WHO ARE YA KIDDIN’ OBAMA!!!? Trustworthy, Naïve, Poor Instincts – All the qualities of a good Chief Executive?!
WHO ARE YA KIDDIN’ OBAMA!!!? Trustworthy, Naïve, Poor Instincts – All the qualities of a good Chief Executive?!
All of these are quotes from the Chicago Tribune Story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,2968927.story
His first big contributor
Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was emphatic: "No.
Obama said voters should view his Rezko dealings as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." But he added that voters should also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."
Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.
My Comments:
Either he is sincerely naïve and inexperienced and therefore not qualified to be a good chief executive OR he is just another politician caught trying to triangulate his way out of a mess. Get real. All those years and all that money and he never wanted any thing from you? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase!
Cherry picking the story I see, and the paper on the whole. Obviously you didn't read the Tribune's conclusive editorial that appeared in the same issue wherein they say they have scrutinized Obama for TWELVE YEARS and have concluded that he has been forthcoming and were happy to see him exhaustively answer there concerns regarding Rezko.
Listen, you spamming TROLL (I saw your post history, you twit - how many times are you going to post this blather?), since you're either a Clintonista - (which would make sense, I mean she has shown little respect for etiquette, and here you are - just the same) or some sort of Obama hater for other reasons, I am going to give you the less negative title - Clintonista.
So, if you are a Clintonista, shall we start talking about Norman Hsu? She never spent the time adequately explaining that one. Now she doesn't want to be forthcoming about donations to Bill's library, She - unlike every other candidate - not divulging her tax information completely.
Unlike Obama, she will disclose her earmarks 'over time'. Gee - why not now?
Her idea of an appropriate time seems to be after she has hoodwinked Americans afraid of change - like yourself - have voted her dishonest, lying, self important butt in.
Sorry to be harsh - but you so cherry picked the story - and then spammed it - you deserve it.
March 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selective quoting at its finest, distorting the article to the point of slander. For example, you pull the following
Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was emphatic: "No."
You, of course, strip the "No." of all context by omitting the following sentence.
". . . Precisely because I had known him for [many] years and he hadn't asked me for something."
Or did you just stop reading as soon as you saw the "No."
Why shouldn't he trust him? The guy had supported him for seventeen years and had not asked him for any favors.
More importantly, you ignore the judgment of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, to wit:
"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.
Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story
If the reporters who know him best, and more importantly know this very story the best, still have faith in him, that's good enough for me.
Dave in DC.
March 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see why you think that, but then if you go there, shouldn't week look at Clinton's dubious relationships with questionable people like Peter Paul, Vinod Gupta, Hsu, David F. Rosen... the list of criminals, people on trial and unsavory people she surrounds herself with is extensive. Again long-term, friends and fundraisers. What is different is that instead of raising only $250,000 over at 20 year period, they have raised her $millions in less than a decade. These are facts that she is not denying. Do you want to even review the issue of all those poor Chinese immigrants (dishwashers waiters, etc) who magically can find the maximum donation to give her. Interesting that they are willing to forego paying rent or eating. Interesting that her supporters are paying some of them to give her the money. Then she has all the imaginary contributors who no one can find and who do not exist donating the maximum. It's not her fault that she is so well loved by people or that some of them are imaginary.
Ironically many Clinton supporters either have not bothered to be informed about there shady characters or maybe they simply do not hold her to the high standard that they hold Obama to.
I do not have a problem with Clinton supporters questioning Rezko. However I think that they are hypocritical in not questioning the numerous and growing number of financial scandals that Clinton is caught up in. Why are you not applying this same dilligence to your own candidate?
These many dubious involvements are all signs of her good judgement, I guess, huh?
March 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the poster have any thoughts about how to best withdraw from Iraq?
Or how best to weather the current financial crisis?
The global market's second thoughts about the dollar?
What about plans like cap and trade? A move toward cellulosic ethanol? The pros and cons of carbon sequestration?
What about a plan to rebuild the constitution and the Department of Justice?
Missile defense shield. Good idea? Bad idea? Should we deploy it even if it only has a 5 to 6 chance out of 10 to work?
I'm confident about Obama's judgment.
What scares me is the judgment of voters like you.
March 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink