"I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door,” (HRC about Antoin Rezko).
Oopsy. Yesterday Hillary Clinton got caught, mired in hypocrisy. She's spent part of this week trashing Obama for a purported conflict of interest concerning Rezko. Not only did she make some quantum and unfair leaps in doing so, but also she forgot to tell us the whole story about herself. To wit:
“NEW YORK - Democrat Hillary Clinton denied knowing Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago businessman, on Friday after being told of a photograph that shows a smiling Clinton and her husband standing next to the man she called a "slum landlord" earlier this week.”
Read the full story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654/. Obama, has repeated clarified his role. And So has Factcheck.org:
“Obama denied Clinton's accusation, saying that he was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with Rezko on a project. "I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project," he said.”
Said FactCheck.org:
"There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was "representing ... Rezko." That's untrue."
Long ago, in 1996, when he learned about earlier charges about Rezko, Obama returned an $11,500 campaign contribution.
FactCheck.org confirms additional campaign donations have been returned. On that subject and the questions the HRC campaign has raised on Obama’s home:
“No wrongdoing was found in connection with that transaction, though Obama has said it was "boneheaded" for him to be involved in it when he knew Rezko was under investigation. Rezko has since been indicted on fraud and other charges. Obama, who returned some contributions from Rezko and his associates long ago, returned another $41,000 over the weekend in an effort to distance himself from the businessman.”
Case closed. It is clear that the Clinton scorched-earth campaign is designed to leave no one standing. Ironically, that may well include her. The revulsion from gutter politics may just turn everyone off.Anyway, back to the hypocrisy question. Certainly, you're not suggesting that a photograph that seems pretty old is evidence that she knows Rezko, are you?
IMHO, it is utterly unproductive to simply slam Hillary for every word she utters and every step she takes. Gee whiz, let the candidates run and hash this stuff out, without pitching a fit at every small criticism.
PS I don't believe Marshall has endorsed anyone in the Democratic primaries, or even is particularly leaning in one direction or the other.
But it is clear that HRC is using the same Rovian tactics as were used for Bush. Attack on those flanks that you (the candidate) yourself are the weakest on. Real estate deals? Hmmm...make a big deal out of nothing to assure Whitewater never comes up.
The war in Iraq. Again hmmm. Deny Obama really said much of anything.
Talked too freely about Ronald Reagan, in you book perhaps, or in Tom Brokaws? Hmmm. Hillary has problems with all of those. And so she attacks and tries to turn Obama into an enemy. It is really sleazy.
No I do not go back and forth with every comment. I don't have the energy. But this is just amazing that a photo surfaced with Bill and Hill on each side of Rezko. You gotta appreciate the justice of it. Well, I don't really expect you to.
You should know cause you've been here long enough that I haven't even written that many articles on this race. I am not working FOR any candidate. I just recently changed my vote to Obama. But most of all I want some honesty, decency, spine, and populsim in this race's winner.
And I will continue pushing our candidates in that direction. Not they they are listening. Alone I am whistling in the wind. But if enough voices join in, well, maybe she'll listen. What will a victory mean if she has soured most of the grass-roots volunteers?
She had better start worrying about that.
I mean, Karl Rove did not invent that tactic. It is a staple of basic strategy.
I don't think Clinton turned "Obama into an enemy." I don't even think Obama would say that.
Indeed, the factcheck.org piece (which I recommend to all) bears out that both sides were embellishing the truth.
Monica Lewinsky Yawn
or
Some tortured interpretation of some out of context remark on the campaign trail.
Spotter, go back to the debate last week and the exchange between Clinton and Obama over the criticism of Obama's Reagan comments. See if you can spot who was accurate and who was not. Then, make your argument based on text and facts. You'll see it was Obama who had it wrong.
I hope I have made clear that I don't consider either Hillary or Bill Clinton to be above reproach. Nor do I question anyone's right to hold any feelings about them. My consistent point has been that the actual factual record from the way in which anti-Clintonites depict it.