"Yes We Can" Run from Rezko...

but we can't hide, huh, Senator Obama?

So sorry about your losses - hey, remember THIS neo-con gem? "You lost. Get over it."

Sen.
Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417 :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES ::
Commentary

Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312)
321-2417

March 4, 2008

Jury selection began Monday in
the trial of political influence peddler Tony Rezko. This would be the time --
before a single witness takes the stand -- for
Barack Obama to finally share every detail of his relationship with Rezko.

Rezko stands accused of funneling state business to
companies that lined his pockets and made campaign contributions to Gov.
Blagojevich. Rezko allegedly directed $10,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the
U.S. Senate.

The criminal charges against Rezko in no way implicate
Obama in any wrongdoing, but they do raise the question of dealings between the
two men.

As recently as Sunday, on ABC's
"This Week" program, Obama's campaign strategist, David Axelrod, insisted that
Obama has fully responded to every question posed by reporters. But this is not
so.

For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters
have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to
questions such as these:

• How many fund-raisers did
Rezko throw for Obama?

• Obama is donating $150,000 to
charity that Rezko brought into the campaign. But how much in all did Rezko
raise?

• Did Rezko find jobs for Obama backers in the
Blagojevich administration or elsewhere?

• Why did Obama
only recently admit -- after Bloomberg News broke the story -- that Rezko had
toured his South Side mansion with him in 2004 before he bought it?

Dribs and drabs of people's lives have a most unfortunate way of
coming out in trials.

Related Blog
Posts

More
On Obama And His Rezko Avoidance Affliction

From Chicagoray's
Views And News

Obama’s
Tangles With Press Over Rezko

Obama is a fraud.

Calling All Democratic Sheeple!

Once upon a time, facts mattered to thinking Democrats - and during that time, certain folks emerged who became bastions of truth for us - peoples' whose credibility we evaluated as solid and strong.

But for some odd reason, it appears that, unlike the neocons whom we took delight in labeling as "sheeple," we naively thought that blind ignorance was an assignment only applicable to them. Little did we know that within our very own base, we had huge flocks of our own, just waiting for their little "baa's" to be heard.

Fortunately, those same bastions of truth have continued to put forward the truth - particularly as it pertains to Senator Chameleon Obama even though those who have evidently taken leave of their sanity bow at his feet waiting for "the light to shine upon them." Frightening? You bet. Blasphemous? Indeed.

But for those who continue to seek the truth around this individual I've previously referred to as "Flim Flam Man," here's our own Larry C. Johnson's take on him. Read it and weep:

Obama’s Judgment on the Eve of Judgment Day
By Larry Johnson on
March 1, 2008 at 1:14 PM in Current Affairs

Although NoQuarter has made
a concerted effort to focus attention on Barack Obama’s lack of experience and
questionable judgment, it appears that the main steam media finally is starting
to ask some questions that should have been raised months ago. Consider Barack’s
stance on Afghanistan. For almost a year, Barack has been pretty clear about the
policy he would pursue. During a speech in August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson
Center, Barack said:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President,
we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five
elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and
Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the
terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up
support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more
resilient homeland.

He went on to say with respect to Afghanistan:

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to
Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s
efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends
must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered
NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving
the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan
soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the
mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military — it is
political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by
$1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact
ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy
farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and
support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and
increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

So what is the problem? I think these are sound positions. However, ff
Barack genuinely believed what he was saying, why did he not use his status as
the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs to
examine the validity of using NATO in Afghanistan?

This is not a
bullshit question. The U.S. decision to turn to NATO to help us out in
Afghanistan was old news by the time Barack became chairman in 2007. NATO
started ramping up troops in Afghanistan in December 2005. When January 2007
rolled around Barack was in a unique position, by virtue of his chairmanship, to
do a series of hearings that, for example, on the challenges facing the United
States in Afghanistan and the viability of relying on NATO. But Barack says he
was “too busy” running for President.

Sorry, but that is a lame excuse.
Are we expected to believe that he was incapable of putting together at least
one hearing that would have helped burnish his limited foreign policy
credentials? This is more than a tactical mistake. For me it is a question of
his judgment and his political vision. This smacks of someone who is so
intellectually lazy or incurious that he failed to recognize the opportunity
dropped into his lap. He wants to run for President. Foreign policy issues are a
critical part of the upcoming campaign. And what does he do to bolster that part
of a thin resume? Nothing.

Unfortunately, this flaw in judgment is not
isolated to his failure to hold a hearing. It appears to be a consistent theme
in his political life. He has more than a passing friendship with an unrepentant
terrorist, William Ayers. And he goes into a questionable real estate deal with
one of his political supporters and fundraisers, Tony Rezko, when Rezko is
facing imminent indictment on Federal corruption charges. Folks with sound
political instincts would know to avoid these kind of situations. It looks wrong
and in politics perception matters.

But Barack’s problems, particularly
with Rezko, go beyond a simple matter of perception. CNN identified some of the
looming pitfalls:


And this Rezko problem in all likelihood will get
worse for Obama in the coining weeks. Tony’s trial starts on Monday. He’s up
against Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald already has sent a former Illinois
Republican governor to jail on corruption charges. He also beat a massive
propaganda campaign in Washington to exonerate Scooter Libby and convicted him
on perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in outing Valerie Plame.
Fitzgerald is not likely to fail.

Rezko does not have George Bush behind
him with a tacit offer of a pardon. Rezko does not have a group of prominent
Washington and political luminaries willing to make excuses for his crimes as
did Scooter Libby. Rezko faces significant fines and jail time. A man under that
kind of pressure will have no second thoughts about throwing other people under
the bus. Senator Obama, who received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rezko
in his previous campaigns, who had a real estate deal with him, who intervened
on his behalf on government matters, is very likely to get dirtied up in this
trial. As the political season enters June, the American people may be asking
the question, how venal is Obama?

I do not begrudge Barack his ambition.
He is a shrewd politician. But I also see a consistent pattern of flawed
judgment. Not holding hearings on what NATO could or should do in Afghanistan
and buying property with a guy who is the target of a Federal corruption probe
are radically different issues but reflect the same lack of sound judgment.
Obama’s questionable judgment on these issues outweigh his 2002 opposition to
the war in Iraq in my book.

Regardless of what happens in the upcoming
Tuesday primaries, these issues will not go away. And as the public learns more
about the real Barack Obama, the bloom on his rose is likely to fade and fade
dramatically.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------