"She never held any elected office, until she was elected to the senate in New York in 2000…”  
-Bill Clinton describing his wife Senator Clinton in New Philadelphia, Ohio, March 1, 2008

Bill, thanks for finally getting it half right; you’ve finally accepted what voters in the last 11 states have been on to.  Senator Clinton’s foundational argument for her campaign, that she is the most “experienced,” has almost ZERO credibility.

Rather than drinking the Clinton Kool-aid as some on this blog are known to do, let’s break down the Senator’s “35 years” of vaunted experience that are supposedly the reason America should vote for her:

1 year at the Children’s Defense Fund (terrific but millions of Americans have worked for nonprofits for at least 1 year, that hardly qualifies you for President).  3 years on Capitol Hill (fantastic, but again, thousands of capable young Americans have worked on Capitol Hill, they’re not all going to be President).  15 years as a corporate attorney for a tiny law firm in Arkansas (again, admirable but not even “top shelf” in the legal world given the thousands of first-tier attorneys at major corporations across America).  8 years as first lady (America thanks her for her service but the one thing she was responsible for not only failed badly but it was terribly mismanaged by her).  7 years as a Senator (she’s passed, what 2 small pieces of legislation?  Again, hardly the basis for a national campaign).   Senator Clinton’s claims of being “the most experienced” and of trying to paint her opponent as a rookie are somewhere between laughable and offensive (the more she makes these claims, the more offensive they are because they insult people’s intelligence).   In essence, she’s pulled one over on a whole lot of people.

This team has so duped the national media, it’s frightening.  I haven’t heard ONE national reporter ever do the 10 minute analysis that I just did.  And yet she whines because “everyone’s so tough on me and they never analyze my opponent’s record.”  If they were tough on you, they’d be questioning your fundamental claim as to why you should be President, Senator Clinton.  Be grateful Senator Obama has stayed above the fray and hasn’t shredded your claim.  If you’re the nominee, you can bet the Republicans will.

Senator Clinton claims to be the best one to manage the labyrinthian bureaucracy in DC.  What substance there is on her resume to justify this claim is beyond me.  Perhaps one of the Senator’s paid staffers who poses as a blogger here could help on this topic.  Here’s what we know.  The first large enterprise she’s ever managed is her Presidential Campaign and she managed it straight into debt and directly into 11 consecutive losses.  In the past 2 weeks, we hear that she is just now trying to figure out the relatively simple process of the elections in Texas.  

Is there ANY reality behind her rhetoric?  Senator Obama doesn’t claim to be know DC inside and out but here’s what he’s established:  in less than 12 months, he has built the most impressive and wide-ranging campaign infrastructure in history.  All as a little-known Senator with NO establishment backing.

Marbw, posted this yesterday.  I’m reposting it here because it’s such a poignant clip that has gotten so little attention.  It underlines the point that Senator Clinton has no answer to the charge that she's making against Senator Obama (a common theme the past 6 weeks).  Voters who pay attention realize that despite all her slogans about her opponent (like "he's all rhetoric and no reality"), it's she who has nothing to back up her claims.  Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, it appears that the "people who pay attention" is a growing demographic.

From the National Journal, March 1, 2008
“It was, in this reporter's opinion, the most interesting moment in today's Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question:
"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.”
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

Senator Clinton keeps bringing up national security and foreign policy as her trump card.  But the problem is, she doesn’t hold those cards anymore.   In the past week, the two Senators with the most experience on Foreign Relations and National Intelligence issues endorsed your rival.  That’s right, the Chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee and the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee BOTH endorsed Obama.  They have BOTH known you for the entire 35 years of your experience and yet they endorsed him.  I know some of your hacks will write in with slander against "the two white men who don't know anything," but intelligent voters will see that the two MOST EXPERIENCED individuals in the Senate on the issues of foreign relations and intelligence have implicitly denounced Senator Clinton.

Not surprising since republicans and independents are allowed to vote in our primary and 90% of a certain other voting block seems to be race based.

Hopefully there are enough smart Democrats to see through this charade and vote for Hilliary as if their economic life depends upon it because it does.

obama is nothing more than a political opportunist and shyster.

OBAMA COULD WIN OHIO if Hillary supporters, undecided Democrats and Dem Party loyalists heard the comment from an NBC reporter, this morning on "The Chris Matthews Show."

OUCH!!! Will a defeated Hillary secretly root for McCain, and fail to deliver full support to an Obama nomination and loyalty to the Democratic party?

An NBC News reporter from Columbus, Ohio, and guest on this morning’s Chris Mathew’s Show said the following when asked the question, “Will Hillary, if she looses the primary, enthusiastically support Barack  Obama?” “Hillary has a very good, long-standing relationship with John McCain, and that alliance may keep her from putting her full weight behind an Obama nomination.”

“You mean she’ll shed no tears over a McCain win in the general election?” Matthews asked?” “Right,” answered the Columbus, NBC reporter.

How will the “Democratic establishment,” of Ohio, supposedly one of Hillary’s strongest bases of support, feel about that???

Will the promise of McCain’s support for her future Senate initiatives drive a strategic blow to the Democratic Party by her secretly hoping for a McCain White House, purely for the possibility it will get her more support for her personal agenda, than an Obama White House would?

This title heading is way off:

clinton heavily leads in Ohio in most area polls except the black vote.

Clinotn and obama are dead even in Texas althoyugh she does lead barely.

Once again, big brother taking up for and swaying public opinion/votes with articles that are unfounded - this own article states how far ahead Clinton is in Ohio = a dead heat? - lol.

Clinoton also leads in national polls as taking republican votes away from McCain far better than obama in Florida and 6 other red states yet this isn't discussed as much by media and would definatley help our party unite.

fight fair!

Clinton '08

Clinton is going to survive in TX, win OH and RI where she's leading, and spin herself as the comeback kid, when in reality she needs double-digit wins in both states to even start a comeback. But spin will prevail.

Chuck, Could you imagine is Sen. Obama was running a campaign that was constantly complaining? This whole media bias argument is BS. Sen. Clinton's 35 years of experience is based on whining and always claiming to be a victim! Chuck, find some old clips about the vast right wing conspiracy, please. Sen. Clinton is not fit to lead this nation!

Take with a pinch of salt. Mason-Dixon isn't one of the very reliable ones.

Lok out for SurveyUsa.

Hillary Clinton has never been my candidate, but one thing I’ve never questioned is that she is well-schooled on all of the issues.  This morning on MSNBC, “Alex” and a commentator whose name I didn’t catch, were discussing Hillary’s supposed “spewing” of information to the Cleveland Plain Dealer “like she was cramming for a final exam.”  The commentator was critical of Clinton, at one point saying, “no one likes a smarty pants,” and that her talking so much about “policies” (a new dirty word, I guess) got in the way of people who wanted to know what her “personality” was like.

“No one likes a smarty pants” sounds more like a playground put down than objective political commentary.  I’ve always discounted complaints about media bias against Hillary Clinton because the Clintons are plenty capable of giving as good as they get.  But this went way too far.  It isn’t misogynist (or at least, not just misogynist).  It’s worse.  It’s anti-intelligence.  It’s exactly the same kind of snide, personal commentary that the media employed in 2000 against Al Gore.  Has the media learned absolutely nothing from the past seven years?  Exactly who DO you want answering that telephone at 3 a.m. -- a “nice guy” with whom you’d like to have a beer, or someone who actually knows what’s going on?

This won’t change my vote.  Barack Obama is also capable of answering that 3 a.m. phone call.  But, it may very well make me change my political news network.  

I live in Dayton Ohio - CLinton is showing very strongly in all polls outside of black voters. Why and how can you state a dead heat here in Ohio.

Clinotn is showing lots stronger in red states obtaiing republican votes away form McCain inNovemeber - see latest Florida polls.

Texas she still leads in most of the disected polls, so how is this a dead heat?

I'm really offended by the media's protection and public swaying in this election.

Please post this if you have any ounce of fairness in you - I keep trying to get a different viewpoint out for America that is backed by truths but whomever want allow my messages to get posted.

God be with us in the 4 years to come.

I know that you guys are under duress for media bias, but why has the narrative on the Obama campaign shifted from the fact that he has been able to close a 20 point gap in both Texas and Ohio, to how hillary is being mistreated or is a "fighter".  
On balance, I can agree that she hasn't always had the best coverage,but I hear reporters on msnbc speaking directly from Wolfson's latest talking points.
My point is simple, Obama has closed the gap significantly in both of these "firewall" states, yet the narrative is about how hillary is a "fighter".  Is Obama a fighter? If Hillary were closing 20 point gaps in states, would you be reporting on how much of a fighter Obama is?

I recognize my own bias in this as I am an Obama supporter, but C'mon Chuck Todd & co.....
Keep it real.

Look at some other polls. Has Clinton up by 14 in Ohio and yes tied in Texas. It always interesting that you always cover the polls that show when Obama is closer to Clinton never the other way around. It's just plain bad journalism. GO Hillary 08

Just think! the republicans in Texas could actually put an end to Hillarys' hope by voting for her opponent in large numbers. To knock out HRC would not bother most republicans and delight many, but Obama
leads in the polls against McCain and HRC has a big disaproval rating amoungst even democrats.  Whats a good republican to do?   Two quick left jabs, a roundhouse right then move in with a right and left upper cut thats what.          JD ptown co.

The whole country will just have to wait and see what the voters of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, Mississippi, and Wyoming decide....The speculators will all be able to rest!...If it's change people are wanting and needing then the vote itself will reflect it!!!...The White House definitely needs an overhaul a good old cleaning out.

COME ON PEOPLE OF OHIO AND TEXAS.

LETS GET HILLARY BACK INTO THE PICTURE--BIGTIME!!!
WE NEED SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA TODAY MORE THAN ANY TIME IN THE LAST 30 YEARS, OR MORE.  I'M 72 YEARS OLD.  I KNOW HILLARY IS PROBABLY THE BEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE IN MY LIFETIME.
LETS NOT LET THIS  OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING THIS GREAT CHANGE WITH WORKABLE SOLUTIONS SLIP AWAY
JUST BECAUSE A NEW FACE TURNS UP PREACHING HOPE.
WE MUST NOT TAKE A CHANCE ON AN UNKNOWN PERSON WHO COPYS EVERY WORD HILLARY SAYS AND USES IT AGAINST HER. THAT IS JUST WRONG.
HE HAS NO NEW IDEAS.   IT IS REALLY TIME TO
--GET REAL.

We need Sen. Clinton in 2008. I remember when George Bush came to town to reclaim the Republican crown that his father had lost to Bill Clinton, we wishy-washy liberals feared the worst. Clinton had worked hard to put the US government's finances on a sound footing, but George Bush and his merry men took one look at the result, rubbed their hands, and cried "tax cuts for us and our friends .. "This is from an artical i read on the net, and i agree 100%"
Msnbc has lost all credibility when they say they are fair,They have giving barrack hussen obama a free ride.

Look at the favorable numbers under the undecided. These numbers favor Clinton in both Ohio and Texas. Obama group of AA and liberal whites all taped out?

Let the best man or woman win.

It sure is going to be a tight race!
I want my next president to have the experience needed to turn this country around and keep us safe. I have decided that Hillary Clinton is that candidate. She is endorsed by 30 or more US Generals - it is amazing. And she is so knowledgeable about the economy, healthcare, the environment, etc...

I want someone who is going to roll up their sleeves and get work done.

Go Hillary!

Hill is done all.
She will get SPANKED in Texas and will Lose Vermont and RI. She may win Ohio by 1 or 2 pts but who cares. Her Politics for the jurrasic age dont resonate.
" If someone wants you to vote because of Fear, and the other one offers hope and wants you to think, pick the one who wants you to think"
Bubba
Thanks Bubba
OBAMA/WEBB 08

Experience is important, no doubt.  However, just being around government doesn't mean you have relevant experience or have led groups of people to come together to get important things done for the country.  A person can claim credit for things that happened around them.  The issue is what they specifically did to make happen the critical and important policies and legislation.  Having met world leaders doesn't mean you would know how to deal with them is a crisis.  Judgment is more important.  Judgment is hiring the right people to be your Cabinet, to run the largest organization in the world.  Who will be your secretary of state, defense, education, etc? Who will be your national security advisor, head of CIA, FBI, ambassador to the United Nations?  Judgment is how you process information and trust the sources when facts, intelligence and guesses are brought to you as President for a decision to be made.  In addition, in this incredibly divided country, electing another divisive figure like Clinton would not unify us.  Instead, it will be another four years of partisan bickering.  That may not be fair, but it's likely.  The Clintons (including Hillary and Bill), as evidenced by the campaign, are not trying to bring the country together.  Rather, they are deploying the 50+1 strategy they are often perceived to be.  Win, at any costs, whether good for the country or the party.  They have played to the fears of the populace, or made a "sympathy vote" gender case to women (ie vote for Hillary because she is somehow a sympathetic figure).   I know that it's exciting for women to have a women running for president.  The question, at least to me, is whether this particular women really does have the experience and the judgment and the ability to bring this country together.  

I have already voted for Obama on Saturday in the Texas Democratic Primary. I also plan to caucus for him with my friends. I TRUST Barack! We do not have penchant for Bill and Hillary’s style of politics. Bill and Hillary Clinton spurn the truth and play dirty tricks to win; they are glaringly hypocritical. They circulate fear for political gains that will not materialize. We do not trust them anymore. It is time for Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and RI to go to poll in droves to vote for Barack Obama on March 4th so that the Democrats will start uniting the party for the general election.
Prince George

And when asked what experience Hill actually has to her and her campaign she said.................

:crickets in background:
Well I dont have any

I watched the recent debate for elections in Spain. Two hours of extended talk about issues, candidate positions and future direction. It wasn't entertainment for sure. It was heavy stuff. But, at the end of one debate you had a pretty clear idea of where each candidate was heading in terms of policies, etc. It was much better content wise than any debate in the entire USA nomination process. It is just so sad that the American public is so chained to entertainment and soundbites. I have learned very little new about Obama's direction or way of governing. Or, maybe I have and have made the decision that I prefer the direction Hillary has laid out very clearly. I just can't help but believe that Obama give democrats another McGovern style defeat after so much excitment, so much idolizing and little clarity. I dread the thought of more Republican leadership that has taken us into a horrible budget situation and failed international policies. We are in a mess and the Republican leadership, Republican budgets, Republican conservatism that permits no new direction have all got us into this mess. If Obama wins, he sure better have people who know a hell of a lot more about governing and the world at large than his work in south Chicago has given him. So little experience and so big a dream. I think the presidential campaign this year is something akin to American idol.

It is kind of ironic that when Hillary cries the media latch on to her and give her exceptional news coverage and disrespects Obama.

There is a great deal of negative coverage on Obama because he is winning( won). I would like to see the front page of msnbc headline Hillary taking money from a firm involved in disrimination against women ( her so-called strong base of supporters). Maybe, you could headline the support she received from  a racist supporter. These issues went down as a one time discussion and it was gone.

On the other hand, Obama has been negatively portrayed lately with old news that has been cleared on his behalf.

Obama "08"

20 points have been closed by Obama. Has something occurred to reverse that momentum? As always in a close election the undecideds will decide. On to Tuesday!

It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton can lose double digit leads in less than two weeks.  We continue to see this pattern where they more people see her, the less likely they are to support her (except for her base of identity voters).  Iowa voters saw more of Hillary than any other state in the country and she finished THIRD.  I do not understand why people support a candidate that is disliked by half the country and has already lost 11 in a row.  After she loses Texas, let's hope she exits gracefully.  

If he is so great why is it always a dead heat in the big states. Tells me that he just can't get by the Hillary machine even though the media ( most Republicans) still shove Obama down our throats.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. The Republicans have been clear for weeks. You could say the same for Hillary but you,the media and ofcourse the group that is threatening Superdelagates just can't get by it.

The women of Ohio and Texas need to take a closer look at Hillary's background on the issues she talk about, since the media is so focused on bashing Obama.

Hillary does not sincerely care about women, because if she did she would have given the money back to the men who makes sexual advances to women in the work place. Hillary and the media can spin this anyway they think will benefit Hillary.

Obama has more experience as an elected official than Hillary. Obama's wife has been attacked as well as the character of this couple. I HAVE NOT SEEN A CONSTANT HEADLINE ABOUT THE SEXIST FIRM THAT GAVE MONEY TO HILLARY OR THE RACIST SUPPORTER. HILLARY IS A DISGRACE TO WOMEN. WAKE UP WOMEN!!!!!!

Obama "08"

Chris Mathews is an indepedent leaning republican so whatever he says usually is not credible. Hillary's supporters are very commited to her and will keep on fighting for the cause of her candidacy. You can be very negative , but in totality we do a good job of research than listen to the biased media

The first comment above by ME in CA serves as a solid journalistic examination of Clinton's supposed 35 years of experience. Another blog I saw at Daily Kos provided a comparative list of the proposals and achievements of both Obama and Clinton in the Senate. Journalism in broadcasting is on the verge of death. The Internet and intelligent people sharing information has become the most reliable source for any in-depth analysis. You guys here at First Read are the only real political reporters MSNBC has other than Keith Olbermann. CNN has none. NONE. Forget Fox Fake News. Not worth the time to type this line.
Long live the Internet. Newspapers are dying fast. I wonder if broadcast news is next. Keep those Internet skills honed, guys. They're all you've got for the future unless something changes drastically in the trends in broadcasting.

i hope the voters in this country will make the right decision in this election we need experience we made a mistake 8 years ago and elected the ex alcoholic we donot need a ex cocaine user and these arew his words      hillary clinton for president

Obama is a former Professor at Harvard teaching Constitutional Law, former head of the Harvard Law Review, a State Senator for 8 years, a Community Organizer on the streets helping People, seeing their suffering first hand, a Civil Rights Attorney working on Death Penalty cases...

It is a FARCE to say Mrs. Clinton is MORE experienced!  More experienced in WHAT? Old School Politics, THAT'S what! The Voters get it. Scandal after scandal...THAT'S what the Clintons "EXPERIENCE" brought them and the American People!

Democrats need to WAKE UP! Clinton will NEVER beat McCain...She will NOT get Independants, the African Americans and MANY others  will NOT come back to Hillary after SC! She's done.

So, stand behind her and bring the WHOLE ship down in November. Your choice.

One plausible explanation is that Mrs. Clinton's "35 years of experience" were tabulated by Lorne Greene ... in dog years.

Go Hillary.  You are the best.  Hang in there.  Don't give up and go all the way to the convention.  Obama will not get the 2025 delegates,so why should you quit? Let him quit.

 Clearly and unambiguously, Hillary Clinton is the more experienced of the two candidates. The presidency is a tremendously important job. It is better to go with a safe candidate when in doubt. Obama must hone his experiences further and go through the painful process of learning still. This would sound harsh to those who wish to catapult him into the office now..... be patient, do not hurry, wwait and let life's lessons season him and see how he comes out. Only then, consider his candidacy respectfully, dispassionately.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of  President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Why MSNBC Cover The Fact of Obama All The Time, Please Read New York Time For the Following:

As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama

By MIKE McINTIRE and CHRISTOPHER DREW

Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper articles about corruption and fraud.

None of that stopped Mr. Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Senator Barack Obama from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.

Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger as Mr. Rezko goes on trial on corruption charges starting Monday.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Mr. Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the State of Illinois. Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developer’s decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood.

But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

As Mr. Obama and Mr. Rezko were completing the property purchases in June 2005, Mr. Rezko was fighting to keep lenders and investors at bay over defaulted loans and failing business ventures. But he side-stepped that financial dragnet by arranging for the land to be bought in his wife’s name, making it the only property she owned by herself, according to land records.

As a result, when the Obamas bought part of the land from Mrs. Rezko seven months later to widen their yard, the money they paid was beyond the reach of Mr. Rezko’s creditors, including one conducting a court-ordered hunt for his assets to recover a $3.5 million debt.

Two lawyers involved in the civil litigation against Mr. Rezko said they believed that the property was subject to possible seizure on the premise that Mr. Rezko had been trying to hide behind his wife, Rita, who had little money of her own to complete the $625,000 purchase.

The lawyers, both of whom requested anonymity because they did not have their clients’ permission to speak about the cases, said there was little purpose in pursuing it because the legal costs would have outweighed the value of the property, which was encumbered by a $500,000 mortgage.

Lawyers representing Mr. Rezko in the civil litigation declined to comment.

When the property deals first surfaced in late 2006, Mr. Obama said he had done nothing wrong. In a statement at the time, he also said: “It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor.” Mr. Obama’s campaign emphasized Saturday that the criminal proceeding against Mr. Rezko “is not a case about Senator Obama.”

The statement added: “Senator Obama knew Tony Rezko for two decades in very different circumstances, none of which involve the actions with which Mr. Rezko has been charged.”

The fuller picture of Mr. Rezko’s financial maneuverings emerged from an examination of civil suits in state and federal courts, as well as newly filed documents in his criminal case.

Mr. Rezko, a longtime confidant and fund-raiser for Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, a Democrat, has pleaded not guilty to charges of extorting campaign contributions and payoffs from companies looking to do business with the Blagojevich administration.

Mr. Obama’s name is likely to surface during the trial, if only because $10,000 of the money Mr. Rezko is accused of extorting wound up in Mr. Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Obama did any favors for Mr. Rezko, but there is ample evidence that Mr. Rezko did favors for Mr. Obama.

The two men became friends in the early 1990s when Mr. Rezko tried to hire Mr. Obama to work on his low-income housing developments. When Mr. Obama turned to politics, Mr. Rezko was an early supporter and fund-raiser. Mr. Rezko also stepped in when Mr. Obama, a newly elected United States senator, and his family found a Georgian mansion for sale in the Kenwood section of Chicago.

When the transactions were first reported, Mr. Obama said only that he had asked Mr. Rezko, as a developer, whether he thought the house was worth buying. But last month, Mr. Obama’s campaign staff said the senator also recalled walking around the house and the adjacent lot with Mr. Rezko.

Mr. Obama has said he did not know why Mr. Rezko decided to buy the lot. Business associates of Mr. Rezko said he gave various explanations, among them that he wanted to help the Obamas expand their backyard and that he thought it would be a good investment to own a lot next to a prominent politician. But Mr. Rezko’s involvement was important because the owners of the house and the lot had stipulated that neither could be sold unless a deal for the other closed on the same day.

Michael Sreenan, a lawyer who handled the transaction for Mrs. Rezko, said that the lot was attractive to developers and that the Rezkos had to outbid others to buy it.

Some critics say that given Mr. Obama’s longtime emphasis on ethics, it is puzzling that he would have been so involved with the Rezkos on the house and lot deals after questions had begun to crop up about Mr. Rezko’s political and business activities.

For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko’s influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments.

Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.

As a result, said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association in Chicago, Mr. Obama “should have been on high alert.”

In addition, although Mr. Rezko enjoyed a reputation as a man of means, with a Mediterranean-style mansion, a sprawling chain of fast-food businesses and frequent multimillion-dollar real estate deals, the court records show, he was also sinking in financial quicksand.

Federal prosecutors filed papers last week saying Mr. Rezko had trouble paying creditors for years. At least 12 lawsuits had been filed against Mr. Rezko and his businesses from November 2002 to January 2005, including one by the G.E. Commercial Finance Corporation, which had extended more than $5 million in loans for Mr. Rezko’s pizza franchises.

G.E. obtained a court judgment against Mr. Rezko in November 2004 for the $3.5 million that it said was outstanding on its loans, but the company put collection efforts on hold in the first half of 2005 as it negotiated with Mr. Rezko, court records show. When the Obamas and Rezkos bought their adjacent parcels that June, Mrs. Rezko put down $125,000 in cash and financed the rest with a bank loan.

Vincent A. Lavieri, a lawyer who has represented clients in three lawsuits against Mr. Rezko, said Mr. Rezko’s creditors could have tried to prove that Mr. Rezko was using his wife as a front to shield assets.

It is unclear where Mrs. Rezko got the money for the down payment and how she carried the loan, considering that she later said in an affidavit that she earned $37,000 a year and had few assets.

Mr. Rezko, however, had come into money two months earlier, when he obtained a $3.5 million loan from a Panamanian company controlled by his friend and business partner, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire who was convicted several years ago in France on fraud charges.

Alasdair Pepper, a lawyer based in London who represented Mr. Auchi, said that Mr. Rezko was expected to use the money for his pizza business, and that “as far as my client is aware, Mr. Rezko used the loan for its intended purpose and not for any other purpose.”

Court records in the G.E. case show that a few months after receiving the loan from Mr. Auchi, Mr. Rezko made a $1 million payment to G.E., but stopped short of repaying everything he owed.

Finally, in October 2005, G.E. obtained an order allowing the company to begin seizing Mr. Rezko’s assets. The company’s lawyers filed a claim against the Rezkos’ home and began issuing subpoenas to banks where Mr. Rezko had accounts, finding very little cash. Court records show that G.E. was due to be in court on Jan. 5, 2006, for example, obtaining an order to seize $1,297.39 from one of Mr. Rezko’s checking accounts.

Less than a week later, Mrs. Rezko sold a 10-foot-wide strip of the empty lot to Mr. Obama, for $104,500, so he could widen his side yard. The Rezkos had little to show for the entire transaction.

Asked by a judge to give an accounting of his and his wife’s assets last year after he was indicted, Mr. Rezko said that his wife had recently sold the remainder of the lot and that the small profit it generated went back to the buyer to help cover an old debt.

“So she didn’t walk away with any cash?” the judge asked.

“Not one dollar,” Mr. Rezko replied.

    Channel surfing the CNN/MSNBC/Fox Noise channels this a.m.  Just saw a report on "Noise" by John Damshroder, Fox Channel 8 political reporter --- he says polling models now in use do not account for the very heavy voter turnout expected in OH.  He believes that Obama support is understated in recent polls --- 4 out of 5 major newspapers have supported Obama, Service Union Int'l has made a huge commitment to Obama, and a majority of new voters, now engaged, will break for Obama.  Damshroder got high marks for his political acumen prior to his report; the anchor was somewhat surprised at his assessment given today's polling numbers.  He says Obama will win OH.  For what any prognostication is worth.  (I sure hope he is right, BTW!)

Amy Anderson:  I commend your intellect in seeing your grievance was with the news network and not with the candidates.  It would be helpful if everyone was able to identify where their concerns and biases lay instead of embracing half truths and misconstrued presentations.  My hat off to you for a thoughtful post.

One recent MSNBC expert pointed out that HRC was having such a problem because there are no right wing conspirators to blame for her falling numbers and self-destructing campaign.

I don't believe being ahead in the polls by 4% is a dead heat LOL They don't say Hillary is ahead by 4% in Ohio to make allowances for the 3% either way. Try to be fair MSNBC or you and the other bias news media will cost Obama the electiopn.

You would have expected that most women, regardless of race, would have supported a woman for President, but it seems that most Afro American women have chosen race over gender.
I hope that when people choose McCain over Obama, no one would dare to say that race was chosen over inexperience.
The Democrats should support Mrs. Clinton, she is the most qualified candidate of the two Democrats.

so happy to see America is on to your Barrack barrage of support and Hillary bashing....objectivity is valued by viewers...MSNBC is probably pandering to the "elitists"  (Obama supporters) remember  , television is a business and a network may well support a candidate that suits THEM   ..not ACTUALLY look out for the best interest of Americans...one day this Obama  bias will come back to haunt you  MSNBC..America has done well without you b4  and will again (without you) Many people are seeking their political news from a more credible source.  We are not looking for Obama cheerleaders, biased polls, stacked delegate counts, etc.. all biased for Barrack OBMSNBCAMA

This video by http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html http://lessig.org/info/bio/ Lawrence Lessig has definitely moved me from my indecision about Clinton or Obama and am utterly convinced Obama is the President the country needs.

I prefer Obama not because I am liberal( I am not) or because I am black (I am not) or even because I am a democrat, which I definitely am not.  I prefer Barrack Obama simply because he appears real.  HRC acts as though she is owed the Presidency. BHO asks for support and tells the truth, "IT WILL TAKE PEOPLE FROM BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE THE GOVT. WORK." Not HRC trying to cram legislation down our throats because she "knows what is best for this country."  Let's look at the experience issue.  BHO has served 1 term in the Senate.  How many terms did William Jefferson Clinton serve?  Oh yeah, NONE.  How many terms did Jimmy Carter serve?  NONE.  Even Ronald Reagan served ZERO terms in the Federal Govt.  HRC needs to back up her experience claims with facts not innuendo.  When she loses, are we going to be exposed to her rants once again about the "Vast Right Wing conspiracy?" The only Clinton that this country may ever elect is Chelsea.  She is intelligent, humble, well learned, personable and will someday make a fine politician.

Funny how the MSM has been silent about the Obama comment backstage before an event in Texas to an aide when he said "Watch me make these white people swoon".  Has America become so "dumbed down" that this is now okay?  Are people so enamored of Obama that they willingly submit to his trickery & chicanery?  I'll brew the coffee America while you wake up!!

I think it's about bloody time Hillary is expressing her anger. After the garbage she's had strewn at her and said about her and the lies Obama and the media have had no problem spouting, she has every right to be thoroughly disgusted. I know the rest of the world is wondering why the American Press is concealing Obama's distortions of the truth; why they aren't even discussing his call to Canada - telling the Canadians that anything he said should be considered "Political Rhetoric" etc.... I mean this is an INTERNATIONAL faux pas, big time, and has demonstrated to Canada and other US Allies that Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth and will do anything to win; and even has the GALL to admit it!! How on earth can any nation rely on Obama's word now? And the US Press has not said ONE WORD about it, other than to kill the story as quickly as possible!
I agree with you, that more dialogue would be great between the candidates. But the Press has not allowed that either! It's deplorable to say the least! the media bias against Hillary - and her grace - has certainly proven she is the only one qualified to be President. The FLUFF Obama spouts is just that Fluff and empty Political Rhetoric. He's conning the voter big time and laughs and brags about it to the Canadians to boot! Unreal!

Perception is everything.  We hear ad nauseum about how money is such a big deal in these campaigns  but NONE of the networks ever address why that is beyond the standard tv/radio/pamphlet no brainers. How about expanding on that, MSNBC? I think the voters would be surprised - and maybe even rethink their vote, if they knew that campaign money was used for transportation and hotels to move people from one state into another to bulk up the rallies.  You can't ask people at the door what State they are from, but wouldn't it be intersting to find that half of the people showing up at rallies can't even vote in that State?  How about letting that news out?

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