Comments on: ‘Explosive Revelation’: Obama Admits ‘Boneheaded Mistake’:

By: jscott

jscott — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:53:06 +0000

One point that should be made is that Sen. Obama has said that he paid for the house (I don't recall if he paid it all, or the down payment on a mortgage) with the proceeds from one of his two books. Certainly he's had some contact with Rezko, as have most prominent IL pols of the last few years. Probably bad news for opponents that IL Governor Rod Blagojevich was identified as “Public Official A” in Rezko trial pre-motions today. Obama's name is expected to come up during the trial only in passing, not in any substantive way.

For all the reporting that has been going on the last 4 years locally, Obama's contact with Rezko appears to be limited to fundraising, and the real estate deal. The funds have been donated to charity, and the sellers of the home have come out with a statement that there was no unusual discount given.

By: Slamfu

Slamfu — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:53:44 +0000

BIg deal. Cheney's former corporation has grown by 2200% in the last 5 years largely profiting from a war Cheney had a huge hand in starting on false premises. And Obama got a deal on a garden plot next to his house in an upscale area? Whoa, stop the presses and lets get some special prosecutors on that before Obama gets to start invoking executive priviledge. Then we'll never stop him from further small scale suburban real estate ventures. Imagine the scandal.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:22:52 +0000

First up, I thought I'd mention that there were about 4-5 comments on this last night that disappeared.

Second, I cannot argue for or against the coverage provided by every blogger on this site about McCain coverage. My own take in the comments was that the possible senatorial impropriety with a lobbyist was the only noteworthy possible aspect to the "scandal", but so far the facts were so few at this point, there wasn't much to say. Regardless, decent reasons to take the McCain issue more seriously, if there are facts to back anything up, is that 1) McCain's credentials, particularly with independents, rests to a large degree on his war against lobbyist influence; and 2) it's a matter of how he hs been using his position in federal government, while it's not clear the Obama "scandal" is particularly related to the government at all. Instead, it looks like he may have gotten a super good deal through connections he had built up, but that didn't involve public resources in any way.

But I'm not following these scandals much, so others who get all excited about them can set me straight.

By: Brainster

Brainster — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:10:17 +0000

It's pretty obvious what happened here, especially given the detail in the article that the separate parcel was land-locked by Obama's property. The deal was effectively a loan from Rezko to Barack, which was going to be slowly paid back by Obama buying the parcel over time. This is especially obvious because the lot was valueless to anybody else; it could not be developed (especially after Barack bought 1/6th of it). This is obvious; it's not some complicated deal like Whitewater. The Democrats are going to find themselves with a severe case of buyer's remorse in a month or two.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:19:46 +0000

Why so sorry, casualobserver? It's a valid question because both of these issues seem spurious at best. McCain worked with a lobbyist 10 years ago and it may or may not have been entirely above-board. There's a shocker – a politician and a lobbyist scratching each other's backs.

As for Obama's loan, maybe he just got a better deal from a foreign bank. Maybe he was going for a non-traditional type of loan. Maybe he's secretly funneling money for terrorist organizations funded by Auchi. I'm guessing the first two are closer to the truth, though.

By: elrod

elrod — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:28:20 +0000

This isn't really new at all. The Chicago Tribune has been looking at the details of the Rezko deal for years. At worst, Obama allowed Rezko (and his British-Iraqi financier) to get too close to him. But as mikkel says, an analysis of real estate prices in the neighborhood shows that Obama never got any deal on the home considering it had been on the market for so long.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:14:20 +0000

"It seems like all the article is trying to accomplish is guilt-by-association."

I'm sorry, Amanda, but did you post this same response when the TMV swiftboat brigade spent three days repeating all the non-verified material supposedly underlying the appearance of a lobbyist at the same events as McCain?

There may well be no influence bought from this loan, but it is at least a curiosity why a United States Senator couldn't get a mortgage loan from a traditional US lending institution.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:58:40 +0000

No, not even that. Obama didn't take out a loan, the guy that bought the plot next to him and was a fund raiser took out the loan. Anyway, the former owners claim that there is nothing shady at all.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:37:28 +0000

I must be missing something here. Obama takes a loan from a foreign company to help pay for his house. I don't understand why this is bad. It seems like all the article is trying to accomplish is guilt-by-association. Two people who Obama has tenuous business connections with appear to have shady pasts, so they want us to think that Obama is somehow guilty of wrong-doing. I just don't get it.