Matt and I have been pointing this out for a while – and those of you who read Caucus of Corruption know all about it…but now it gets a bit worse for Obama:
For the first time, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.
The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.
The allegations against Rezko that involve Obama are contained in one paragraph of a 78-page document filed last month in which prosecutors outline their corruption and fraud case against Rezko, who was also a key money man for Gov. Blagojevich and other politicians.
Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama’s name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn’t need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party’s nomination for president.
Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.
While there is, as the report says, no evidence that Obama knew of these shennigans, the fact that Rezko was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee puts a very large question mark against Obama – what did he know, when did he know it; and if he didn’t know it, how does that reflect on his executive ability to run a large organization? Rezko, by the way, isn’t just some guy – he’s a long time, close associate of Obama who, amongst other things, pulled off a creepy real estate deal which allowed Obama to buy a swank home at a massive discount. Obama has tried a bit of “Tony who?” since Rezko’s legal problems began, but there is no chance that Obama will really be able to separate himself from Rezko.
There has been much said about what a fresh, new thing Obama is – left out of all this is the very concrete fact that Obama emerges out of Chicago politics. A lot things go into Chicago politics, but “honesty” only gets in there when preceded by “dis”. How deep is Obama into the corruption endemic to Chicago? (Side Note: Why is Chicago so corrupt? Because it is a one-party State, as it were…the Democrats run literally everything in that area and with unchallenged power comes the overwhelming temptation to be corrupt as all get out.) Its unclear – he’s certainly in the muck, but whether its ankle or neck deep on him we haven’t been able to determine.
There is, however, one person who likely knows every last detail about Obama and the Chicago Democratic machine – Hillary Clinton. The longer this race goes on and the more it looks like Hillary won’t be able to wrap it up before the convention, the more likely will “sources” reveal more details of Obama’s past and political connections.
Blogs For Victory 
They’re all looking forward to change. Right?
Now Mark, you know what the trolls will say: “Obama didn’t know this guy was dirty, so he’s not culpable.”
They’ll say this, all the while going on about some Reagan appointee getting indicted for aiding terrorists. And they’ll tie this guy into all Republicans, just because they’re Republicans.
Earbama supporters used intimidation in Nevada yesterday, but of course, his campaign had nothing to do with it…
Im about fed up with all of it. Obama’s long time friend, and Obama didnt know what? Wake up, take personnal responsibility. If you do something wrong, own it. This goes beyond credibility to think BO didnt have a clue.
And if its truely so, what make anyone thing we need a clueless anywho in the White house to begin with?
It does not sound like a problem to me. Even you admit Obama did not know the money donated came from a crook.
What should kill you is the US Supreme Court desicion last week letting corporations that aided and abetted the criminal activity of Enron to go unpunished because they were not principles to the crime.
That is like saying the guy the drove the getaway car did not rob the bank.
Seems to me that they all have problems. I have not seen one candidate who is problem free. But I am sticking with Obama because I think he will do a better job than Hillary. I was very happy that McCain won South Carolina instead of Huck.
Magnum:
I also beleive Obama is better than Clinton. NAFTA proved the Clintons are Republicans.
But the most viable candidate and the one that will bring the most change is Edwards, and I am sticking with him.
Poll show that based upon issues, Edwards does better against any Republican candidate. I think that is the reason the Right-controled mass media is ignoring him. Republicans want our candidate to be either Clinton or Obama.
CW,
You and I, to put it mildly, don’t agree on much – but I think we can both agree that the Clintons have not been the most scrupulously honest peopel to appear on the American political scene – Obama’s Rezko problem is fundamentally the Clinton problem…if Obama continues to challenge, just how low will Hillary and Bill go? And remember, even if Obama is relatively free of the specifics of Rezko’s corruption, it is still much easier and more powerful to accuse a man of being a crook than for the accused to clear himself.
What will Obama do? Hillary has some serious issues of corruption all by herself (very strange Chinese donations, etc) – will Obama get down and dirty on that? What will rank and file Democrats do if Hillary wins by destroying Obama?
CW,
Oh, and Edwards still has his shot – if Obama and Hillary slug it out to the convention with neither of them obtaining a first-ballot nominating majority, then Edwards will be perfectly positioned as the compromise candidate…alternately, if it comes to that, there could be a move from the floor of the convention to nominate Gore. Remember, once that first ballot is cast, if no one obtains a majority, the convention is wide open…and, as of now, I think its slightly more possible to have a brokered Democratic convention than a brokered GOP convention.