Some Free Advice For Obama
Mar 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm by Susie
From investigative journalist Joe Conason:
Whether the Democrats know enough about Barack Obama to nominate him for president — and whether the nation will endorse that nomination in November — remains to be seen. So far, as the trial of his former patron Antoin Rezko unfolds, nobody has even suggested that Obama did anything illegal or unethical to advance his relationship with the indicted Chicago developer. Yet many questions are still unanswered about that relationship, which included well over a hundred thousand dollars in political contributions and simultaneous real estate purchases that concluded three years ago with the Obama family owning a South Side mansion (and the Rezko family owning an adjacent lot that enlarged their celebrated neighbor’s yard space).
Rather than address those concerns fully, however, the Illinois senator has dithered and dodged, according to reporters in Chicago. Now Obama and his aides persistently deflect attention by pointing an accusing finger at the Clintons, complaining that they haven’t revealed their tax returns or named all the donors to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Presidential Library, while occasionally alluding to the ancient Whitewater “scandal.”
While the Clintons have many faults — including the arrogant and sometimes offensive way they have conducted this campaign — the scandal tactic won’t vanquish them. Hillary Clinton’s advertising may inflate her national security experience, but when she claims to have been tested by partisan fire on her way from Arkansas to the Senate, she isn’t just blowing smoke. There is no politician in America whose personal and financial affairs have been subjected to similar scrutiny except her husband, and he is retired.
So if Obama expects a devastating revelation to leap from the pages of the Clinton tax returns when they are released to the press next month, he is more than likely to be disappointed. Chances are that she hasn’t yet released her 2007 return because the paperwork isn’t ready — and she probably doesn’t know what it will say when it is complete. Like most wealthy senators (and alas, most senators are wealthy), she doesn’t spend much time poring over her own finances. Other people are hired to do that, and besides, she’s been fairly busy for the past year or so.
Observers with short memories should be reminded that the independent counsel probe led by Kenneth Starr did not merely examine all of the Clintons’ bank statements, mortgage documents, legal records and tax returns over a period stretching back to the ’80s, but dragged many of their friends, associates and employees before a grand jury to interrogate them under oath about the Clintons. Following six years of intense investigation, the partisan prosecutor had little to show beyond that stained blue dress — and nothing that plausibly implicated Hillary Clinton in any significant wrongdoing. Starr and his staff wanted to send her to jail, and spent more than $50 million searching for the evidence to support an indictment. That doesn’t include the Senate Whitewater Committee, led by Alfonse D’Amato, which wasted plenty of money and time to find … nothing.
Of course, those episodes concluded almost a decade ago. But the same investigations continued in a different form, conducted by the reporters who were hired to write expensive Hillary Clinton biographies for big publishers. But again, despite the strong incentive to produce dirt, the recent books by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and by Carl Bernstein revealed little that was even unflattering, let alone incriminating, aside from the usual recycled gossip. Those Pulitzer-winning professionals, eager to expose whatever scandal might exist, no matter how minor, likewise discovered nothing.
As for the Clinton Foundation, the heavy-breathing insinuations about “secret” donors seem overblown. The role of Frank Giustra, for example, the wealthy mining investor whose huge contributions to the foundation have created controversy because of his company’s uranium deal in Kazakhstan, was never secret. Or at least the Clinton Foundation staff didn’t think so when they told me and other reporters about him three years ago.
When I went to Africa with Bill Clinton in July 2005 to work on a cover profile of the former president for Esquire, we traveled from South Africa to Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda on Giustra’s plane, a fact known to all the journalists on the trip, including Jennifer Senior of New York magazine and CNN’s Sanjay Gupta. While I was reporting the story, foundation officials told me that Giustra had also provided the plane that took him and Clinton to Kazakhstan, China and other destinations later that summer. Donations and sponsorships from a wide assortment of other sources — including Bill Gates, numerous investment banks, industrial companies, foreign governments and wealthy individuals — have been made public on the foundation Web site.
Moreover, the Obama campaign would do well to not draw excessive attention to the Clinton Foundation, since it would only succeed in speeding the rehabilitation of Bill Clinton. His efforts currently provide HIV/AIDS medication to as many as 1.5 million poor people in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia who would otherwise be abandoned to die. (If Obama doesn’t believe me he can ask Nelson Mandela, who challenged Clinton to deal with the crisis.) That humanitarian achievement demanded both audacity and hope, but it also required money. Whatever the former president has done to raise funds from his billionaire friends — and he appears to have done nothing unethical at all — there is not a shred of evidence that he relied upon any influence wielded in the Senate by his wife. Indeed, her policy stance toward the foundation’s friends in places like Dubai and Kazakhstan is critical and unyielding.
Obama, who has mounted an inspiring and effective campaign, remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. And as the contest continues, he should answer every attack by the Clinton camp on his experience, his policies and his rhetoric. But he should stop seeking to divert attention to her supposed ethical problems, and concentrate instead on responding to every serious question that is raised about his finances and his associations. He will have to address them all sooner or later. Sooner would be better for him, the party and the country.
So if Obama expects a devastating revelation to leap from the pages of the Clinton tax returns when they are released to the press next month, he is more than likely to be disappointed. Chances are that she hasn’t yet released her 2007 return because the paperwork isn’t ready — and she probably doesn’t know what it will say when it is complete.
—————————————————–
total Bullshit! They are done - just like the ones from 02-06 that haven’t been released. A LOT of money has come into the clinton wallets and asking where it has come from has more relevelance than what a preacher says in church. The clinton-machine with floors full of lawyers and accountants cannot tell hrc when they will be done?? right. they’re done and now the lawyers are tracking down who gave what and what it means to vett-out the spin that will follow the release. hrc saying she will release the records are the nomination (which is what she was saying for over a year) can just be the answer OB has about reszko questions )which at the end of the day will be compared to a gnat on a bull’s ass in relation to whitewater (or the 10000% return hrc had on cattle futures…
this overall is just another effort to limit the spin that will come from the tax return release. Maybe we’ll find nothing and I actually hope we don’t - but the reistance in releasing them fails the stink-test in flying colors! Remember the “shoe on the other foot game”? hrc and co would be playing this to no end if OB was slow in releasing tax filings. All other cnadidates have relaesed them - even the candidates that have dropped out and they were are millionaires/senators/busy people…so that excuse is beyond weak!
yeah, i think the column is rather intellectually dishonest. as joe pointed out, obama isn’t making a fuss about clinton’s ‘07 returns, he’s making a fuss about why she hasn’t released any of the returns since her husband left office in 2001.
as for rezko, obama sat down with reporters just last week and offered to ask any questions they had about the matter. isn’t that what conason is demanding here? of course, no matter what he says obama’s critics claim the questions “haven’t been fully answered”, well then if you have more questions, ask them! conason makes the comparison with whitewater, and i think it is an apt one. it doesn’t seem to matter how many times obama addresses the issue, his critics simply can’t be satisfied.
that’s not to say that i am 100% sure that nothing is there. i just feel like rezko is more along the lines of a witch hunt than an actual inquiry. on march 15th obama sat down with reporters to answer all their questions, if he had something to ask where was conason then?
…hey, i was about to hit the “post” button and realized that you’re quoting a two week old article. obama’s sit-down with the press was march 14th, after the piece was written. so why are you publishing this now?
total Bullshit! They are done
Someone’s never filed a tax return before.
zuzu - are you implying the 2006 clinton tax forms (due Apr 2007) are still likley not on file?? We are not talking of tax returns due Apr 2008… If they are filed how hard is it to find a copy? — her spouse is retired (like the article points out) so it is not like we are talking two full-time employee/wage earners, right?
Joe Conason is an “investigative journalist”? I’d call him a partisan scribe and he is no different than Novak, Broder, and all the rest of the beltway/ Manhattan elites. I suspect Conason is a big Hillary supporter like Susie.
snuzy’s right: The Chicago Trib as well as several other papers were beside themselves last week over how forthcoming Obama was over the Rezko thing.
I’ve been a huge fan of the way Joe Conason’s held the banner aloft for the Clintons over the last eight years, and I believe that HRC’s gotten abominable treatment from the press from day one until now. But Obama kind of dealt with the Rezko business in broad daylight, to the best of my knowledge. So c’mon…
I read both transcripts. They didn’t ask the right questions. (I keep telling you: Reporters are lazy. And easily flattered.)
They didn’t ask him if Michelle Obama used her position on the Historic Preservation Board to get the Greenwood Ave. property (the owner had to apply first for a subdivision permit before putting it up for sale). They didn’t push him on why he voluntarily paid $60K more than the appraised price for the strip of land he bought from Mrs. Rezko, nor did they ask if he was aware Rezko was trying to hide assets from his upcoming bankruptcy (which would explain why she bought the land and Obama bought the land from her, not her husband.)
They didn’t ask if Rezko agreed to hold onto the land and not develop it until Obama could afford to buy the entire parcel (that would be considered a gift, and a violation of Senate ethics law). Which is kind of strange, considering the land is just sitting there.
Just off the top of my head, those are my unanswered Rezko questions. If I had some more time, I’d sure I’d have a few more.
I’ve seen deals like this before. I’m surprised at how few questions people had - I think they’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, because they didn’t push him very hard.
Very very good Susie. I agree with you - how come no one else thought to ask these pointed questions?
I believe it will happen..she will be elected..particularly if the media would put a little focus on Rezko instead of Obamas vile re: his passport…Obama’s long connection to Rezko and the 12 different versions of the story he suddenly remembers..his claim of authorship of 63 bills in his last year as a Legislator in Illinois when many, many people believe Emil Jones and his other associates worked long and hard on them, put Obama’s name on the bills to ‘make me a Senator’. (Please read Barak Obama & Me; HoustonPress.com;February 20, 2008; Todd Spivac) Emil Jones’ comment when asked about favors from Obama for putting his name on the bills..refers to the many favors,and his entire record of the time he was a Legislator, for which the paper trail has seemingly disappeared (Barak Obama has said “they are lost”, “I was to busy to keep a record”, “I left them for the new guy”..the new guy says “there was nothing here when I arrived”..”oh, I threw out everything”) as ’steak’ not pork.
David Axelrods skillful manipulation of the media..Wright on page 6 after Obama decries Bush and his ‘attempt to vilify him by uncovering ammunition from his passport file’. Whoa! The best yet.
Demand Condaleeza Rices resignation? Unreal..nothing like using the African American community for publicity and discing them when the Jenna 6 needed him.
Anyway, if the mainstream media ever does its job and follows the money from Rezko wife’s sale of the Obama lot to their mutual acquaintance..back to the donation from the buyer( the same acquaintance), to Obamas campaign, an interesting trail will begin to emerge. By the way, the Obama campaign released additional donor lists the same day they set of the Wright fracas and the additional 127,000 dollars of donations to his campaign from Rezko and his associates and their acquaintance. Which event garnered more attention? Of course the cursing minister..
This was another classic get rid of ‘Muslim label Friday’..what better way to do it? Announce a ‘major’ speech on race set for 4 days later..let the country see Obama is not a Muslim..but a consciously aware Christian concerned with the ‘race’ issue and how it divides us! All the while keeping it forefront by comparing his white grandmother and Mrs Ferraro to ’stereotypical white racists’..What foolish ‘folks’ we all are to listen..and how far did he pull the wool over our eyes about the new revelations regarding Rezko?
I am sorry if the tone of this post seems angry. I am angry-I admit it- I am angry because Barak Obama preys on young, malleable people, it angers me that he is willing to disenfranchise 2 million ‘folks’ using foul play in order to maintain a delegate lead which would assure him a better chance at winning and says publicly ‘Hillary Clinton will stoop to anything to win’..again another example of his verbal hypocrisy.
Barak Obama campaigned in Florida with TV ads, Hillary Clinton did not. Barak Obama instructed his ‘followers’ to vote ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan-they did-now he negates his own words and actions? He never was elected in Illinois-he used his constitutional background to have his single opponent disqualified-for 5 years in Illinois before Emil Jones, no one even knew his name. Yes I am angry because he and his all ‘white’ top tier campaign staff insult all of us, every way they can by using the oldest ploys in politics..say it over and over and eventually the idiots believe it.
I am not an idiot and will never vote for him or anyone associated with him as his history in the graft politics on trial in Chicago, obviously has influenced him more than his grandparents who loved him and pastor who counseled him.
wow,
you have a future as the next ken starr once obama is elected president.
but, what do i know, I am just a deluded and fooled “young” 41 year old white kid…
OB is a predator and insructs his followers???
do you not think for a second that hrc would have pursued the rescko strory if it had actual legs? Or maybe there is a backroom agreement not to pursue it lest OB pursue some “funny” hrc financial things in her past…she brought it up at a debate and then strangely never really mentioned it to any degree again…
Susie - will you be asking MMiler about his “after High School” activities anytime soon??
subsequent comments basically support what i said above. if you don’t like obama, there will always be additional unanswered questions that should be asked. it’s just like whitewater. even after millions of dollars wasted in the largest public investigation in american history, finding no criminal behavior on behalf of the clintons, people who don’t like the clintons still have “unanswered questions”
Noz, that’s just absolute bullshit - and spoken like a defense attorney. A candidate who’s sold himself as the “new politics,” who brags about his freedom from special interests shouldn’t have to answer those rather simple questions?
Talk about hyperbole! I’m not calling for a special prosecutor, I’m calling for members of the media to do their jobs. That shouldn’t be determined by how much they like (or dislike) the person they cover (see “George Bush”). It’s not their job to give public figures easier/harder/unfair treatment based on how they FEEL.
are you saying Joe Conason is a member of the media with a reputation of actually doing their job?? That is what you imply by citing his article…I lump him in the group that asks candidates such probing questions like “diamonds or pearls?” at debates or those who question lapel jewelry or haircut prices.
I guess we should define “job” then…
who brags about his freedom from special interests shouldn’t have to answer those rather simple questions?
of course! and so he sat down with the press and said he would answer any questions they had for him. but you said that wasn’t good enough.
That shouldn’t be determined by how much they like (or dislike) the person they cover (see “George Bush”). It’s not their job to give public figures easier/harder/unfair treatment based on how they FEEL.
oh, i agree completely.
but that’s not my point. my point is that there’s no evidence that he did anything illegal, just a bunch of unfounded suspicions. but that hasn’t stopped you from simply assuming (see comment #4) that he did do something unseemly.
that was where the analogy with whitewater came in. with whitewater, the clintons didn’t do anything illegal, even though some of their friends did. and yet, no matter how many times they answered questions about it, their political opponents kept saying “it didn’t pass the smell test” and demanded more questions be asked. eventually the impression you start getting is not that the clintons did anything wrong, but rather that the people demanding more and more questions simply had an irrational dislike of clinton. how is that any different here?
and, as i said above, obama actually did exactly what conason suggested he do. he took your free advice, so what more do you want?
Thank you for a great post. I am so sick of the pure-as-the-driven-snow meme of the Obama campaign. His smear tactics may be working but they stink!
After listening to the Obamas, their past and present pastor, and their congregation’s anti-American screaming and gyrating about the lack of opportunities in America … the Obamas sure did benefit financially from our American system.
They made MUCH more than the majority of Americans make … white, or black. And, especially considering the fact that we paid Obama for voting ‘present’ during most of his time in the senate … and, since he didn’t vote once on the Afganistan committe he chaired.
Although Rev. Wright has retired from Obama’s church, his career is not over. He is appearing in Houston at just about the same time as the Final Four.
Read about that at the Sun Times.
Jerry Brown had Baba Muktananda, but I would sure prefer him to Rev. Wright. In fact I follow his disciple Gurumayi Chidvilasananda.
And the thing is that Obama obviously is appealing to the black church. So he is caught here with a radical black clergyman and he doesn’t want the more contrite church to believe he’s some wild Marxist. Or is that not what a liberation theology is about?