Funny what up and slipped Barack Obama's mind:
Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged that he had substantially underrepresented the cash raised for his earlier campaigns by indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
But Obama's campaign said it could not donate to charity as much as $90,000 in newly acknowledged Rezko-linked contributions because the old campaign accounts were closed and the money spent.
Obama's acknowledgement that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for earlier campaigns, initially made in an interview with The Chicago Tribune and confirmed later to Politico, came after a year-and-a-half-long trickle of admissions about Rezko’s fundraising role and more than a month after Obama’s aides contended they had identified and jettisoned all Rezko-linked cash. It also came as Rezko’s trial on corruption charges, underway in Chicago, brought increased scrutiny of Obama’s ties to the real estate developer, fast food magnate and political insider.
Wonder how long it's going to be before he remembers that he was, in fact, present for crazypants Jerry Wright sermons. It is simply not credible that in 20 years of attending that church, he never heard the Rev. Wright give a choleric sermon of the sort Obama is denouncing today.
Of course the usual disclaimer follows: If Barack Obama turns out to be the messiah, I, for one, look forward to working with our new hopeful, change-minded overlord.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Bugg, no one except California and Massachusetts can ever match Illinois for corrupt politicians.
I beg your pardon! I come, sir, from the Great State of Louisiana. We take backseat to nobody in terms of corrupt politicians!
Corrupt politicians? Ay caramba! You guys should look a bit further south.
Matt -
You are encouraging us to listen to Obama's words themselves. That's a fair request.
But consider this: Obama talks. And talks. And talks. When he's done talking, he talks some more. When he runs out of cameras to talk to, Will.I.Am makes a music video, so we can hear his words in a different form.
We've been listening to Obama talk for months.
Now, we're trying to find out if Obama's words mean anything. The reality is that there is a pattern emerging (of things that might be forgivable if viewed in isolation) that indicates that Obama's words are not the real indicator of who Obama is.
Michelle Obama's statement that she had never previously been proud of America wouldn't be a problem, if viewed in isolation.
Michelle Obama's thesis paper wouldn't be a problem, if viewed in isolation.
Obama's association with Wright *might* be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
Obama's record on the Born-Alive Infants legislation in Illinois might be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
Obama's record as the most liberal senator might be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
Obama's record of nearly always refusing to cross the aisle and vote with the opposition might be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
But, as voters, we have to look at the whole picture. And, sadly, the picture of Barack Obama that is emerging is one that is ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT than the words he uses. The picture of Barack Obama that emerges is that of a Hard-Left, Extremely Partisan, Liberal Democrat, who does not share the values of the majority of Americans. All the evidence from the very light media-vetting that has been done on Obama indicates that his words are simply that: words. His message of post-race, post-partisan America is a farce, as his actions, voting, and personal life seem to undercut that rhetoric.
I am beginning to believe that Obama could get thumped by McCain, and would have been thumped by Clinton, had he been fairly vetted by the media before he won all those states.
We have been listening to the man's words. Unfortunately, his life and actions are beginning to speak much louder than his words, which are beginning to appear increasingly worthless.
Now, we're trying to find out if Obama's words mean anything. The reality is that there is a pattern emerging (of things that might be forgivable if viewed in isolation) that indicates that Obama's words are not the real indicator of who Obama is.
Interesting, Mike. There was a discussion of this on Meet the Press this morning. Some journalist, can't remember who (David Broder, perhaps), said that Obama has been saying for ages that "words count." Well, people hear Jeremiah Wright's incendiary rhetoric, and it doesn't square at all with what they know about Barack Obama from his own speeches, and they wonder, quite reasonably, why somebody like Obama would be attracted to a man like Jeremiah Wright, when he could have chosen any number of churches and pastors in Chicago.
Obama's association with Wright *might* be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
Go read Wright's sermon posted by Sullivan. If that really represents his sermons and not just the couple of snippets on YouTube maybe that's why Obama went there. The guy wrote 4 books. What is written in those? Maybe a church involved in the community in ways that Rod dreams about was a big lure.
Michelle Obama's statement that she had never previously been proud of America wouldn't be a problem, if viewed in isolation.
Michelle Obama's thesis paper wouldn't be a problem, if viewed in isolation.
On the first she said she was referring to the political process. On the second she was in college. I still cant believe anyone over the age of 21 and has a brain would find this an issue. Lastly, if we want to make wives an issue why is Cindy's stealing drugs from a charity so easily forgiven?
Obama's record as the most liberal senator might be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
Examine the methodology used to reach this conclusion. Take a course in statistics if you havent already.
Obama's record as the most liberal senator might be forgivable, if viewed in isolation.
This does not appear consistent with his time as a state legislator. I think his legislation with a Republican to put info on the internet has the potential to be pretty important. I find it pretty difficult to find details about a lot of what is done in Congress w/o having it come through a think tank. McCain has more history of reaching across the aisle with things like the immigration bill but he has been there longer.
Words matter, especially Obama's words. McCain's words matter. Is it still audacious to hope that we could have an election about the candidates and their words?
Steve
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.