Before I go to bed tonight I just wanted to make a mention about the Democratic Primary. For all intents and purposes this thing is over tomorrow. After March, there was no way Hillary was going to catch Obama, so in a very real sense this thing has been over for a while now. But tomorrow Obama will clinch the magic number needed to claim the nomination and with Florida and Michigan settled, there is nothing left in this primary race. I'm not sure if Hillary will suspend her campaign tomorrow night or sometime next week but really it doesn't matter. The Clinton's, if nothing else, are not dumb people and they know when the end of the road has come. She will bow out on her own and by her own initiative.
As I've mentioned on this site before, I'm all for this going to the convention. That's how nominees have been selected for a majority of this country's history. Having another go to the convention does not signal the end of a political party despite what Fox News may say. What I've never been in favor of is the dream ticket. I'm certainly in no position to know what is going on behind the scenes tonight and maybe into the long night tomorrow but if it does happen to be an Obama-Hillary dream ticket I will support it. Grudgingly so, but I will support my Party.
Whatever Hillary's capacity will be for Barack Obama after tomorrow, her first job will be as uniter. She's created history with her campaign. No she's defied history with her campaign and in some instances slapped history right in the face. There isn't enough that can be said about what she's accomplished. If it is history that she has intricated then only very few humans have ever complexed it as much, or even had the ability to write such a narrative. We all should strive to matter just a tenth of what she has in her life.
6.02.2008
When It's Over It's Over
5.13.2008
Just Do It Already
Looking into the Democratic prism, I'm going to say something I've been arguing against for almost two years. In 2004 after Kerry lost I had a bunch of Republican friends ask me who I thought would run in '08. My first choice was Gore. My argument was that history was on his side. My second choice was a very popular newly elected US Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. A majority of my friends said it would not happen. He was too new and too unknown. Being that I'm from Illinois and being that I was at the time working for Obama, I was pretty firm in my thinking. Turns out my Gore hopes were ruined but I was right about Obama.
Since that time I've been arguing against a Hillary presidency as well. I figured that she would run and thought if she did it would be very hard to beat her. The Clinton's are very popular in the Democratic Party and in Middle America. Just take a look at Hillary's current bid and Bill's presidential approval numbers. You'd never know it by watching Fox News, but Bill and Hillary are liked by a majority of Americans. One thing, however, I have been against has been the so-called "Dream Ticket" of Hillary and Obama, or Obama and Hillary. It's more likely to be Obama/Hillary than anything else, but even in '04-'05 I thought the whole thing was a bad idea. Now I'm saying for the love of God, just ask her to take the VP slot and let's move on.
I know, I know. I can't believe I'm saying it either. All along I've figured it to be a bad idea. It would make the ticket too liberal looking. Not "southern" enough. Too non-white male. Yeah all the stereotypes flung throughout my head. But now, after seeing both candidates motivate a generation of Americans, an entire movement all its own, I can see how combining the two together could actually work. There's no guarantee that it will work. I just don't think Obama can take the chance of not having Hillary on the ticket. She will obviously work hard. Bill will obviously be out campaigning and just think of the money they could raise. On top of all that, though, it would be a classic Democratic move that would probably end in colossal failure. Leave it to the Dems to go out and put two Northern left of center candidates on the same ticket, neither of which is a white male, and ruin one of the best chances to retake the White House since 1932. So just do it already and let me sulk in my misery.
5.08.2008
Following Up on the Drug Dealer Effect
Apparently, not that I listen to drug dealers, but apparently Rush Limbaugh couldn't get enough of himself yesterday when discussing his Operation Gay-os and its effect on the Indiana Democratic primary.
"The train would not have come off the tracks of the Obama campaign, were it not for Operation Chaos. The Jeremiah Wright stuff and all that, yes, that would have happened, but nothing could have done anything about it because Mrs. Clinton would have been effectively out of the race, not able to mount a campaign. So we'd be in a far different spot today than we were so the purpose of this is to keep this going -- exactly what's happened.”As I've mentioned a few times, there is no evidence-- none-- that suggests the drug dealer had any effect on the outcome whatsoever. That's not saying there isn't anecdotal evidence that wackos did take Limbaugh's oxy-contin induced advice and vote for Hillary because some surely did. Just not enough to prove any sort of tampering or "effect." Just like Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh is irrelevant when it comes to political discourse. I understand why Obama wants to make it appear as if Hillary has now committed the ultimate Democratic sin by making peace with O'Reilly and Limbaugh, but aside from the spin Obama's wanting to give off, there's nothing in the exit poll data to suggest Limbaugh helped Hillary in Indiana.
From the WaPo:
The Clinton campaign credited its narrow win to the organization of Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and the more than 100 campaign stops made by Clinton and her husband and daughter. Robby Mook, Clinton's Indiana director, said she did better than expected in Indianapolis and in northwestern Indiana, where Obama was expected to benefit from his exposure on Chicago television.
But he [Obama] fared better than the final polls predicted by cutting into Clinton's huge margin among several key groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania, such as white women and white voters without college degrees. He racked up big totals in college towns and with African American voters in Gary and Indianapolis, as expected. But he also won by 22 points in Hamilton County, an affluent Republican-leaning suburb north of Indianapolis; by 12 points in the county that includes Fort Wayne, after losing similar Rust Belt cities elsewhere; and lost by only four points in Evansville, on the southern border.
For every talking point that Limbaugh and his fellow chickenhawks can use to say they tilted the outcome, there's just as much to show that Operation Gay-os had no effect on very large sectors of Republican support. What's more amazing is that a conservative state such as Indiana can have over 1.6 million people show up to vote in a Democratic primary. Of course that story takes a backseat to right wing talking points that a drug dealer claims to tamper with election results.
Not to mention that Obama actually closed a very large gap in Indiana despite the few who did show up on behalf of Limbaugh. Obama was never going to win Indiana anyway. But dang near did.
5.06.2008
Breaking Up Oil Producers
Call me naive but I don't think Hillary's plan of treating oil companies like drug dealers is necessarily the way to go about bringing down gasoline prices. Like Yglesias says, it's not that OPEC nations aren't producing oil, it's that demand has gone up so price invariably goes up. I don't think we as a nation have a very good track record of breaking up drug cartels much less making illegal drugs cheaper. The same would be true for oil cartels. Price wouldn't go down, it would go way up.
Instead of breaking up OPEC how about holding our own government accountable.
As you can see from the nifty image above I stole from ThinkProgress, the overwhelming factor in gasoline prices is crude oil itself. Treating those who produce oil as a cartel doesn't sound very wise to me. Instead we could focus on saving our devalued dollar, or how about ending the war in Iraq which makes the oil producing region entirely unstable adding fears to a very volatile market.
There's no doubt oil companies are price gouging and that Bush who personally makes millions from oil has done nothing to curb the gouging. To me that's where we should start and not bypass our self-created problems and blame it on something we really can't control, like OPEC.
4.17.2008
What's Important to Republicans (Update)
This one is just too easy to pass up.
I'm not sure why but I don't watch debates. I really haven't watched one since 2000. It's probably a combination of already knowing who I'm going to vote for and not having the attention span to watch. I'm terrible at TV and movies. I'm just now getting back into movie watching mode. I went years without going to the movies.
Anyway, David Brooks writes last night after watching the Hillary/Obama debate about what is really important.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.Yes, after five years in Iraq with no end in sight; the person responsible for 9/11 still running free; the largest deficit in our nation's history; the weakest dollar in our nation's history; $4 gasoline; a president with the lowest approval ratings in three generations; a housing crisis about to explode and an economic recession, it's questions about flag lapels and preachers that are important. In the Republican Fantasy World these are the important issues. Whatever it is the GOP can use to distract people away from the issues really affecting our country is their modus operandi. There's no need to talk about all of Bush's and the Republican's failures, let's talk about who are true patriots and who's not. Let's talk about who has the craziest preacher, unless Mitt Romney is the VP then church membership once again becomes a personal issue respected by the separation of church and state. Anything that may bring up the fact that Bush has a 28% approval rating and that 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track is a diversion from the important questions of Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and Tuzla airport.
Even though Brooks says it's a "journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities," he means of course in the realm of who wears a pin on their jacket and not who has the answers to the mess the GOP has put us in. To do that would be un-patriotic. Remember, what's important for Republicans is that we forget the last 8 years.
*Update:
Senator Obama's response to what many perceived to be one of the worst "debates" of the season is below. The reaction from Republican circles is that the debate was "excellent." Mainly because there where very little questions about actual policy substance and mostly questions asking the candidates to refute right wing talking points. Those supporting Obama don't flock to him because of what the right wing says about him, they flock to him in numbers not seen since Kennedy because of his ability to want to take our national political discussion away from talking points and into substance. Obama believes that people are hungry for change and not that people are inherently stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves like the right wing insists. If anything this clip shows that Obama is not an old geezer singing hymns about bombing Iran like his competition is. He's actually got a little coolness about him.
4.08.2008
Simple Math
Charlie Cook is always three steps ahead of the media:
The media make it sound as if this is the first time a nomination process has ever went past March. Accordingly, the GOP is trying to hide the fact that its soon to be nominee tried to switch parties twice in the last 7 years and did not win the conservative vote in one single contested primary. Add the mix together and we get a hyperbole fascination of a nomination process that is anything but losable to Barack Obama.The hand-wringing today is over a nomination process that some say has gone on too long, but just four years ago, it was over a process that seemed to begin and end in Iowa. Once Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., pulled off his upset win in Iowa, with his neighboring state of New Hampshire next on the calendar, the Democratic nomination process was effectively over. One state voted; the nomination was basically settled.
In 2000, the process went on for all of two states. Once Vice President Al Gore beat former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., in New Hampshire (Bradley had not seriously contested the Iowa caucus), the nomination fight was over. Two states voted; the nomination was settled.
Someone recently gave Clinton a 12-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
My guess is that her odds are less than half of that; it would take three or four consecutive weeks of problems the magnitude of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright hitting Obama, plus Clinton getting every other break in the world. And she would still need to win the remaining contests by 60 percent or more to close the gap sufficiently so that the remaining uncommitted superdelegates might break a tie (defined as an Obama margin of, say, 60 delegates or less) in her favor.
[...]Hillary would need to win every primary or caucus left by very wide margins to come close to snatching the nomination from Obama. But do we hear that in the media? No. We hear that Hillary is still in the fight and the Democrats are imploding all over themselves. Hillary's comeback would be equal to Mike Huckabee, who has won more contests than Hillary, wrestling the nomination away from McCain. The only way Huck could do that is by winning every primary left by very wide margins and then go to the convention and strong-arm it from the Party. The scenario isn't that much different from what Hillary would have to do yet the media makes it sound very differently.
Unless Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and a few other places by landslide margins, which is very unlikely, her donors will stop giving and her campaign will grind to a halt.
I suppose Hillary can stay in as long as she wants; if I were her I would too. It's the media's responsibility to accurately report her odds of winning and her real standing at capturing the nomination. Once the media did that Hillary's donors would back out quicker than George Bush heading to Crawford for vacation effectively ending this charade.
3.26.2008
Obama Releases Tax Info
Since Hillary really stands no chance at winning the nomination I don't care if she releases her tax documents or not. She says she will three days before the the Pennsylvania primary, but if she doesn't it's not that big of a deal. However, since Obama released his, the GOP nominee should also do the same.
As far as the Hillary matter is concerned, I don't see any way she can win the nomination. Unless she stays in the race all the way until the convention and then at the convention forces a riot and strong arms the Party into granting her the nomination, I don't see how it can be done. She can't catch Obama with delegates no matter what. The only way she'll be the nominee is by some sort of coup. I'm not trying to make her sound like an extremist I'm just saying it will take extreme measures for her to be the nominee. I think in the end she'll bow out without exerting to extremity.
3.12.2008
Who's Really the Republican Candidate?
In Mississippi yesterday Hillary, a Democrat, got more conservative votes than the Republican nominee John McCain, 74,069-62,788.
She also got 1/3 the Republican votes as McCain. That's not too bad considering she's on the opposing ballot. Since Republican voters are uneasy about their candidate, to say the least, a couple weeks of campaigning and a little more pushing by Limbaugh and she could be their nominee. I'd be almost willing to bet that if she knew that would get her the presidency she'd switch parties in a heartbeat. Who knew the Clinton's could be so popular amongst Republicans. While I'm on the subject, Hillary almost doubled the other Republican contender on the ballot, Mike Huckabee. To be fair, Huck had already pulled out of the race and didn't do any formal campaigning. Yet that didn't stop over 16,000 Republicans from voting for him.
It's a sad situation when McCain can't even win the conservative vote over Hillary. But the chaos and implosion totally belongs to the Dems. Please! I think the MSM is the front runner for the inaugural Fantasy World Award.
Source: MSNBC Exit Polls.
3.10.2008
"Almost Unstoppable Force"
On Saturday President Bill Clinton hinted at the idea of an Obama/Hillary ticket for November.
"I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat...For at least a year now I've been saying that an Obama/Hillary ticket was a bad idea. Two Chicago Democrats on the same presidential ticket doesn't sound fun at all to someone who's from Illinois. But I can see it as a possibility now. The South would be hard to win, but Hillary on the ticket could help pull off at least one Southern state. I'm still not fully convinced of the idea. I'm coming around to it to the point that I don't see it as such a bad strategy move anymore. I now see it as Obama having his mother-in-law as a running mate. So I see it as more depressing for BO than anything.
If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force."
3.05.2008
There Is No Chaos, yet
The Democratic race for the nomination is everything I thought it would be. Two very viable candidate
s doing everything possible to clinch a nomination and both building momentum as they plug along. But one thing is certain and that is there is no chaos amongst Democratic ranks. Despite what Rush Limbaugh says or Fox News (and even some Dem naysayers), the Democratic Party is not imploding and another five weeks of campaigning is not going to hurt their chances in November. Unlike the GOP side, neither Obama nor Hillary has a base problem, or even a GOTV problem. A quick look at Texas tells the story.
The two Dems pulled 2,807,811 votes in one primary. Hillary had 51% of that total. Her 51% (1,453,139) is more than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined (1,229,573). That’s an amazing total for one candidate. When both Dems are added together it equals an astonishing turnout unsurpassed in primary history. In other words, that’s a lot of friggin’ people.
That doesn’t mean things can’t change if things get really ugly between the two. But it certainly doesn’t equal chaos or implosion. If Republicans were putting up numbers anywhere near the Dems’ the general election would be canceled and the MSM would just call it now for McCain, or probably anoint Bush Leader for Life. Instead massive historical turnout and an electrified base equals chaos and implosion. I just wonder if it ever rains in the Republican fantasy world.
*Update:
Just to highlight McCain's base problem, he still didn't win a majority of conservatives even in Texas! If it is any consolation, he did win conservatives 48-42. Considering Huckabee spent no money and really didn't stand a chance I would think not winning a majority of the base and only beating "none of the above" by 6 points is the preface to a huge problem for the GOP. But in the neoconservative/Republican fantasy world 48% is a mandate.
Tags: Obama, Hillary, Democrats
3.04.2008
My Letter to The Economist
I saw where Lisa quoted and linked to an op-ed in The Economist entitled "Obamanomics: Hope and Fear." Y'all this one has me baffled. The op-ed states a couple of things I find inaccurate or, to say the least, very vague. I'll admit, I'm not that bright and I really don't spend a lot of time trying to out-theorize or out-think anyone, especially The Economist cause I know it's way over my head. But this one article isn't adding up and their tiptoeing muckiness leaves me confused. I write for the blog Political Notio and came across your rather interesting op-ed dated Feb. 28 2008. I was hoping you could clear up some confusion I have regarding that article and the insinuated political ideology contained therein. "FOR a man who has placed 'hope' at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a "post-partisan" centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know "Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of 'the idle holders of idle capital' or upon the side of 'the struggling masses'?" There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence."
You can read my original thoughts on Organized Chaos since most of what I write on this blog comes from Lisa's comments page. The article starts off by suggesting the populist Obama is huddling the masses while predicting a doomsday economic scenario. Then, oddly, agrees that "some" middle-class Americans are indeed struggling. So the capitalistic conservatives at The Economist can agree, somewhat, that economically speaking there’s been some rough times with the probability of more on the way. Whether or not that places Obama communistically arguing for the masses is comical, both historically and ideologically speaking.
Here's their two opening paragraphs:
<FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”
After a brief discussion on Organized Chaos, I decided to write to The Economist myself to see if I could get a clarification of what exactly they are saying and insinuating with their op-ed.
There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.
Here's my letter:To: letters@economist.com
I sent this to their general letter to the editor email address. It was the only one I could find. So I'm not sure how well, if at all, this is going to get answered. I looked for a correspondence email, such as one directly to a person, but I couldn't find one. I sent it the only way I could figure it out. If someone comes across a better email please let me know. I'm curious to know why The Economist would agree with such a communist notion as class struggles and then berate Hillary and Obama for doing the same thing. Although I'm not so sure Hillary and Obama are doing the same thing. The doomsday scenario The Economist casts about massive layoffs and huge unemployment with jobs being shipped overseas, and the lack of Hillary or Obama to brag about American corporations or our standard of living is made up. No where have they done such. It's almost as if The Economist agrees there is a struggle but since the Dems aren't talking about our luscious standard of living or our corporate dynamism that makes them populists huddling the masses, i.e., communists.
Sir:
In the article you state:
The article chides Hillary and especially Obama for an economic forecast, which they agree has been a struggle the last few Bush years, but then uses current measures to discard a future event it claims the Dem candidates are predicting. I don't think you'll find anywhere where Obama (or Hillary) has said that American companies aren't the most dynamic or that as a whole Americans don't live the most affluent lives. What the Dems are saying is that "for some," to Obama and Hillary that "some" is millions of people, things have been rough and will get worse if we continue the same economic policies Bush and the Republicans have laid out for this country. If that's fighting for the struggling masses then okay. But admitting that there are struggling masses sort of, kind of negates The Economist's whole article. And by admitting that there is no struggling, which the article doesn't, defies every economic indicator out there. So I guess this whole thing depends on what the definition of "some" is.
Is it the case The Economist is arguing there are no struggling masses and Obama and Hillary are really queuing populist notions, or is this op-ed arguing that there is no struggle, that only things have been rough, for some?
Also, the article makes mention "[b]oth John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects." It's been my understanding that swing voters in America has been anything but white working men. Such as the terms soccer moms, security moms, or evangelicals in general, have been the common definition of swing voters as of recent (circa 1920). I would be curious to know when white working men have ever swung an election or been considered swing votes.
I look forward to your reply,
Most Capitalistically yours,
Chris
Then the end where they make mention that swing voters in America are generally white working men is really what got me thinking that they might not have a clue what they are writing and are just laying stuff out there hoping people buy into it.
I'll keep everyone posted if there are any new developments. In the meantime feel free to explain to me what in the world The Economist is talking about.
2.29.2008
I Dare You To
After yesterday's Bush moment where he specifically calls out Obama, it now appears that the Democratic front runner is not only running against Hillary but also John McCain and George Bush.
He's getting hit from three sides and handling it well. Most people who don't know Obama say that he won't be able to handle the pressure. That once people start attacking him he won't know how to respond, he'll shy away and his hope message will become blurred. I've been hearing this since 2003 about Obama. And not once has he ever shied away, or not taken an argument head on. I've been telling people since the first day I met Obama that he's at his best when others doubt him. This week has been a perfect example of that.
Instead of backing away from the president's bully pulpit, Obama responded immediately to Bush. And today when Hillary ran her 3am ad, Obama wasted no time hitting back. His honest, fact-based answers are what has drawn me to him since the days I worked for him in the senate.
Obama ties all three opponents into one well rounded concise response:
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.It's finally time the politics of fear ends. There isn't any one person taking on three opponents right now like Obama is and his momentum continues to grow. I dare anyone to doubt him.
Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.
*Update:
How's this for rapid response?
2.04.2008
Should Hillary Cry Again?
The latest rou
nd of polling shows an extremely tight, very tight, excruciating tight race on the Democratic side. A near opposite of the Republican polls. Going into tomorrow, Obama leads in 11 states with two or three others bordering either candidate. Is it time for Hillary to shed another tear to help her out?
* Image courtesy of Fox News and sorry the graph is small, I had to shrink it to fit on the page. Click it for a larger version.
1.25.2008
Let's Really Look at Those Connections
I’ve seen the last couple days a lot of attention focused on Obama’s ties to Tony Rezko. Hillary even brought it up at the last Dem debate trying her hardest to link Obama to some sort of scandal. Yesterday the Chicago Sun-Times ran a list of 8 things people need to know about Obama and Rezko and the day before that the Chicago Tribune ran an article trying to clear the air also about the connection.
Then today I see Matt Yglesias linking to an Illinois blogger running down the articles about Obama and Rezko. So I’m sure this is going to keep spreading and spreading. Not that this is the first time Obama and Rezko have been mentioned together, but I’m sure Hillary accomplished her goal of fanning the flames of a scandal that really leads nowhere. All that 
is fine, one can’t blame Hillary for slinging mud when she’s covered in it herself. Money talks and bullshit walks, as the saying goes.
What I will highlight though, because from everything I’ve read I’m not seeing this getting mentioned, is that Rezko is a politician’s money maker. Meaning he raised and supported pretty much whoever was in office. During the 90s, Rezko raised money for Illinois’ Republican governor Jim Edgar. And again for the disgraced Republican governor George Ryan, who now sits in federal prison. In 2002 Illinois ushered in an unprecedented Democratic era and Rezko, just like any businessman does, raised money for the new power players.
As Illinois was turning bluer and bluer in 2002, the nation seemed to be going the opposite direction with the Republicans picking up seats in the mid-term elections, solidifying George Bush’s total control of government. So in 2003, Rezko raised millions for George Bush and remained heavily involved in Illinois lobbying for Republicans. And as Illinois’ newly favorite son gained momentum while running for the US Senate in 2004, Rezko wasn’t about to let old pal Obama go without some quick cash.
This is far from the Democratic version of Jack Abramoff, which is what the right wing and probably Hillary want people to believe. Unlike Abramoff, Rezko worked both sides. Raised millions for George Bush in ’03, supported both Republican and Democratic governors in Illinois and was on a Republican lobby list for years as a subcontractor. Surely Republicans don’t want to dig through this old laundry. Hillary, maybe. But not anyone hoping to take some attention away from the past 7 years of GOP scandals.*Update:
People in glass houses shouldn't...well you know how it goes.
Actually, Hillary's follow up on her Fact Hub blog does make sense about Obama's connections to Rezko. There's no doubt the two in the very least had a semi-professional relationship. But so did everyone in Illinois, including George Bush when he visited the state.
