ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Oh-eight (D): Rezko, back again

Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:36 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

CLINTON: Clinton picked up the endorsement of the 27,000-member United Farm Workers union Tuesday and said she would return to delegate-heavy California "many, many" times to campaign before February 5, NBC/NJ’s Athena Jones notes. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, to shouts of “the union slogan "Si se puede” ("Yes we can"), cited Clinton’s experience and her goal of universal healthcare as the reason for endorsing her.

"We have had a chance over the last few months to listen to all the candidates, but it was a unanimous decision among the leadership of the farm worker movement to support the person that we felt was the strongest person and the person with the most experience to take on the task of being president of the United States of America," he said. "When we asked Sen. Clinton to help us in terms of ensuring that farm workers had the rights to citizenship here in this country, she fought with us."

The New York Times’ Healy adds that “Clinton does not usually speak in Spanish as she makes overtures to Hispanic voters, and now we have evidence of why… Clinton repeatedly heard the crowd chant ‘Si se puede’ - a signature political phrase at Hispanic rallies that translates to ‘Yes, It Can Be Done!’ Politicians usually join in, but Mrs. Clinton refrained from doing so on one, two, and then three occasions; she simply nodded and smiled and said nothing.”

“Finally, as the crowd began shouting the phrase again, Mrs. Clinton bellowed into her microphone, ‘Si se pueda is right!’ Several colleagues who speak better Spanish than I do say that ‘pueda’ (as opposed to ‘puede’) has meaning in other contexts, but it does not really make sense in this one. In any event, the crowd was chanting ‘si se puede.’ The audience made no noticeable fuss over Mrs. Clinton’s use of ‘pueda,’ although they stopped chanting sooner afterward.”

EDWARDS: The candidate made the talk show rounds yesterday going on the Tyra Banks show and The Late Show with David Letterman.

OBAMA: Tons of Rezko stories today. The New York Times: "Still, Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko remains controversial. In 2005, Mr. Obama bought a strip of land from Mr. Rezko even though the developer was under federal investigation. And while Mr. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing, his campaign announced Saturday that it would give to charity more than $40,000 in past political donations that were linked to Mr. Rezko."

Chicago Sun-Times' Sweet looks at the renewed focus on Obama's ties to Rezko: "There are indications that Clinton and her allies will continue to press Obama on Rezko, especially as the Feb. 5 votes are looming in 22 states and Rezko's trial is near. Meanwhile, Rezko hovers as an issue for Obama if he gets the nomination."

The L.A. Times also does a Rezko story. "Obama campaigns for president as a new kind of politician, less beholden to special interests than his opponents. He and his staff regularly contrast his policy of refusing to accept donations from lobbyists with Clinton's practices. His relationship with Rezko may undermine the power of that claim."

The Chicago Tribune: "Beyond the heated sound bites is a story of a more complex relationship that long boosted Obama's political fortunes but now could prove a campaign liability. For years after Rezko befriended Obama in the early 1990s, he helped bankroll the politician's campaigns. Then, after Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, Rezko engaged him in private financial deals to improve their adjoining South Side properties. Those arrangements became a source of lingering controversy after the Tribune first reported them in November 2006.”

“Now Rezko's federal corruption trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 25. As Obama stumps for votes, coverage of the high-profile proceedings could bring fresh, unwelcome reminders for Obama of Rezko's influence in the same Illinois political world that propelled the senator to a serious run at the presidency."    

The Boston Globe re-examines the relationship between Obama and real estate developer and fast-food magnate Tony Rezko. “Obama has also been forced to explain how Rezko got tangled in the purchase of the Obama family home and other ties to Rezko, some of them going back more than 15 years. If federal prosecutors are right, his ties to Rezko may mean Obama's campaign unwittingly accepted money generated by illegal activities. Obama, who has an unblemished reputation after 11 years in public office, has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko.”

Just how far reaching are those email smears against Barack Obama? Last night, NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan reports, Obama said that his campaign was seeing email smears about him "coming out in waves" and compared the attacks to what John McCain went through in South Carolina in 2000. And almost at the exact same time, an email from John Kerry popped into inboxes calling the attacks against Obama "swiftboating."

"Because there's no doubt if I'm the nominee, I'm gonna be getting a whole bunch of stuff from the other side, that's - you know some people have received these scurrilous emails about me. Just coming out in waves," Obama said. "I mean, John McCain had to go through this in 2000, I'm going through the same thing now," he added. "He's a Muslim. He swore on the Koran. He doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag," Obama went on ticking off the attacks listed in the email. 

"This is just nonsense," he said before telling the crowd that he was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, that he took the oath office on his family Bible, and that he often leads the pledge of allegiance in the Senate. Around the same time, an email from John Kerry emailed to Obama supporters said: "As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election…  which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears," Kerry wrote.

In one of Kenya's daily newspapers, the Daily Nation, Obama writes an op-ed, calling for calm and an ease of tensions. "The frustrations felt by so many Kenyans are understandable. There is no doubt that much more remains to be done for Kenya to become a more equitable and democratic society. But Kenya has come too far to throw away decades of progress in a storm of violence."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

As we always do at this time in the election cycle, we’re hearing voters say that they will be voting on the “issues” not on whether a person is a man, woman, white, black, Latina, or purple. So far, the demographics scream otherwise.  

But, fair enough; let’s take voters at their word.  They’re going to “vote on the issues.” How are voters to judge the issues?  Most say they’ll listen to the candidates articulate their positions and maybe even check each candidates’ website. However, on the campaign trail, it’s easy to tell voters you’ll give them everything and the kitchen sink.  While you’re at it, tell ‘em they’ll get a new mortgage and a trip to Disneyland.  Why not?  It doesn’t cost anything, right?  But, the bigger question is, can you deliver?

So, here’s a suggestion for a slightly different metric:  what could each candidate get done for America?  

Senator Clinton has made a point of how she knows how to work the system and how therefore she’d get the most done.  But is this necessarily true?  Whether lifelong Democrats want to admit it or not, there is not a more polarizing (& reviled) couple on the planet than Hillary and Bill Clinton (save perhaps the lovely twosome of Dick & W).  

If Senator Clinton is the nominee after Feb 5, a political firestorm will be ignited immediately.  That firestorm will not let up until either she is defeated in the fall or she eventually leaves office.  It will make what America endured at the end of the 90s look tame.  Many have predicted that due to the intense animosity felt around the country for the Clintons, that the Democratic Party will loose seats in both the House and Senate.  

If the expectations are realized, what is already a razor-thin majority will be eroded to nothing, perhaps even putting the Democrats in the minority again.  The chances of getting any meaningful legislation passed?  I prefer the chances of the proverbial Snowball in the Sahara.  Universal Healthcare?  I’m still betting on the snowball.

So, while undoubtedly some in the party will be sending “yay! we did it,” “we changed the world,” and “we sure showed them” emails on the morning of February 6, many of the rest of us will know what the reality is:  

Once again, Democrats will have won a battle but lost the war.

Obama should have invested in cattle futures instead.
Let's see on mention that he was endorsed by the NY Observer or the WSJ Op ed on the Clintons or Maureen Dowds column.

Let me help you guys out...Rezko won't penetrate, you better find something new this is old...Obama is considered far more honest than Hillary and the fact that he has talked about in the past will be viewed as Clinton's slinging mud...just like she tried when she decided to have "fun"
The Clinton's are running the risk of suppressing Dem. voter turn out this November if their Bush/Rove politics of dividing the electorate and winning the Dem. nomination 50.1% to 49.9% succeeds. The Clinton's have left Obama with no choice but to take Bill on and question Bill's credibility on many issues including the definition of what "is". The Clinton campaign speaks to what Obama will face if he's the nominee, let's talk about what Billary will face. Monica Lewinsky appearing on network television. Linda Tripp and the Monica's "stained" blue dress. Gennifer Flowers supporting Hillary. Reliving of the numerous rape allegations against Bill. The Jones girl from Arkansas. "I didn't inhale". Who killed Vince Foster. The utter failure of Bill's sending troops into Mogadishu. The recession caused by Bill's economic policies. Bill's failure to stop Al-qaeda when he had the chance. And last, fair or not, over 55% of Americans don't like Hillary and her nomination will energize Republican voters(and many others) to turnout in huge numbers to vote for ABH, anybody but Hillary.
I thought we spoke English in the US. Looks like something has changed.
So MSNBC, decides, we better say something about Rezko because we have been a little to bias against Hillary, but they used other newspapers articles to do it and then end the piece with e-mail smears of Obama and how he is trying to help the Kenyans.  MSNBC is shameless.  How about just one negative article on Obama without the fluff piece for him included?  I'm still waiting.  No politician is this perfect unless the media wants them to be.  Right MSNBC?  It seems like the LA Times, Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune and the Boston Globe are trying to do a good job of following up on the vetting of the candidates.  MSNBC needs to learn how to do the same.  Again, I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, but lets start doing the homework on this guy before MSNBC and the rest start calling him President so he gets the nomination and then tears him down.  They did the same to Hillary and now they bash her every chance they get.  Are they going to wait to bash obama when he gets the nomination, screwing us Democrats or not? Do your job MSNBC.  Report the news and stop trying to make or be the news.  
Hmmmm, me thinks the "Rezcko" angle is a little bit weak - kind of like the "slush fund" thing was. But, whatever works, right?

Let's see-

Choice A:
The Republicans 8 years of lies and deception versus the "Rezcko scandal"(lol)

or

Choice B:
The Republicans 8 years of lies and deception versus
"the Clintons" "35 years of experience" with a laundry list of sordid and well documented personal and political "lapses" in judgment?

Which is worse? I think I know the answer.
UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, to shouts of “the union slogan "Si se puede” ("Yes we can"), cited Clinton’s experience and her goal of universal healthcare as the reason for endorsing her.

I'd sure love to know what this "experience" thing of Hillary's is all about.  Just goes to show there a lot of dump people in this world.....

I watched the interview with Obama and that horrid little woman Dianne Sawyer this morning.  I wonder when she will interview Hillary and her connections to Norman Hso and Mauricio Celis.  I haven't heard anything about the money that Hillary was supposed to give back to Hsu and Celis removed several millions of dollars out of a bank account here and moved it to mexico to some drug lord's bank account down there. Why won't Hillary give back Celis's money?
Hillary's point about being vetted carries weight.
If this is worth a headline... why not bring out Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, Vinrod Gupta and the cast of thousands of crooks off of whom Bill and Hillary have built campaigns, libraries and personal fortunes.  Bill Clinton is taking $20 million out of Ron Burkle's fund.  What exactly was his investment into that fund?  

The MSM's independent voice in the race is a joke.  They are led around like puppy dogs by Penn and Wolfson.  Truth to power anyone?  

Where are the serious discussions of the Clintons playing fast and loose with the truth.  The press reports the Clintons' and their surrogates' riffs like they are potentially true instead of pointing out inaccuracies and where things have been taken out of context.  

Where are the serious questions about how an ex-President with a US Senator wife who happens to be running for President can take millions from foreign govts and convicted felons without releasing their names?  

Talk about fairytales!
In The Forest, Seeing the Trees,

You make some good points, but I'm betting the American people have already heard all the crap about Whitewater, etc and they will see it for what it is, crap.  There is nothing new the Republicans can bring up about Hillary that hasn't already been tried.  I worry about what they and the media will do to Obama because the media has given him such a free ride, that he won't be ready for it come the general election.  The little bit of stick the Hillary and Edwards have given him will be nothing compared to what's to come.  The media has built him up to almost God like that he has almost no place left but to come down and that's what worries me for the General election.  Hillary, on the other hand, has been made out to be so evil, the fact that she is doing as well as she has, is amazing.  She can only go up in my opinion.  Hillary supporters are under no illusion that Hillary won't be attacked.  Obama people think that this isn't going to happen and that the media will treat him with kid gloves like they have been throughout this campaign.  I have seen the media build up candidates and then take them down.  Ask Howard Dean and Hillary.  I just say this to Obama fans, be aware of whats to come.

I would like to tell any Democrat that says they will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, to stop and realize that the Supreme Court is at stake.  You not voting or voting for a Republican is a vote for a Conservative Supreme Court.  Just remember that.

The longer Obama and his staff have to answer charges about Rezko, Reagan, etc., the more he has to come off of his "message of hope" -- for with the national media tried to deliver him the nomination after just one caucus.  Hillary and Bill have wiped the smile of off his face, and now Obama is absolutely sputtering and reeling.  He's a lightweight who will be sent back to the obscurity he so richly deserves.  Hit 'em harder and harder, Hillary and Bill -- he can't take it.  His judgment is flawed, and he is inexperienced, and it is showing.
Hillary's point about being vetted carries weight.

Sean (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:02 AM)

We are still at the bottom of the iceberg.....
Haven't even gotten to everything the Clinton's have stuck their noses into yet
StopWatching,
One other thought regarding Senator Clinton.   I think everyone has to be careful to equate how well she's doing with how well she would do.  Let's not forget that her wins thus far have been "home games."  These are Democratic primaries after all in which the Clintons (in particular former President Clinton) are revered; many think of them as near-royalty.  

Whether anybody likes it or not, that feeling is 180 degrees flipped amongst a good portion of the rest of the country.  There are millions of voters who won't even be open to listening to the Clintons make their pitch again.  I know she worked wonders in Upstate NY but I think this is a far different ball game.  

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.  Nice to have some civility on these boards from time to time...
I find it quite telling that the Clintons, victims of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that kept slinging mud at them, are the first ones to sling mud at Obama when he wins a state primary. It's just more proof that they will say anything and do anything to increase their personal power.
Shame on the UFW
Vetting...Here is what I see.  Obama has been vetted by Hillary's gang.  The best they came up with is that he has had a friendship with a person, who may be found guilty of some wrong doing and he voted present 139 times out of his 4000 votes in Illinois legislature.  The press hasn't been giving him a hard time, because there just isn't much there.

The press has been treating Hillary with kid gloves, if anything.  Refusing to bring up all the ugliness in the Clintons' past.  Based on experience, we know the Clintons' have not only been associated with numerous unscrupulous people but are known to also to do unscrupulous things.  Do you really believe they have kept their nose clean for the past 8 years.  My guess is that Obama's people haven't dug too deep, because he's just not the type to want to use something like that.  But the Republicans will and then the media will have no choice but to cover it.  

I have no doubts in my mind that there will not be another Clinton presidency.  So let's now waste this chance.  Because not only is the Supreme Court on the line, so is the future of the middle class.  The Republicans are running this country into the ground.  There shouldn't be any question that the Dems could win the election, but Democratic party is choosing the most unelectable candidate they could possibly choose in Hillary Clinton.

[I would like to tell any Democrat that says they will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, to stop and realize that the Supreme Court is at stake.]

The Supreme Court. The Holy Grail of the liberals. They figure if they can't get a majority in either Congress, or have the Presidency (which often happens, because, in general, the US leans to being more conservative), then they can trump it all by having the Supreme Court "correct" the "wrongs" of the conservatives. This is were we get the loony rulings from the 9th circuit court of appeals, they don't follow what was legislated, they just make stuff up. Thus, the minority rules the majority.

This little gag by the liberals, like so many others, has run its course too.
Old news is old news, it's all been said before, over and over, get over it, move forward and stop this silliness, Rezco goes on trial, it will be in the news soon and things not known will come out.
Senator Obama will get put under the microscope, that is the way it is and will always be. Americans are now making their choices based on many things, issues, personality, electability, revenge, race, gender and emotion, it has always been this way and will continue this way, posting here with information for your candidate is fine, just don't think you have enough power to persuade anybody, your opinion matters to you but may not matter to anybody else.
Human nature hasn't changed that much since we walked three miles into caves and painted pictures on the walls, we are still those people with better toys.
At times I get emotional at what I read on this site, I am human after all, but after thinking about it, I laugh at myself and move on, it is a survival technique everyone should use, if you take it so serious and don't lighen up, you will do great harm to yourself. Live life to your fullest everyday, it is the only one you may ever have. We will survive as a nation who ever gets the White House. Gloom and doom thinking only hurts you. Smile more. That is all.
The Clintons are going to make accusations about someone having a "questionable relationship" with someone unsavory??  Say it isn't so!  That's just laughable.  The laundry list of scandals, both personal & professional for them is too long to even list.

Obama's integrity & honesty compared to that???

To quote them back to themselves: "Give Me A Break"!
these are illegals who want ammesty, and Hillary will give it===they have broke our country====from welfare==hospitals==and on the border  small towns are having to build an elementary school a year==they get new schools===old project students get run down schools===go figure
http://prorev.com/clinton.htm

Here ya go, Clinton fans. Tell Bill to put that in his pipe and smoke it.  And tell him to inhale this time.
FINALLY, the press starts reporting about Rezko. No wonder Obama-maniacs would dismiss this story - it's a devastating indictment of Obama's shady dealings. The Republicans are salivating to have Obama as the nominee.  

If you saw him on the TODAY show this a.m. you would have seen him squirming as Viera caught him in more of his many other inconsistencies. This guy is just as shady as his best friend and neighbor Rezko. Oh no, another politician who says what it takes to get elected.

The mask has been pulled off and the emperor has no clothes.....better to realize that now, than to lose in November!

HILLARY '08
To StopwatchingMSNBC, I am a very liberal democrat, and no way on God's Green Earth will I vote for Hillary if she's our nominee, I had considered voting for her once, because I did not want the repub. nnominee to be elected, because of the judges as you nentioned. The high court we have now has not been the right wing zealots, that everyone thought they would be. Besides, the only issue that most liberals care about is keeping abortion legal, believe me, there's no way the court inn going to overturn Roe v Wade. There would be a revolution, anarchy in the streets. Anyway, I chose not give my vote to the Clintons, because I have a dughter younger than Monica. But for bill c to call her that women, after taking aadvantage of his position as US President to use her for a sex toy is the lowest of the low, all the while Hillary did not one thing to help a very troubled young woman, Hillary aided her man in degrading the child. Those are not the people I want as my leaders, or my children's. If it's Hillary I will sit out  
At least Obama laid all his cards on the table about Rezko. Hillary and Bill have millions of files - regarding several issues - locked up in various locations they won't let anywhere near. What are they afraid of??
Everyone keeps saying that if we nominate Hillary, the republicans will have a field day with personal attacks and that she’s their favorite nominee because she’s so polarizing that she will be the easiest to beat.  
But the validity of this theory really doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny when you figure in that there is really NOTHING that you can find about either Bill or Hill that hasn’t been revealed, dissected, mulled over and twisted around to death for the last 15 years and they’re both still standing tall.
Then there’s the ‘easiest to beat’ theory.  Considering the republicans can’t even coalesce around one single (or even a couple) of candidates and so far the only candidates with the finances to do the distance to the nomination, let alone the general election, are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, somehow their field really doesn’t seem all that intimidating to me, and possibly, much of America, and, most certainly, not to the Clintons.
Hers is an interesting story about Ron Burkle and his ties to the Clinton's out of San Franscisco....

He is another shady character in the lives of the Clinton's...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/02/BUGE2IIPO11.DTL
Wow, all of these articles on Rezko seem to end by saying that Obama did nothing wrong, nor has he ever seemed to have done something untoward as an elected official, unlike some people who are running.
I live in Illinois and when Obama was first running for US Senate, I loved him - and I'm a R.  I loved him until I read the November 2006 Chicago Tribune article regarding Obama's family home and how he got his home cheaper by entering into a shady land deal with a person under federal investigation for fraud, now indcited. Barak Obama is a PHONY my friends. Wake up.  I've been waiting for the truth to come out, it was just a matter of time.  It does matter because Barak's campaign slogan is CHANGE - HE'S A PHONY!
Hey Hillary, have you figured out whether you are for or against giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses?  What's that?  What do you mean you're still waiting on the poll numbers before you'll answer that one?
It seems that you do not want to print this comment.  It is related to the issue and is not attacking others.  Please print it.

I am very bothered by Obama's ties to Rezko for many reasons.  First, he claims that he is above all this yet has taken his money for his campaigns FOR YEARS?  I have a problem with this.  Taking dirty money is worse than taking lobbyist money.  At least a lobbyist is registered to be a lobbyist and is structured somewhat.  It seems that he has had the strong support of a person who has no care or concerns to poor Americans.  This is not just a ficticious charge from the Clinton campaign.  It is a very real situation as reported by several papers prior to this becoming more public during this campaign. It is Pandora's box and it deserves - no demands, to be looked into. So Barack returns the money now?  What does that change.  The problem is that he accepted it to start with.  Is anyone even suggesting that this should have been left buried and not disclosed to the public?  I would hope that people do not feel that Obama is above question when something this serious is brought out.  My next concern is just how much he is indebted to Rezko.  He seems to have been a major player in Obamas political formation and future.   This strong and documented financial and political connection to an indicted man is basically being swept under the carpet.  This man represents everything that Obama has said that he detests and will change. While we are on the subject, I would like to hear more specifics from Obama.  Give me something more than you are the person to united everyone.  This is easy to say, somewhat harder to do.  Exactly how will you gain the cooperation of Congress let alone world leaders?  I have been asking this for months.  Please give us the details of your resume and what your specific policies will be. PEOPLE,  Don't just buy into the smiles and songs that anyone can unite this country and bring about change without a few more explicit details on how they plan to do this. Yes, he is a very attractive man with a very assuring and positive smile and equally yes, it is exciting to envision our first black-american president because it means that we are really on the road to equality but Please, make sure you like what This person stands for, his view on the issues, what his agenda will be.  We have heard very little of this as of yet.  I have no problem voting for Obama - if his stand is one that I believe would be the best for our country.  But to vote for him just because he says he will be fresh change and he will unite - I'll by the Brooklyn bridge when I win the lottery.  GIVE ME THE RESUME PLEASE!

So Clinton Didn't know Rezko Either, huh?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

She obviously didn't know Stan Lee Either

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

I wonder how much it cost to get your picture taken with the president.....

I'm Still voting for her though....


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=600843

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google