Obama Considering Presidential Run In 2008

[MtnBiker]

Hillary and Obama, who are some of the other possible canidates? So far we are talking about 2 people who have not even served a full senate term.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Wasn't Reagan a Hollywood actor?

Not a clueless liberal one :

 

[Annie]

Yeah...that must be it, Kathianne. Sure it is.

Again Jillian, I assume you are well above stupid. Thus, you are either marching in lockstep with the ignorant or are determined to keep the impoverished from success, as long as it's under a banner of 'public schools'. I hope the NEA has happy pills to give you, whenever you notice the dropouts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming Eagle, Barack's far, far left. His actual religion is controversial, these Muslims think he's hunky-dory:

http://www.masnet.org/prof_personality.asp?id=1508

Hope he realizes every election isn't that easy.

Thanks UnAmericanYou for pointing out that Muslim web site. Maybe the moniker Osama isn't too far-fetched after all. I too believe Obama is far, far to the left and probably has his roots in Marxism.

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Hillary and Obama, who are some of the other possible canidates? So far we are talking about 2 people who have not even served a full senate term.

LOL. Whatsa matta? Don't you like the "cream" of the Democratic crop? :cof:

Originally Posted by jillian
It's not non-existent. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion.... not to mention the fact that when you involve the State in religion that benefits neither the state nor religion.

Can't vouchers be considered as going from the state public funds (i.e. our taxes) to the parents of the students instead of to the schools themselves? The parents are the ones who make the choice of sending their children to whichever school they wish….it could be secular or parochial. That's what freedom is all about. Why should the state have any restrictions on that? If the parent decides a school is not good for his child, whether the school is secular or parochial, he can use the voucher to put his child into another school of his choice. Why is it liberals are so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but are anti-choice when it comes to schools? Are you saying a parent has no choice when it comes to *shudder* religion?

 

[Annie]

Someone tell me what Obama has done, without a senior democrat in tow, to merit being Senator, much less president? Even the Chicago papers had a problem with that, two short years ago. What do you know of him, other than young, handsome, black, and well educated?

Well, seems the press had some inklings that he was 'one of the Illinois regulars':

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611050397nov05,1,750738.story

Obama: I regret deals with Rezko
Indicted fundraiser worked with senator to improve properties

By David Jackson and Ray Gibson
Tribune staff reporters

November 5, 2006

Sen. Barack Obama expressed remorse Saturday for a series of financial arrangements he made with an indicted political fundraiser to improve their adjoining South Side properties.

Obama has described his dealings with Antoin "Tony" Rezko as ethical and proper, but he now acknowledges the arrangement might have appeared improper.

"It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," Obama said in a written statement Saturday. "For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."

Obama's remarks came in response to an article in Wednesday's Tribune that disclosed for the first time how he and Rezko's wife bought adjoining properties last year, then worked together to build a wrought-iron fence and make other improvements.

Though Obama answered questions in detail for that article, Saturday's statement marked his first direct expression of regret.

The same day that Obama and his wife, Michelle, closed on a $1.65 million home, Rezko's wife, Rita, closed on a $625,000 vacant lot next door. Both lots had once been part of the same estate, but the owner listed them for sale separately.

Obama said he had discussed the home with Tony Rezko, but didn't know exactly when Rezko became interested in the vacant lot. In January, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for part of the vacant lot to expand his own yard, balancing the space between his house and the fence.

Obama also paid thousands of dollars to an attorney and architects to inquire about the fence with the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, partly because Obama's wife once worked there and because they wanted to ensure it was done properly, Obama said.

Rezko, however, was the one who was to pay for the fence, although that $14,000 bill has not been paid, the fence company told the Tribune.

Obama also pays his landscaper to mow Rezko's 7,500-square-foot yard. Obama said that he intends to have the landscaper figure out a pro-rata cost for that mowing and send that bill to Rezko, but that he hasn't yet done so.

During the 16 months Obama and Rezko cooperated on these matters, Rezko was reported to be under investigation by a federal grand jury.

"I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the 10 years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances. With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and aboveboard," Obama's statement said.

"I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well," Obama said.

Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges he plotted to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of firms seeking state business, allegations that put him at the center of a growing scandal surrounding Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.

Rezko could not be reached Saturday. He also has pleaded not guilty to allegations he obtained a $10.5 million business loan through fraud and swindled a group of investors.

Rezko and his companies donated at least $19,500 to Obama's state Senate campaigns and federal fund.

Rezko also held a 2003 fundraiser for Obama's U.S. Senate campaign.

Obama has said he would divest the federal donation.

"I haven't been involved with him in any legislative work whatsoever or any government activities of any sort," Obama said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wasn't Reagan a Hollywood actor?

At one point yes, but after his acting carreer he demonstrated his clear and competant capabilities as the Governor of California as well as a powerful player in the Republican movement.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Obama spent several years working with the churches in inner-city Chicago to encourage economic development and reduce gang violence. He's now a member of one of those churches.

 

[Annie]

The Rezko story came up again on "This Week". Obama tried to brush it off, but it's not going to go away. The 'appearance of impropriety' is NOT the problem. It was improper and while complicated, the Chicago papers have pretty well figured it out.

 

[Annie]

Told ya so!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article

Rezko cash triple what Obama says
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article)

June 18, 2007

BY CHRIS FUSCO AND TIM NOVAK Staff Reporters/[email protected] [email protected]

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.

Obama, who wants to be the nation's next president, has been purging some of those donations -- giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko's federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.

Obama, however, has kept $6,850 from others who also are referenced in Rezko's indictments. Obama also has hung on to contributions from doctors whom Rezko helped appoint to a state-government panel involved in some of Rezko's alleged fraud schemes.

"We've made our best effort to run the most ethical campaign possible in all ways and release donations when appropriate," Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton, said Friday.

Sticks by estimate
Burton said Obama can only estimate how much money Rezko has raised for him. Obama's staff, he said, only knows of one fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama -- a June 27, 2003, cocktail party at Rezko's mansion.

Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama.

...

 

[no1tovote4]

The Rezko story came up again on "This Week". Obama tried to brush it off, but it's not going to go away. The 'appearance of impropriety' is NOT the problem. It was improper and while complicated, the Chicago papers have pretty well figured it out.

That real estate deal seemed particularly shady.

 

[Annie]

The 'drip' it certainly is. Last year I wrote something to the effect that the Chicago reporters new more than they were writing. It's starting to happen and even the Trib is telling Obama to 'get the truth' out there:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Editorial

The drip, drip, drip on Obama
Advertisement


June 19, 2007

Some practitioners in politics, law enforcement and journalism call it "scrubbing": the process of examining someone's past in search of illegalities, or serious embarrassments, or innocent but peculiar actions that will be difficult to explain. In high-profile campaigns, every candidate's staff scrubs opponents' background. A smart staff scrubs its own candidate first. That allows him or her to disclose -- and, with luck, put to rest -- potential problems early.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama is being scrubbed as he never has before. His prior campaigns were for lower offices. And in his 2004 U.S. Senate race, attention focused less on him than on primary and general election opponents who had their own serious problems.

But this campaign cycle's scrubbing of Obama leads to another water analogy: News stories that raise ethics questions about his relationship with indicted dealmaker Antoin "Tony" Rezko have become a steady drip, drip, drip.

Obama needs to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until he does, the scrubbing likely will intensify as more news organizations -- and, you can bet, rival candidates -- explore Obama's Rezko connection.

Obama indirectly asked for this scrutiny in January 2006, when he let then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) exploit his pristine reputation. With Republicans ensnared in Capitol Hill scandals, Reid named Obama the Democrats' point man on ethics proposals in Congress.

None of the press disclosures thus far about Obama implies any wrongdoing on his part. Taken together, though, they suggest that Obama, and his campaign, have been carelessly self-exculpatory in some of their responses to inquiries about decisions Obama previously has made. This early in a presidential cycle, some of that can be written off to first-time amateurism. But that excuse will evaporate if press coverage escalates -- even as the U.S. Justice Department pursues its aggressive case against Rezko.

Back on Nov. 3, this page carried two sentences summing up the need for Obama to fully and quickly explain his connections to Rezko: "One fulcrum on which Obama's future tips may well be the speed with which he acknowledges how susceptible he has been to people who want a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needs to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal. At a time when others are fiercely tempted to judge him, Obama has courted unkind judgment."

Those words are no less true today. Consider:

...

 

[Annie]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27097

told you so!

Whatever it is, it's stuck on Obama's shoe and the stench will follow him into the general election, if he's the Democratic nominee. It doesn't matter that there is absolutely no proof of any wrong doing by Obama. It's the perception that matters. What we know right now points to a lot more than a "bone headed" mistake, especially if using the media's usual rules for targeting Democrats.

An Obamabot has another thought, in yet another edition of Mr. Hope's Fans: ....

Let's just say those that pay attention locally, are not that hepped on Obama.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I sure hope he doesnt win.

 

[eots]

Again Jillian, I assume you are well above stupid. Thus, you are either marching in lockstep with the ignorant or are determined to keep the impoverished from success, as long as it's under a banner of 'public schools'. I hope the NEA has happy pills to give you, whenever you notice the dropouts.

are you going to take this crap jillian...take her to school girl ...its lesson time

 

[jillian]

are you going to take this crap jillian...take her to school girl ...its lesson time

I like Kathianne. She just says silly stuff sometimes.

But she also knows that vouchers do, indeed, siphon money to parochial schools. That's their intention. She knows that, too. She also knows that the people who hate public education are the ones who encourage vouchers BECAUSE they will kill off public schools.

She doesn't need me to tell her those things. She just agrees with them, so takes a position she knows doesn't wash.

 

[mattskramer]

I like Kathianne. She just says silly stuff sometimes.

But she also knows that vouchers do, indeed, siphon money to parochial schools. That's their intention. She knows that, too. She also knows that the people who hate public education are the ones who encourage vouchers BECAUSE they will kill off public schools.

She doesn't need me to tell her those things. She just agrees with them, so takes a position she knows doesn't wash.

I want to see some accountability in the public schools. If the public schools were good, people would not be spending extra money to send their students to private schools. “The proof is in the pudding” as people say. People would not want to take money away from public schools if they thought that public schools were doing a good job of educating children. It is as simple as that.

 

[Annie]

I like Kathianne. She just says silly stuff sometimes.

But she also knows that vouchers do, indeed, siphon money to parochial schools. That's their intention. She knows that, too. She also knows that the people who hate public education are the ones who encourage vouchers BECAUSE they will kill off public schools.

She doesn't need me to tell her those things. She just agrees with them, so takes a position she knows doesn't wash.

Egads, that made me 'view' eots post. Actually not silly. Perhaps I should have said I favor vouchers within school districts. Heck, if not too distant from home, perhaps across public school districts?

The idea that I and you have choices for where to send out children and totally denying the same to others, strikes me as truly discriminatory. When I was married and even after the divorce, I was able to live in communities with outstanding public schools. My children, now all in their 20's went to Montessori preschools from age 2-back in the 80's this was like $1400 per month. Having attended Catholic school as a child, I put my daughter in our public school. Twas great. Then came my middle child, totally different experience. So I placed all of them at our parish Catholic school, which was also very good and more structured.

When the youngest entered 3rd grade, I put him in public schools for reasons I've written about previously. Because he qualified for 'gifted' he spent 3 days a week away from his 'home' school and was bussed to another.

Why shouldn't those stuck in rotten schools, mostly in the impoverished areas have the same chance to move their children to better environments?

 

[jillian]

Why shouldn't those stuck in rotten schools, mostly in the impoverished areas have the same chance to move their children to better environments?

No child left behind already allows children from cruddy schools to opt for better-performing schools within the same district... to the detriment of the better school which gets no additional funds for it because Congress left it as an unfunded mandate.

And NY already has a magnate school program and a gifted and talented program which allows kids to go to the best schools in the city if they test/audition well enough. And that doesn't only include academics, it includes programs for gifted athletes and children gifted in the performing arts.

Vouchers are intended to allow parents to remove funds from those public schools and filter them into parochial or other private schools.

 

[Annie]

No child left behind already allows children from cruddy schools to opt for better-performing schools within the same district... to the detriment of the better school which gets no additional funds for it because Congress left it as an unfunded mandate.

And NY already has a magnate school program and a gifted and talented program which allows kids to go to the best schools in the city if they test/audition well enough. And that doesn't only include academics, it includes programs for gifted athletes and children gifted in the performing arts.

Vouchers are intended to allow parents to remove funds from those public schools and filter them into parochial or other private schools.

So you are saying vouchers would give the parents more control, but don't want that to happen? Because it would hurt the public schools?

 

[jillian]

So you are saying vouchers would give the parents more control, but don't want that to happen? Because it would hurt the public schools?

No. I'm saying vouchers would rape the public schools and are a back-door means of funding parochial schools.

I thought that was pretty clear.