12 thoughts on “Funniest Part of the Clinton-Rezko Pic

  1. Come on. Do you think that the Clintons have a real relationship with Mr Rezko?

    I agree with you generally that Obama’s relationship with Rezko has been overblown, but it exists, even by Barack’s own admission, whereas there is nothing between the Clintons and Rezko. If you want to throw a picture up there that hurts Clinton, I’m sure you could find one of them with some member of the Chinese military-industrial complex they auctioned the Lincoln Bedroom off to. This is just disingenuous. It kills me that people’s personality cultism for one candidate or another puts me in the annoying position of having to defend the likes of Hillary Clinton.

    You know I’ve got nothing but love and respect for the Archpundit, and I’ve always given you your propers.

    But, frankly, Larry, you seem to be incapable of criticizing Barack. You’ll accept any of his rationalizations (for every single criticism) as sufficient evidence for his defense, but you don’t seem willing to give that quarter to any other candidate.

    I remember being confused myself in 2003, because I had heard some variation of this speech:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwLPdeYLSI
    But then was smacked down for saying that Barack supported single-payer universal health care in a column. Like everything else, he says now that his position was more nuanced. Fine–but would you accept such a rationalization (as opposed to an outright “I’ve changed my mind” or “I was wrong”) from any other candidate? He clearly says here that the first step to single-payer is “taking back the White House and the Senate”. So, is not for single-payer, when he does indeed take the White House? If so, can he just say he was wrong (or changed his mind)? Of course he won’t–because he’s a politician, and no (or few) politicians would.

    But that’s just the point! He’s just a politician!

    Do you honestly believe this guy is perfect? Do you honestly believe he’s anything but a politician? Your commenting on some DKos threads has bordered on frenzied. Barack and Axelrod have plenty of mud all over themselves, and your insistence on his sainthood is really out of character for you.

  2. ==Come on. Do you think that the Clintons have a real relationship with Mr Rezko?

    No, and I didn’t think the humor was that hard to figure out either–Hillaryis44 is unhinged at best and that they have a pic of Hillary in the same outfit and hair as a pic they claim is horribly unfair is pretty damn funny.

    ===I remember being confused myself in 2003, because I had heard some variation of this speech:

    Or he misspoke–if you look back at his issue positions, he was consistent in what he said in 1996. That he would be at a conference and make a big change while he tolk Citizen Action he thought single payer was unrealistic doesn’t make any sense.

    ===Do you honestly believe this guy is perfect?

    No. You might read a couple posts down for example.

    Do you honestly believe he’s anything but a politician? Your commenting on some DKos threads has bordered on frenzied.

    Most of my posting on DKOS is debunking false claims about him. Do you think it’s okay for people to lie about him and Rezko to make it sound worse than it is?

  3. No, I don’t think that’s okay, and you should defend your preferred candidate against anything false. I’ve always thought that Barack is a better person than his handlers give him credit for, and that his handlers hurt him more than help him–the best evidence for that being his clear discomfort when he pandered about being a “proud Christian” in the SC debate. It reminded me of the John Kerry “Mary Cheney is a lesbian” moment.

    How did he misspeak on the single-payer point? He says here is a supporter of it. So he went in front of this AFL-CIO conference and said, “I’m a supporter of single payer,” leaving out that he thinks its unrealistic, and then later on says, “Well, I misspoke, but I do support it, only I think its unrealisitc.” That actually sounds like pandering to a room, not speaking truth.

    =Do you think it’s okay for people to lie about him and Rezko to make it sound worse than it is?

    You’re the expert on it, friend. I think it seems awfully suspect, but you make a somewhat strong case. You say here “worse than it is”–do you think there was some chicancery at all? Or is it just a series of suspect-looking misunderstandings?

  4. Also, that “criticism” below–He’s just so damn smart and principled–is one of those “I’m too much of a perfectionist” job interview criticisms, that ironically enough Barack himself poked fun at after the LV debate.

  5. I wanna say, too, that even if Rezko and Obama had a secret meeting where they nefariously plotted to buy properties that seem to have benefitted neither party significantly, it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how good a President Obama could (and likely would) be. It’s a shame that Larry has to spend any time on the issue here or elsewhere.

  6. —How did he misspeak on the single-payer point?

    Since 1996 he used the same line about in theory he’d be for single payer, but it’s not realistic–so up until the conference he said that, he says differently at the conference–and then he goes back to the original story.

    What’s the most likely answer there? He misspoke–it’s still fair game, but it’s not terribly persuasive.

  7. Why is it that when someone posts something humorous about Hillary it causes a stream of repeated anti-Obama commentary? Isn’t this something like, “don’t address the issue, just change the subject?”

    Did I miss something? Wasn’t it Hillary who brought Mr. Rezko into the Presidential debate? The humor of the comparison to the Hillaryis44 photo was fantastic.

    Do the Clintons have any relationship with Mr. Rezko? I sure don’t know. But I do know that in 06 one formal Click with Bill at the Duckworth/Bean rally was worth $15K in Write-or-Raise. I can only assume that any formal click with both Bill and Hill has always been worth at least that much.

  8. —You’re the expert on it, friend. I think it seems awfully suspect, but you make a somewhat strong case. You say here “worse than it is”–do you think there was some chicancery at all? Or is it just a series of suspect-looking misunderstandings?

    The latter–ultimately, it was really dumb to get into any sort of deal such as buying the 10 foot strip, but there isn’t any wrongdoing. No one really doubts that Rezko was trying to get his claws into Obama, but it never happened.

  9. ===No, I don’t think that’s okay, and you should defend your preferred candidate against anything false.

    It’s a bit more than that–if I knew enough to do it about Hsu or Fleiger I might do that as well, but I cover Illinois politics and I naturally know a lot more about this case–much of the actual case being a very big deal, just not related to Obama so much.

    I think you miss the context of the Christian quote and the bind for Obama isn’t an easy one to navigate. People aren’t trying to just say he is Muslim, they are trying to say he is what I jokingly called Mohammedan candidate. You cannot have a detailed discussion in the middle of a campaign about how it wouldn’t be such a big deal if he were Muslim, but the claims aren’t just that he is Muslim, but that he’s radical Islamist.

  10. ===Also, that “criticism” below–He’s just so damn smart and principled–is one of those “I’m too much of a perfectionist” job interview criticisms, that ironically enough Barack himself poked fun at after the LV debate.

    You are missing what Rich is saying there. It’s not that he’s so great, it’s that he thinks he’s so great and because of that he doesn’t always play well with others. Ultimately though he’s playing the game so he’s no different yet acts like he does. Sometimes that’s the kind of arrogance you need, but mostly it’s just arrogance.

  11. All reasonable points. I think the “high-minded” critique is the one I have of Barack, except worded differently. You have to admit, as far as problems with politicians go, that is a luxurious one to have.

    My point with the pandering moment wasn’t that it was a reasonable political move–emphasizing his Christianity to combat a rumor–it’s just that, to me, the actual way he said it betrayed his own feeling that he was pandering, that he felt inauthentic (or silly) having to do something so stupid to combat such a low and stupid rumor.

    Illinois Bird Watcher–relax. This wasn’t “anti-Obama” if anything, it was “anti-Arch” but only in the sense that I was trying to challenge the reasonability of his defenses. I think he’s made excellent points in his defense here and satisfied my argument. And that’s that–my opinion of Barack didn’t enter into it. It’s called “debate”, and in one both sides can be reasonable and actually hope to learn something or be persuaded.

Comments are closed.