Obama Viewed as the More Honest and Trustworthy Democrat
Tags: Democrat Culture of Corruption, Tony Rezko.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
So says ABC news:
While Clinton still leads on more personal attributes than any of her competitors, just half of Iowa Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll believe she’s willing to say what she really thinks — far fewer than say so of either Obama or John Edwards. Obama beats her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate.
I guess that does make some sense – after all, Obama’s rather strange real estate deal with indicted wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko does make Obama honest as the day is long in comparison to Hillary who seems to only obey laws as long as it is convenient for her to do so. Obama is a relative babe in the woods compared to Hillary and thus hasn’t had the same opportunities to sell himself in the quest for money and power – of course, if Obama were to become President, it is expected that he would fast-track himself into Clinton levels of corruption and dishonesty. But, for now, he is the more honest and trustworthy Democrat…much as Al Capone was one of the more honest and trustworthy bootleggers of yore…
UPDATE: Our Obama File…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
15 Responses to “Obama Viewed as the More Honest and Trustworthy Democrat”
Caucus of Corruption
Chicago Democrat. Need I say more?
In other news, mountain lions were determined to be the most honest and trustworthy of carnivores. So let one babysit your child today!
Those darned tax cuts…Oh you stopped posting those.
He probably is but Hillary would abuse her presidential power more on the level of Bush and make life miserable for conservatives so let’s go with her.
Asstec,
Show proof for a change and quit repeating the standard line on Bush.
Be nice to my Senator Obama. He has been raised by Dick Daley, Dick Durbin and Rod Blagovich. Corruption in politics is all knows. He is just a young inexperienced child in the game.
He probably is but Hillary would abuse her presidential power more on the level of Bush and make life miserable for conservatives so let’s go with her.
Aztec, could you give some examples of abuses of presidential power by President Bush that have adversely effected your life?
BTW, nice sentiment — don’t go with the person who would be best for the country; go with the person that would make your political adversaries the most miserable. That’s the American spirit!
Aztec, let me phrase it a different way. Many of the abuses of power during the Clinton Administration were actually instigated by Hillary, so we’ve already had a preview of the kinds of things she’d do. Has President ever been guilty of anything even remotely close to the following:
Trumped up false charges resulting in criminal indictments against long-time employees in the Travel Office rather than just simply firing them.
Keeping FBI agents at bay while boxes of files were removed from Vince Foster’s office following his “suicide”.
Had subpeoned documents show up on a table in the map room of the WH residence quarters 2 years after the fact and plead ignorance as to how they got there.
Illegally assembled hundreds of FBI files on political and potential political opponents, and feign ignorance as to how it happened.
These are just off the top of my head. I suspect, with a little research, I could come up with a whole lot more, but I think you get the point. The lady is a criminal, unindicted and unconvicted, but, in may people’s minds, a criminal nonetheless. It’s just a matter of time before it catches up with her.
Oops, that should have said, “has President Bush ever been guilty of…” It still feels like Monday.
dear campaign peeps – I don’t give a rat’s a$$ what some discussion groups in Iowa think about any candidate.
evidently tho the media is impressed by a circle jerk ’round the ol’ john deere.
Spook-
President bush did detain an american citizen on american soil without charge and without acces to the courts to dispute his detainment for years by labeling him an enemy combatant. What prohibits Bush from doing that to me? Only when the Supreme Court was going to hear Padilla’s case did the government formally charge him in a court of law. That seems to me an abuse of the writ of habeaus corpus that CAN affect anyone at anytime.
That seems to me an abuse of the writ of habeaus corpus that CAN affect anyone at anytime.
And yet it’s only happend to one individual out of 300 million. Cheer up, Sleepygene (sorry, I just love saying that), unless you’re conspiring with known terrorists to set off a dirty bomb, the odds of that happening to you or me or any other ordinary citizen are somewhere between slim and none. And if you were conspiring with other terrorists to kill Americans, I would hope the same thing would happen to you.
Spook, did I not say she will abuse her power when elected? As for Bush’s abuse of power, this has been brought up over and over here and yet you’re as blind to it as global warming. “He’s just doing what he needs to do to keep us safe, that is just his prerogative, it hasn’t been proven, it’s not against the law if the president does it”, blah, blah, blah. The excuses are as numerous as the instances of abuse.
Spook-
I understand that it is a miniscule chance of happening to me but you do concede in your post that it is a violation of by this President. Correct?
but you do concede in your post that it is a violation of [the Constitution] by this President. Correct?
I don’t know, gene. I’m not intimately familiar with the details of the Patriot Act, but I suspect, if Padilla’s detention were a blatent Contitutional violation, more people would have raised a bigger stink by now. The rules of the game have changed since 9/11, and not necessarily by our own choosing. All I know is that the government’s primary responsibility is to protect American citizens. How many innocent lives would you be willing to sacrifice in the name of civil liberties? Is one person’s civil liberties worth 10 lives, 100? 1,000? 100,000?
Spook-
That is a false choice. It is not always all or nothing. Habeas Corpus is thee civil right. 911 changed nothing. It did not change the consitution. Yes a new enemy was realized but by using smart policing tactics with legal intelligence activities we can protect this country. Are you so scared of terrorists that you would allow an authoritarian regime incrementally take your civil liberties away. You have a better chance of winning the lottery while being struck by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack. A country that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.