The most trusted leaders of the Democratic party, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting Barack Obama. With use of the internet, a fifth grader could connect the dots to show a picture of a guy who was picked up in college and carried up the political ladder by a corrupt gang of influence peddlers.
John McCain is just drooling waiting for Obama to become the nominee so that he can come out with the trail of dirt that the Democratic party is too afraid to reveal this late in the game. If nominated, Obama will not survive a month when faced with the Republican attack machine.
If he becomes the nominee, the web of corruption leading to Obama's rise to power that this investigative journalist was able to untangle in less than three weeks, will be front page news right up until election day, handing the Republicans their only chance in hell of winning the White House.
Instead of the leaders of the Democratic party doing their homework, a small group of investigative reporters in Chicago will be credited with exposing the corrupt backbone of Obama political career and the mainstream media need only follow their lead if the Democrats hold him out to be a viable candidate.
The list of reporters deserving of credit for doing the investigative work that should have been done by the leaders of the Democratic party before they got behind Obama, includes, but is not limited to, Chicago Sun-Times reporters, Tim Novak, Dave McKinney, Fran Spielman, Chris Fusco, Natasha Korecki, Steve Warmbir and Lynn Sweet. Chicago Tribune reporters especially deserving of credit include Jeff Coen, Bob Secter, John Chase, Virginia Groark, Rick Pearson, David Jackson, John McCormick, Mickey Ciokajlo, Rudolph Bush and Dan Mihalopoulos.
This article is the first in a series that will give the details of Obama's rise to fame.
As for the most recognized allegation against Obama, that he helped slumlords operate in Chicago, while accepting their campaign contributions, its true. Obama was a member of the political machine that helped a whole gang of slumlords funnel local, state and federal tax dollars, over the backs of poor people in need of affordable housing, to line their own pockets and fund the campaigns of politicians in positions to recommend and award contracts.
The Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm, where Obama worked for nearly a decade, served as a hub for a slew of slumlord deals, many that benefited the firm's founder, Allison Davis, and Obama's claims that he knew nothing about the inner workings of this small firm, represent an insult to the intelligence of the American public.
Tony Rezko was Obama political Godfather. Obama received his first contributions of $2,000, to launch his political career as a state senator on July 31, 1995, from Rezko. Obama started out saying that Rezko only raised $50,000 or $60,000 for his political career but after a year of lying his way through the primaries, the latest total he gave to the Sun-Times and Tribune during interviews on March 14, 2008, adds up to $250,000.
For a year, he also minimized his relationship with Rezko by telling the media that he only had dinner or lunch with Rezko one or twice a year. But when confronted by Sun-Times reporters during the March 14 interview, with the allegation that an FBI mole saw him coming and going to Rezko's office often and that three sources said he talked to Rezko on the phone daily, Obama changed his tune.
Now the story is that he may have talked to Rezko daily at times during campaigns but sometimes he went for a whole month without talking to him. "I have to say we're talking over the course of 10 years," Obama said, "there might have been spurts where I talked to him daily."
But then he added: "There might have been stretches over a month where I wouldn't have talked to him at all."
This story is a far cry from the picture Obama gave to the public of him and Rezko meeting once or twice a year, and he never did respond to the allegation by the Times reporter that an FBI mole "saw you coming and going from Rezko's office a lot."
Without Rezko's fundraising, Obama would not have been elected to the Illinois senate, or the US Senate, and he would not have sold the books he wrote about himself because like the Wizard of Oz, Obama is nobody special.
Even with Rezko's massive fund raising, Obama could not beat former Black Panther, Bobby Rush, in his 2000 bid for a seat in Congress. And the only reason he won the US Senate race was because his viable opponents had to drop out due to the public airing of personal scandals. Beating Alan Keyes is hardly a victory to brag about.
The media needs to quit grouping all the Obama backers under the name Antoin "Tony" Resko because the list of contributors to his political campaigns includes the names of many individuals and entities with their own agendas.
I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing by Obama here.
Coincidentally, Patrick Fitzgerald hasn't found any either, nor has the roster of Chicago reporters that you introduce, and they've been looking for more than two years.
You seem to suggest that the FBI ramping up its manpower in Chicago in the same year that Obama bought a house is hard evidence. Are you kidding? This is as filthy a collection of lies and innuendo as I have ever laid eyes on.
You should understand that your "investigative reporting" does not meet the standards of truth that I would apply to a drunken round of dirty joke telling, and your qualifications for investigative reporting are best described by applying your nom de plume to them.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 835 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 8:35:25 AM
I completly agree with Mr Sanchez. What evidence are you providing here? It's all "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", circumstancial twitter that has been proven to be dead ends even by the sources you cite in the beginning of the article.
by
TomMikesell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 9:05:09 AM
that Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, but Democrats more specifically continue to give us candidates that are so flawed and damaged as to be unelectable time after time.
My contention is that our government for some time ceased to be a functioning government for The People and is now a tool for amoral elites who through their ownership of media, coupled with our archaic electoral process, weed out anyone that would threaten their stranglehold. It's why those candidates that resonate with people and offer commonsense solutions are ignored and ridiculed out of contention in the early stages and what we're left with are hand-picked candidates of the elite.
As the case in point all three of the remaining candidates are wedded to the same industries/elites/special interests that put us in the dire situation we're in. It's a case of a choice between Tweedle-Dee, Tweddle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber. That's why I don't think it's a mistake that no matter who Democrats nominate it will be McCain who wins. If Clinton should somehow get the nod it will drive those Republicans that would have stayed home to the polls and those that supported Obama to protest vote for McCain and stay home. If, as this article points out, it's Obama he'll face the blast-furnace of exposure of his questionable dealings coupled with the same voter backlash again assuring a McCain win. And of course we can't leave out corruptible e-voting machines that still encompass 80% of how we cast our votes.
Either way, and although it really doesn't matter which one of these corporate shills becomes president, McCain certainly will have the effect of further disenfranchising people from the political process and give said elites their best person to allow them to continue their corrupt practices. And being it will be McCain there is no need to rush an attack on Iran, but if in the unlikely event Obama becomes the candidate and it looks like he'd win count on that attack before the election which will knock the so-called "peace candidate" out of the box.
In the end we're close to the end. There is no way we can avoid the calamity about to ensue. We are, and I say this knowing it's alarmist, but none the less true, we are on the brink of extinction. World-wide over-population, rapid depletion of natural resources, economic collapse, food shortages, expanding wars, pandemics, climate change and the wrath that Mother Nature will unleash will make it impossible for mankind to survive. In the best case scenario those powers-that-be also know this and their plan is to be the last people standing after the majority of us "common people" are finished slaughtering each other. Man in his short time on Earth has proven to be the most intelligent and most flawed species to ever inhabit this planet, but in the end mankind's intelligence was no match for his insatiable greed.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 1030 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 9:43:04 AM
Investigative reporting or amateur blogger with an agenda
ANY "journalist" who expects to be taken seriously should not be so presumptive about conclusions like "Obama's web of corruption"...I read and read your post and found out mostly about Rezko and Daley and the corrupt local Chicago scene that Obama rose from with a slate of national ethics reform proposals!
Where is documentation of the things you fault Obama for? He's been beating McCain in head-to-head polls consistently since the elections began, unlike Hillary. 150,000 Republicans in Ohio even switched party "for one day only" to push Hillary into the nomination!
Your intentional omissions are irresponsible. Obama's "trail of dirt" pales in comparison to that of either Hillary or McCain, both in quantity and quality. From Whitewater to Filegate to Travelgate to Rose Law improprieties to last week's lies about sniper fire on the tarmac, Obama's "dirt" file would never measure up to Hillary's. Does this fact not exist in your analysis?
McCain's list of lobbyist indiscretions, conflicts-of-interest and blind-eyed oversight of the Enron/Abramoff networks going back decades eclipses anything Obama did (or didn't do) locally in Chicago on the way up.
With these other facts in balance, many reasonable readers might still opt for Obama as the lesser of three evils - were these facts included. Because they're not, the author's agenda comes through blatantly. If you are for Hillary, the truth is always the best policy, just say so.
"Obama is a political psychopath" - ? I'd think even his worst detractors would agree that Obama is cool and calculated. I saw nothing to back up this wide-eyed assertion, leaving only the tinny taste of bias.
Structure, organization, relevance deptartment: this article mostly collects rehashes wrongdoing by everybody but Obama - Rezko, Daley, the wife, other bit players. I was let down after reading this piece because so much of it was tangential, except the insulting rhetoric. I was really drawn in by the headline, but left disappointed by the end.
It's also not news - we are not "investigative reporters" if we do no first hand interviews or original research. Otherwise we are bloggers, writing persuasive OpEds that piece together already published media, completely dependent on the internet.
Let's discuss Obama, Hillary and McCain, and let's feel free to offer our opinions and make our best cases based on facts and stats at our disposal. But let's not make up our readers' minds for them, that is not only bias, it's propaganda.
"Journalism" requires self-policed objectivity, just the facts, who, what, where, when and how, and ALL the facts relevant to allow the reader to decide. This piece is not OpEdNews' best, this type of writing is part of a wide problem with media and reporting today and is best left to political dirty tricksters and their accomplices.
by
Gustav Wynn (45 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 217 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 1:59:14 PM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Inappropriate Content
Editor's Message: The author's piece did not violate OEN policies in the view of the editor in question, and was approved for open discussion. Questions raised by the commenter with regard to the author's substance or conclusions are not necessarily linked to OEN editorial guidelines.
If it is so flawed, who gave it the editorial Okay? And why?
Hmmmmmm Inquiring minds want to know....
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 4:43:18 PM
The typo in the title was an oversight on the editorial part of Op Ed News. It should have been corrected before publishing. We apologize for the error to the author – and also to our readers – and it has since been rectified. Thank you for pointing it out.
Your analysis and refutations are not in question and the correction of the title to reflect accurately the proper spelling of Senator Obama's first name, "Barack", should not be construed as an effort to impugn your thoughtful and carefully crafted rebuttal.
Cordially, Frank J. Ranelli Senior Editor OEN
by
Frank J. Ranelli (59 articles, 141 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 324 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 5:51:24 PM
This is why Americans are so ill-informed. An average person would read her article and begin a campaign of "did you hear.......?" against Obama. Any undecided's who read any articles on either candidates need to investigate or at least read further to confirm or disprove information that they plan to make a final decision on.
by
PeterJ (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 12:57:10 PM
Dear Evelyn--thanks for this and keep up the good work. However, you will never convince this bunch of Obamacites that their fella ever did anything wrong. He is their savior no matter how vile his mentor of 20 years is. Obama could not have possibly been influenced by any of that garbage. He is perfect. They will make every excuse for him--just like the radical rightwingers did for George Bush.
by
Merylr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 5:43:05 PM
Merylr, the tenor of your comment, like the tenor of Ms. Pringle's article, is the reason why this former John Edwards supporter is now an Obama supporter. Since the election of 2000, I have seen far too much division in this country. The fighting - Republicans vs Democrats, liberals against conservatives, haves vs. have-nots, evangelicals against everybody else, has torn our nation apart. In Edwards, I saw someone who wanted to unite us. I see the same in Obama. In Clinton, and in her most ardent supporters, I see those who are not only content with division, but who are so desperate to win that they are willing to destroy their party and their fellow Democrats to do so. Ms. Pringle says, "shame on" the Democratic leaders who have endorsed Obama. I say, shame on Democrats who feel it necessary to demean their fellow party members by questioning their intelligence and common sense. That is exactly what you have done, in assuming that Obama's supporters think him perfect, and in judging us to be as mindless as those who support George W. Bush.
by
Lauria Hale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:10:53 AM
It is fine that you moved from John Edwards to endorsing Barack Obama. It is not, fine, however, in my opinion, to compare Hillary support with the vision-limited Bushistas of old or new incarnation. That is very short-sighted and points to your own lack of fundamental understanding of the true complexion of this current crisis within Democratic ranks. The Democratic Party has essentially self-destructed with a little help from right-wing, moneyed friends. To blame Bill and Hillary for all ills past and present is an easy dodge for those whose political acumen rests soley on popular sentiment and contrived hype for the Obamarama passing for serious campaign presentation. The Democrats will cave on this issue and advise Hillary to concede because that is the line of least resistance. All stuff runs down to Hill, as they say. And that pun is intended. If you are looking for Obama to save the country and the Party, lots of luck.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:41:36 AM
Everyone knows that Chicago has a reputation for corrupt politics. It is a well earned reputation that goes way way back in time. However, Chicago local politics is NOT national level politics. I would say that there are forces behind Obama, that while having strong Chicago ties, are national in scope. Dare I say that the Kennedy family, who have a long connection to Chicago business and politics but who are national players, are perhaps key to Obama's success.
Stirling
by
Lord Stirling (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 74 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM
And thanks for taking us to a higher level of comprehension re this current Democratic Party fiasco. To believe that these self-inflicted wounds are all happenstance, the result of more ineptitude is to believe that Bush, Inc. is clinically insane. No, I think they know exactly what they are about. They may be nuts, but they ain't stupid, as the saying goes. Follow the money...
Ted Kennedy promoted John Kerry; John Kerry graciously conceded to George Bush; you do the math. Now all Dem gentlemen statesmen will ask Hillary to graciously step aside; perhaps she will be offered a seat on the Supreme Court as a consolation prize. When she turned to Obama during one of their debates and said it was an honor to be on the stage with him, I wanted to throw something at the TV. To me he does dishonor to the country. If you want to hear a true American politician-turned-patriot--another black man--look up Mayor of Newark, NJ, Cory Booker. He makes Barack sound like a pandering neophyte. Interviewed on the Bill Moyers show, Mayor Booker was so truly inspiring, I wanted to cry. He said he was proud, all his life to be an American, and marveled at the opportunity our vast and diverse country holds for all citizens who are willing to roll up their sleeves, pitch in to change the violence and self-loathing that permeates our culture. He is changing his city with deeds, not words.
Bravo for Mr. Booker. There is a candidate for Dem Convention Keynote speaker; and I bet he won't try to immediately parlay it into a run for the White House. He has his head on straight at only 38 years of age.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:55:05 PM
I think I even used don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain too.
Obama could have had all the Democrats behind him and he will still lose against McCain when the curtain is openned. You should have stuck with Hillary. All of her dirty laundry has been displayed.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 480 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 5:51:28 PM
