hee hee hee

How is that a drop of rain? The media is crazy, please take some time to update us on Norman Hsu as well?

More like a a thunderstorm!

Amazing, one line about Rezko. If he was in anyone else's pocket it would be a full page report. Your bias is really showing. You are as bad as Fox News with their coverage of Democrats.

I'm sure he deserved it but curious timing none the less.
Things that make you go...hmmm.

Meet the second skeleton in Obama's closet.  Alexi Giannoulias.  Obama endorsed and helped Giannoulias win election despite Giannoulias many ties to organized crime.

This well sourced litte ditty has the low down and Obama and his mobster friend Alexi:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/161410/392

  ALLYOU DEMS ARE GUILITY   SORRY  SORRY

Oh gee....one small snippet from First Read about Rezko getting arrested....but you did three weeks on Norman Hsu.
How about a little fairness here?
Rezko is Obama's lifelong buddy. It's time someone started investigating this!

How is Norman Hsu doing again?

And what does this arrest have to do with Obama exactly?

Hey FirstRead:
I gotta commend you for hanging in there. It is amazing how the meaning of 25 words can be interpreted so differently by readers belonging to the same party.

You know if Resko was linked to Hillary, this article would have been a full page.  Two small lines.  Careful MSNBC, those two small lines refering to Resko is going a little too far.  It's not like Norman Hsu and the the 50 different articles you wrote about him and Hillary, eventhough, he gave money to Obama also.  Clearly bias coverage of this man compared to Norman Hsu on this website can be clearly documented.  The fact that Hsu did an illegal scam to raise money compared to Resko extorting money from companies,the ties to mob figures,illegal housing deals,etc, seems a bit one sided on this website and the rest of the media.  Just saying.  The bias against Hillary on MSNBC is amazing.  

"...How is that a drop of rain? The media is crazy, please take some time to update us on Norman Hsu as well? ..."
Dante (Sent Monday, January 28, 2008 10:11 AM)

Okay here is your Norman Hsu update;
He gave money, and arranged for donations to Obama's campaign, as well as Hillary's.
But the media didn't report that part of the story fairly.
Furthermore, Hsu introduced Obama to people who currently work on his campaign in the financing area.
But, the media didn't report that part of it either.
So there's your Hsu update.
Now, back to Rezko, and the news of TODAY!

Maybe Barack put his house title up for bail? After all he only worked on a brief for several hours but has known him for 20 years, had parties thrown for him, hired his cronies children.Oh, and accepted $168,000. in campaign contributions, reimbursed other donors to Baracks campaign, built in $250,000. fees for a Teachers Union fee. His wife goes shopping with Michelle Obama. I wish him well.The timing should have been before South Carolina so the voters knew what a crook Obama is aligned with.Are we going to call this playing the "crook card"? Or are we just going to refer to it as the truth this time without the inflamatory title. Maybe Tim Russert can hold up a picture of him and Barack.

And in Clinton fund raiser news, Norman Hsu became a new best friend to someone with the name "Hammer" last night.

If it's raining on Obama, then it is a flood of biblical proportions for Clinton.

Why don't you show the "full letter" please...

Where's the full letter we would like to read it too...

MSNBC.. "will say anything," to get Obama the nomination...

An Arab from Syria, who is a member of the Nation of Islam religion, Tony Rezko has been in Obama's back pocket for years right along with his wife, Michelle.  Fitzgerald is prosecuting the case and he doesn't mess around.  Word has it that the lawyer mentioned in the legal work filed refers to Obama.  Hell, this is Obama's hurricane.  He wanted to stop government corruption; guess it is starting with him.

In your investigative mode, please give us the 411 on HRC and bill's pic with the "famous" Mr. Rezko

how come the media has avoided this tar baby for so long? NBC won't touch rezko since it would tarnish the reputation of saint obama.

Kathy, Obama has done nothing wrong with regards to Rezko, this is a non-story.  Every newspaper that has reported on it has stated Obama has done nothing wrong.  The corruption charges against Rezko relate to the Governor.  

So, arrested on a bond violation eh? Did he jump bail to grab another photo-op with the Clintons?

Was Rezko a 'HillRaiser' ?

Does this mean he won't help Billary in their new Whitewater swindle ?

Maybe the feds can use that Billary picture as a mugh shot for ALL THREE of them

>> Things that make you go...hmmm.

Maybe for liberals. But then again, liberals are perplexed by shiny things.

The newspapers in Chicago went into great detail investigating the very allegation you refer to and found that Barack Obama is NOT connected to any wrong-doing.  Sounds to me like the Clinton camp is having trouble finding dirt...

So much for Obama's good judgement....I'm sure there is more out there the  biased media hasn't bothered to look in to! I am quickly losing respect for the media's bias against Hillary Clinton and closing the eyes to the "slick" tricks of Obama and people like Rezko he's not only given money to, but time. This is probably the tip of the iceburg...and if we want more slumlords rising to power with Obama, then look the other way and vote for Obama!!! What a joke this is becoming, but the real joke will sadly be on the American people for failing to look as deeply into Obama's past and associations as they have Hillary Clinton! Hillary gets my vote!

Sorry folks, but the "slumlord" story is a molehill.  Yeah, if you really dig into it you will find a single instance of questionable judgment on Barack's part, really the only one I've seen.  Nobody claims there is a perfect candidate in the race and he freely admits he made a mistake in this case.  It involved buying a strip of land next to the family home to increase the size of his yard, and not, say, getting us into a war that has utterly destroyed the lives of tens of thousands and robbed us of resources desperately needed here at home.  Throw those two instances of bad judgment on the scales for me and see which way they tip, will you?  

What this really points to is the fact that in a general election, the lack of an extensive political history can be a big asset.  The baggage Barack brings to the campaign will fit in a small backpack while the Clintons will need a freight train.  The Republican attack dogs will quickly starve during the course of the general election campaign if all we throw them are meager scraps like Rezko.  With the Clintons it would be a daily feast of red meat.

what will happen if BO  is tied to Rezko?We will just blame it on the Clintons--right?For sure we will have msnbc leading the parade.

Sick and tired of the media giving a pass on Obama.  First he cashed in on drug use  by writing a book about it, then used his crooked Rezko connections to and the advance from the book to buy a choice piece of land.  

Give me a break.

Kathy....yep, exactly.
If this was a story about Norman Hsu and it involved Hillary, First Read would have run at least three paragraphs worth, and the comments section would be udated every 5 minutes.
But then again, you do understand what MSNBC stands for, right?
*M*ust
*S*lander
*N*it-Pick &
*B*elittle the
*C*lintons

Um, right, Rezko's a sleazebag.  Obama fully divulged his relationship with Tony Rezko on This Week yesterday, and, once again, repeated the fact that he has NOTHING TO DO with Rezko's criminal charges.  This is such small potatoes stuff, and it is HILARIOUS that this mini-scandal is the best they can get on Obama.  Newsflash, most people in this country have no idea what this is about.  And they don't care.  Methinks the parade will go on as planned...
Kathy - there aren't more than three lines about this nonstory on any network, since, gasp, there's nothing to report other than the fact that the man got arrested.  I'm sure you would prefer for them to have the headline say "Obama's BFF Slumlord Gets Arrested and Puts Clinton's Inevitability Train Back On Track," - better luck next time.  

Big freakin' deal!!!!

Hmmm is right.  Come on Chuck Todd; we and he Clinton's deserve more than "one line".  Amazing how right wing MSNBC has become.

From Salon.com:


'...Clinton is sullying his reputation, harming the
Democratic coalition, and setting back race relations
in this country, and he's doing all of this solely to
advance his wife's near-term political prospects. It's
as if he's become so focused on winning this primary
battle that he's completely lost sight of all larger
considerations....'


'...That's well-deserved and good to see. Presidential
campaign tactics are often dishonest, deceitful and
ugly. That's true of every successful campaign. But
that doesn't mean there are no lines, and this last
week, Bill Clinton (and thus, by effect, Hillary) has
been (at least) flirting with that line and has now
clearly crossed it...'

Racial Politics, in all its ugliness ....
Brought to you by the Clitnons......


Glenn Greenwald
Sunday January 27, 2008 07:31 EST
Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina
(updated below - Update II)

I've thought most of the criticisms of the Clintons'
campaign, including the role played by Bill, have been
overblown. Given the standard level of campaign
rhetoric, and particularly considering the bile that
will be launched towards Obama from the currently
pro-Obama right-wing noise machine if he's the
nominee, most of the "controversial" comments have
been rather mild, standard election fare, generating
interest primarily because it was coming from the
Clintons.

Beyond that, it seemed most of the efforts to inject
dramatic racial conflict into the contest were
media-driven rather than an intentional Clinton
strategy. And all of the grave concern over how Bill
Clinton is sullying the majestic glory of his status
as an ex-president -- all because he is, as anyone
would, actively and aggressively campaigning for his
spouse -- has struck me as silly and slightly pompous.


But the last few days have changed my view on those
matters substantially. The Clintons' strategy has
become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday's
remarks by Bill Clinton -- in which he pointedly
compared Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's and thus
implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina
as a state where the "black candidate" wins, followed
up by the Clinton campaign's anonymous branding of
Obama as "the black candidate" -- reeked of
desperation. Here's how Clinton fan and loyal Democrat
Anonymous Liberal put it:

It pains me greatly to write this post because --
despite his many faults -- I have long been an admirer
of Bill Clinton. He's a man with enormous political
talents, and I think he has used those talents over
the years to advance progressive notions of justice
and equality in a significant way. And I think his
commitment to these ideals is genuine and deeply held.


Which is why it is so disillusioning to see him
engaged in what is obviously an attempt to marginalize
his wife's chief rival as "the black candidate." Just
today, he was trying to spin away Obama's overwhelming
victory in South Carolina by going out of his way to
compare Obama to Jesse Jackson. There has clearly been
an attempt by the Clinton campaign over the last week
or so, led chiefly by Bill Clinton, to dismiss Obama's
success in South Carolina as being all about race. The
goal has been to transport us back in time 20 years,
to turn what had begun as an almost post-racial
election into a replay of 1988. As Clinton knows, if
Americans come to see Obama as the candidate of
African-Americans -- like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson
in prior presidential races -- his support among
whites, hispanics, and other ethnic groups will
plummet. . . .

Clinton is sullying his reputation, harming the
Democratic coalition, and setting back race relations
in this country, and he's doing all of this solely to
advance his wife's near-term political prospects. It's
as if he's become so focused on winning this primary
battle that he's completely lost sight of all larger
considerations.

It's hard to argue with any of that. As it turns out,
the South Carolina polls were even more inaccurate
than the New Hampshire polls were, though that fact
hasn't received much attention because predicting the
wrong winner (as the New Hampshire polls did) is a far
more dramatic error than under-predicting the winner's
ultimate margin of victory (as the South Carolina
polls did). But, mathematically speaking, the
magnitude of the polling error is actually greater in
South Carolina.

The average of the pre-New Hampshire polls showed
Obama with an 8 point lead, and Clinton won by almost
3 points -- a difference of 11 points. By contrast,
the average of the pre-South Carolina polls showed
Obama with an 11 point lead, and he won by 28 points
-- a difference of 17 points.

One highly likely explanation for this huge disparity
is that so many voters decided to vote for Obama in
the last several days as a result of their revulsion
towards Obama's treatment by the Clinton campaign --
and Bill particularly -- just as New Hampshire voters
decided in the last several days to vote for Hillary
as a backlash against her ugly, patently unfair
treatment by the press:

Bill Clinton's aggressive campaigning in South
Carolina in the days leading up to the state's primary
may have had a net negative effect among South
Carolina's Democratic primary voters, CNN exit polls
indicate.

Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary
voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important
in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those
voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37
percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of
those voters voted for John Edwards.

Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily
beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the
last three days -- when news reports heavily covered
the former president's heightened criticisms of Obama.
Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their
decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them
chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton.

That's well-deserved and good to see. Presidential
campaign tactics are often dishonest, deceitful and
ugly. That's true of every successful campaign. But
that doesn't mean there are no lines, and this last
week, Bill Clinton (and thus, by effect, Hillary) has
been (at least) flirting with that line and has now
clearly crossed it -- nowhere near what the
Republicans will do if Obama is the nominee, but he's
nonetheless unquestionably on the wrong side of it.

Many Democrats -- including progressives -- have an
ambivalent attitude towards the Clintons despite
Hillary's relatively conservative record since she's
been in the Senate. They distrust their
"triangulation" and soul-less political tactics, as
expressed most vividly in Hillary's case by her
years-long support of the Iraq War and general support
for war-loving policies.

But they also respect the Clintons for being among the
very few Democrats of any significance with the
willingness and ability to stand up to and defeat the
right-wing monster and, most importantly, to recognize
its true character. The Clintons' behavior over this
last week does nothing but highlight the absolute
worst parts of their character and make any rational
person dread the return of the whole Clinton show to
the White House -- not because of how their political
enemies react to them but because of how they, almost
addictively, conduct themselves.

This behavior may be shrewd because dividing the
Democratic electorate along racial lines may be their
best chance for success. It may not matter, because
the huge number of large states being contested on
February 5 places a premimum on party establishment
support more than anything else, and Clinton has a
significant advantage there. But regardless of their
strategic value, comments such as the ones coming from
the Clinton campaign about Obama over the last couple
days are ones that would (rightfully) provoke angry
protests and probably accusations of "racism" if they
came from the Right, and there's no reason those
comments ought to be treated any differently because
they're coming instead from the Clinton campaign.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall, who -- by his own reckoning --
has long been one of the most loyal and admiring Bill
Clinton fans around, has been increasingly critical of
the ex-President's behavior over the last couple of
weeks and, specifically, his "Jackson/Obama"
comparison yesterday. In a post this morning, Josh
points out the numerous differences between
yesterday's primary and the 1984 and 1988 primaries
won by Jackson and concludes:

Bill Clinton's reference to Jesse Jackson's wins in
South Carolina pretty much speaks for itself. But
there's a further part of the story that's well worth
pointing out. . . .

[I]n addition to whatever else he was trying to
convey, Bill Clinton's statement about Jackson's
victories was, while accurate, highly misleading on
something like three or four different counts.

I must say I'm surprised by the number of people
willing to defend Bill Clinton's comments here. Had
the Obama campaign dismissed his loss in New Hampshire
by casually suggesting that it's unsurprising that he
lost given that the state is predominantly white,
would that have been an appropriate comment to make?
Most of these elections are complex and most voters --
including black voters in South Carolina -- are
influenced by numerous factors.

Blithely suggesting that Obama won South Carolina
because he's the "black candidate" is, at best, a
sloppy and destructive way of trying to divide the
electorate on racial lines in favor of the Clinton
campaign. Why is that defensible?

UPDATE II: Several other commentators who are
generally fans of the Clintons have similar reactions
to Bill Clinton's comments and offer additional
thoughts, including Scott Lemieux and Steve Benen.

There seem to be two strains of argument in defense of
Bill Clinton: (1) the Jackson comparision wasn't
racial and (2) it was racial, but not malicious, and
anyone objecting is being "overly-sensitive" and is
failing to appreciate that politics is a "contact
sport." The first objection seems to require little
effort to refute. Here, after all, is what the Clinton
campaign itself is saying:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional
effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they
believe the fallout has had the effect of branding
Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt
him outside the South.
Is there something ambiguous about that?

As for the "suck-it-up" defense that politics entails
rough tactics and one can't whine about it, that is
true as far as it goes. As I said, I think many of the
controversies about past Clinton comments have been
manufactured and the Obama campaign has, at times,
been somewhat whiny and overly delicate in their
objections. But that doesn't mean that there are no
limits.

For those who are arguing that we need tough tactics
in politics, does anything go? If it's the case -- as
it certainly seems to be -- that part of the Clinton
strategy is to depict Obama as the "black candidate"
comparable to Jackson's candidacy in the 1980s --
meaning a candidacy perceived as representative of
racial minorites and unable to attract white voters --
all in order to encourage racial tribalism in voting
and to attempt to win by making it a "black v. white"
primary (knowing there are more white voters than
black voters), is that all acceptable, all part of the
"politics-is-a-tough-game" justification?

And for all the people who are labelling these
concerns "whining" and insisting on the need for tough
tactics: were you saying the same in response to
complaints about, say, the 1988 Willie Horton campaign
or the 2000 "McCain-had-an-out-of-wedlock black baby"
slurs or 2004 Swift Boat attacks or this year's
"Obama-is-a-Muslim" emails? The point isn't to suggest
an equivalence between those attacks but to underscore
the fact that complaints about unfair or divisive
campaign tactics aren't inherently "whiny" or
unrealistic. Sometimes those complaints are valid
because the tactics in question are way over the line
-- for those who recognize that such lines exist.

Come on, dig in on this, send out hte investigators and get it all out.....Oh... wait a minute, you will not report on that because will blast your Obama bubble.I see, MSNBC is just another spin room just like fox noise. Shame on you.

Two words:  Mark Rich.  All of you who are complicit in trying to tar and feather Senator Obama because of an association with Rezko, I remind you of Mark Rich.

Ah, why not, here's the rest of their list:
Charlie Trie, John Huang, John Chung, Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, Terry McAuliffe, Hassan Nemazee, Alan Quasha, Whitewater, Castel Grande, Madison Guaranty, Tyson Foods, cattle futures, Webb Hubbell, Jim and Susan McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker, Seth Ward, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita, Kathleen, Dolly, Monica, File-gate, Travel-gate, Vince Foster, Trooper-gate

Will we hear about all the Clinton contributors problems or is there not enough space?

I'm sure that if Rezko had any connections to the Clintons this would be flashed across the top banner.  I hope you folks are getting paid to do Obama's bidding.

How about running a photo of him with his good friend Hillary Clinton?  Another Clinton croney bites the dust.  Oh yeah, this bum also knew Obama.

College educated native of Washington State here, I wholeheartedly support Senator Obama. This issue does not reflect upon Barack. Efforts to make it appear so are just more of the typical smear & fear dirty politics that I'm sick of.

Rezko was arrested and so was many republicans within the last year.  What does this mean?  Absolutely nothing.  Come on MSNBC!  This is ridiculous.  
Well at least for the Clintons, they pardoned most their shady buddies, so this means nothing.    

I'm sorry I don't see it, everyone knows someone shady. Yes Obama knew him, but I don't see any wrong doing by Obama. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems Obama has already  commented on this and the connection doesn't seem that big of a deal.
Rezko to me is just Clintons trying to find something to stick on Obama, and if this is the best they got it's a joke. I mean how many shady people do the Clintons know, and in alot of cases I bet there connection is even stronger.
I sure don't think Obama is a saint, but if this is the only thing you can find on him, you make me think as far as politics go he might be as close to a saint as we will get LOL!!!

I agree, you sicken me with your double standard and I think you should go work for the fix it station.   Double standards turn people away.  I will not watch NBC any longer........

signed

disgusted with your double standard coverage....

I agree, you sicken me with your double standard and I think you should go work for the fix it station.   Double standards turn people away.  I will not watch NBC any longer........

signed

disgusted with your double standard coverage....

I love to buy Obama's house for 300K. Will he sell it?

I love to buy Obama's house for 300K. Will he sell it?

Interestingly enough, Marc Rich is still free and Vince Foster is still dead.

I haven't ever seen a single report that shows Obama passed a single bit of legislation that favored or benefitted Rezko in any way...

Maybe MSNBC can give us an update on Alan Gerry, the guy who got Clinton to stick the "hippy museum" to the appropriations bill... you know, the guy that donated $29,200 to her a few days after she inserted it into the bill?

Or maybe we can get an update on Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, the Paw family, the Chinese dishwashers that gave her $2,300 (did they get a pay raise? still working hard I hope?)?  How's Monica, Linda, and Jennifer doing?

Maybe we can get the report of the picture of Rezko standing next to Billary?  Or some investigative digging into how much Rezko gave other democrats?

More like a little bird dropping on the NBC/MSNBC parade.

He probably should have been arrested?  Heard he was slum landlord?  It just says one thing about the media and how much it controls our lives...  There are plenty of bad people out there and there are just as many good?  Why don't we report that as much as the bad?  Because it's not news some people?  This is all politics and we have endure the pain of advertisements and certain views and beliefs of the press.  

Someone please show me where Obama has actually done anything illegal? Some Whitewater type stuff, lying to grand jury, etc.? Anything??? No?? With the ton of filth in the Clinton's past, they are the last to try to throw stones.

Tony Rezko apparently knows, PA, Gov Ed Rendell; Rendell endorses Clinton; Clinton takes early pics with Rezko; Rezko happens to find an up-and-coming Obama; Rezko entangles Obama via engratiating support and contributions.  Rezko arrest and prosecution seems too politically convenient.  
Are we to presume that a candidate is knowledgeable of the unlawful conduct of it's supporters and contributors?  Or, just Sen. Obama?
We should be mindful that Rezko seems to be the only focus of Sen. Obama, blemishes...hmm.  

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