved in owning property next to Rezko, and that "a larger problem is me having bought the strip of land," which he called a "bad idea,... a boneheaded move, and a mistake that I regret."
Obama only discussed Rezko's legal problems later, shortly before he was indicted:
"At that point, I do remember saying to him how's it going because I'm reading these problems. And his response was that his lawyers had been talking to the U.S. Attorney's office and it's all getting resolved. That was the sum total."
Obama also took questions on the Sun-Times' story about letters from Obama in 1998, some seven years before the house sale, urging Illinois and Chicago officials to provide funding for a Rezko company to build apartments for senior citizens. That story had been a challenge to Obama's assertions that he'd done nothing for Rezko. Obama responded that such letters had been a routine part of his state senate duties and so routine that it was sent out by his office without his knowledge.
Comments (38)
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you telling me that in his official role, Obama advocated building housing for senior citizens? The horror! The horror! The man is obviously a criminal. How could any sane person support his nomination now?
March 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Results Now Posted Instantly!
Check Back Weekly For New Polls!
March 17, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we stop the spam already?
Thanks.
March 19, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama said that he should have been more aware about "the potential conflicts of interest" involved in owning property next to Rezko, and that "a larger problem is me having bought the strip of land," which he called a "bad idea,... a boneheaded move, and a mistake that I regret."
So Bonehead, er Barack wants us to give him a free pass to the presidency based on his JUDGMENT?!?
March 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
judgment on iraq trumps all other judgments
March 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's compare lapses in judgement.
Buying a strip of land from Rezko vs. Voting for the Iraq war.
hmmm, one has led to thousands of American deaths while the other has, ummm, well...give me a minute.
March 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another comparison:
Transparency: Doing these Tribune and Sun-Times interviews vs. Hillary's refusal to (as yet) release her tax returns or her White House records.
A further comparison:
Tony Rezko vs. Norman Hsu and Marc Rich vs. Charles Keating, Vicki Iseman and Lowell "Bud" Paxson.
March 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Obama declares war on that strip of land he bought, I'd say he's still the candidate with the best judgment.
March 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha
Maybe Obama could offer up the strip of land from his error in judgement to house the refugees from Clinton's error in judgement?
That'd offer a pretty stark juxtaposition.
March 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What more does anyone want on this? Obama and Obama's people need to make sure that this gets widely disseminated and remarked upon. In other words, get that horse going before Hillary's fixers get a chance to skew the story.
March 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a friend that swindled many people out of millions of dollars through real estate fraud, including me and my family for about 30,000. It took a while for me to see firsthand what he was doing, even though I was directly involved, and I continued to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I didn't want to believe that someone I knew well could steal from me that way. But once I found out that indeed that's what he did, I ended any respect or friendship with him. He went to jail, having been proven guilty in court.
If I was running for office, and my political opponents were trying to associate me with my friend, who went to jail for his crimes, I would see those ties as completely ridiculous.
Similarly, Obama has a lame-friend problem... people he has no trouble distancing from and denouncing, to rightfully clean himself up for national acceptance. This is much better than ignoring or defending the dirty ties, as usually happens with political candidates. I give Barack an A-, but with major points of extra credit for 3 hours of Q&A with the press on a sensitive subject.
March 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word...Whitewater
I'll see your boneheaded real estate deal and raise you.
No was has perfect judgment but Barack’s is better than Hillary’s.
March 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES-- come on! Pack up the furniture Bill. We're bringing it back from whence it came.
March 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad truth is that none of the current Presidential candidates are immune from this type of relationship. McCain and Clinton have both had financial supporters that acted stupid and possibly illegally. It would be great if Obama didn't have that type of mistake, but in today's politics that's just not going to happen.
Combine this with the Wright issue, and the public now knows he is not St. Obama, which is probably a good thing to get out of the way sooner rather than later. I still believe if you compare the Presidential Judgment that all three candidates would display, Obama is still the far better option.
March 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you repeating this story -- this is old news. At least he's willing to get the truth out there unlike two other candidates I know of.
March 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine Hillary sitting down with an editorial board for 3 hours to discuss an alleged scandal? Just asking...
March 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
doesn't TPM hate on Tim Russert all the time? this lede and emphasis is nearly a carbon copy of Russert's on Meet the Press yesterday. the STORY with Obama's sit-down is not that he gave answers (again), but the VERDICT handed to him by the Tribune (the paper who has done the vast majority of reporting and research on the Rezko matter):
the Chicago Tribune,
"We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.
When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.
Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."
just essentially exonerated Obama on Rezko, which most of us knew was a non-story to begin with. yet i see a single line in this piece, without a relevant quote, that addresses this point.
March 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gerbil (hah! luv that name-- So befitting!)
From the looks of this, and past posts, you're tunneling deep in some repub propagandist's hole, just like HRC. I await your endorsement of McCain with great anticipation.
Your numbnuts statement regarding the MI primary was a classic symptomatic example of a methane ravaged brain.
When HRC finally provides her tax returns and WH diahrea's, will you call for 92 minutes of grilling for each of her questionable actions? Or, will she come out voluntarily?
Breath deep and long before you answer...
I look forward to more of your "deep" thoughts in the coming weeks.
March 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the media were truly as anti-Clinton as some think, they might focus similar attention on Christopher Korge, one of the Clinton fund-raisers from FL who threatened to ask for his DNC contributions back if FL delegates are not seated. They would report that "A 2002 Miami-Dade Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report concluded that minority involvement in the deal was ‘neither real, meaningful, nor legitimate’.”
They would report that his cousin, Alex Dauod, a former mayor of Miami Beach was sent to prison for 18 months for bribery, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion. After getting out of prison, he wrote a book claiming he protected Korge from similar charges.
March 17, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait.
I thought he did ask for his contributions back and was returned them.
March 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter what he says at this point.
Once the explaining begins, the issue is a liability.
It is one more doubt that will feed into the questions of his judgment and leadership along with Wright, the blocking of the re-vote, the Michelle quote and on and on. He's known as a good poker player and people will question whether his whole candidacy is just one big bluff with his true aganda not coming to light until it is too late.
Critical mass with these doubts is near and swing voters will start to flee.
March 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pray tell, what is the "true agenda" that he's waiting to spring on us? I'll bet Ferraro has some good conspiracy theories on the matter.
March 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not blocking the re-vote.
March 17, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impossible to prove bad intent on any of this. There is no letter from Rezko saying he is buying a side lot for Obama's use, or one back from Obama saying that it is starting to look bad so I better buy a strip of that side lot and put up a fence.
If that is what the Trib wants to call exoneration, I guess he is exonerated. Doesn't mean the truth is not obvious to anyone with common sense.
March 17, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it turns out after weeks of hyperventilating that his story is about:
A) The fact that politicians by necessity know a lot of wheelers and dealers.
B) The fact that Barack Obama bought a house.
How will he ever overcome the taint of this scandal? I have a house. I guess my political prospects are shot.
March 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Clinton would like to sit down and discuss her tax returns for 90 minutes?
March 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, let us compare scandal and psuedo scandal baggage of the candidates, shall we?
1. Obama: Rezko.
2. McCain: Keating Seven.
3. Hillary: Whitewater, Travelgate, Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, Boratgate (that's Bill's, but they're a team, right?) . . . Those are just the ones I come up with without even digging into my memory.
And Hillary's people seriously want to keep harping about how Rezko reflects on Obama's judgment? At least McCain has the sense to know when his record's worse.
March 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how many times will this have to be explained?
The man does not know how to operate in a highly charged political landscape.
The bloom is off St. Obama. His judgement has been shown to be poor. It is no longer a campaign asset. McCain will ream him on this.
What's he got now? Nothing but plagiarized words, vaporware, promises and a lot of controversial baggage.
It is over for him. the question now is will the party leadership do what is needed to ensure a Dem victory?
March 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately they won't. They've been intimidated by the threats of mayhem at the convention if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama. I'm afraid the ship has sailed. Hello Pres. McCain.
March 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the words he "plagiarized" at the request and suggestion of the person who spoke them?
Believe me when I say this: I can't wait to let America see the contrasts between Barack Obama and John W. McCain. The Party Leadership are going to want to see that contrast too. Either that or send Hillary out to run against her close friend... I'm sure THAT's going to maximize the Dems advantage in the GE.
For your sake, I hope these comments were satire, fogu2...
March 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the explaining continues:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_plans_major_race_speech_tomorrow.html
March 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: Judgment you can trust.
March 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know how someone develops judgment? By making mistakes, recognizing they are mistakes and then not doing those things again. Obama recognizes when he makes mistakes and doesn't repeat them. Clinton maintains that she *never* makes a mistake .... and then after voting for intervention in Iraq, she votes for the first step for intervention in Iran, and .... and .... and ..... But of course she has better judgment because she never makes a mistake. Just ask her.
March 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among the things I love about Obama, his incredible ability to speak and explain. Remember Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs? He addressed the American people, said I screwed up. We loved him for his honesty. Intelligent Americans know mistakes can be made. They simply want their leaders to treat them to the respect of straight answers. Once again, he leads.
I'm an Obama Grandmama!
March 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth,
Wisdom is yours-- you are a ray of hope. Something the "Clintonites" can't seem to grasp. We used to call it: "Reasoning".
I never disliked the Clintons before now... But, I soon realized, they became "unreasonable". This is what happens when you present an unjustifiable position and try to justify it to "reasonable" people. People like Elizabeth begin to sense it early on: something smells in Denmark-- then--the stench can no longer be ignored. They are compelled to body-slam bullshit with a thoughtful (yet obvious) statement that should go without saying, in most circumstances.
It is in keeping with the above that I ask of fogu2: "Pul--ease, give me a friggin break!"
March 17, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul. You left out an important part of the Sun interview. When Obama wanted to buy the 10 feet of land next to his house from Rezko he had it appraised. The appraisal was $40,000. The builder Rezko had lined up for developing the empty lot did not want the 10 feet (average with of a lot in the neighborhood was 50 ft.) and Rezko agreed to that price.
But Rezko had paid $624,000 for the 60 foot parcel. So, just to keep bonehead or dishonest journalists from thinking somethin fishy was going on, Obama paid Rezko 1/6 of what Rezko had paid, or $104,000.
The Tribune and Sun had attempted to fabricate a fairy tail that Rezko had helped Obama buy the house by buying the adjoining lot. However, doing the math, something journalists are not trained to do, might actually lead one to assume instead that it was Rezko who needed Obama's help. Imagine that - a politician giving a $64,000 kickback to a developer!
March 18, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink