I'm curious about why all of the Clinton supporters seem so worked up over this issue.
Obama is not accused of any wrong doing. The transaction has been reviewed by many people and the prices paid were fair market value. The current asking price of the lot is more than what Rezko paid for it. The only way that the transaction could be seen as shady is if Rezko over paid for the lot in order to subsidize Obama. Given that the lot is being resold for more than the price paid makes it clear that no significant shenanigans where played.
Given that so many Dems rightfully take offense to the way the Clintons were treated over Whitewater and the way Kerry was smeared by Bushco, I find it amazing that you all seem to have such enthusiasm over "swift-boating" a fellow Democrat.
Have you no shame? Seriously, have you no shame? How do you justify your actions? What mental gymnastics do you have to preform to get around the cognitive dissonance in your heads? On some level you must know that you are engaged in behavior that you would condemn from others.
I can only guess that you have all adopted a "win by any means necessary" philosophy. When Dems act like this, they make it easier for the Repubs to slime our candidates be creating an "everybody does it" atmosphere. This stuff discredits politics and politicians, ultimately it discredits the very idea of democracy and collective action.
This may seem like a rant, it is not intended that way. I seriously want to no why you are acting this way? Obama has not dredged up any of the considerable muck available to throw at the Clintons. You can bet that the Repubs will have no such restraint. The fact that the Clintons have run such a dirty campaign against Obama will give her no way to complain when the muck rains down.
-"Obama has not dredged up any of the considerable muck available to throw at the Clintons."
No, I suppose not. He just called them racist. Oh that Obama is such a saint. What a load of bs!
He never called them racist. Show me otherwise.
Many neutral observers concluded that the Clintons where making a conscious effort to raise race as an issue and to try to "ghettoize" Obama as a black candidate. There is a difference between being racist and using race for political gain. Based on the comments in question I agree with these conclusions.
The people who objected to HRC and BC's comments were Clyburn and Brazille, both of whom are widely respected AA figures who are neutral in the contest between BO and HRC.
Your comments strike me as typical Clintonian double speak: excuse your candidate's efforts to manipulate, and then when she is called on those manipulations, claim she is a victim. It is a clever ploy, but it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
Again, how do you justify "swift-boating" a fellow Dem?
Did you read my comment?
Obama called the Clintons a racist. I didn't mention your name.
Did you read mine?
I said, "He (meaning Obama) never called them racist."
You claim otherwise. Show me evidence.
Respond to the actual point of my diary: the Clintons are not racist, but a very strong case can be made that they raised race as an issue for political gain. Do you deny that they did it? Or, do you defend this sort of behavior?
-but a very strong case can be made that they raised race as an issue for political gain.
Of course he never said it. MLK/LBJ and fairlytale comment were turned around to make is appear the Clintons were racist. It was implied. He implied it and the media took off with it. He also put out a memo in SC saying that the Clintons surrogates were speaking for her. If that were the case than was JJr speaking for Obama when he said Hillary did not cry for Katrina. This is not rocket science.
Anyway, who are you trying to convince?
1) If HRC and BC's comments were turned, who did the turning, Clyburn and Brazile who are not part of Obama's campaign
2) Lets review our conversation:
I started with a generic comment to all HRC supporters about why you folks all seem so enthusiastic about "swift-boating" a fellow Dem, when you are rightfully angry about the treatment your own candidate has received from the Repubs.
You responded not by answering my comment, but by accusing Obama of "calling the Clintons racist."
I replied that he had never done so, and clarifying that there is a difference between being racist and using race for political gain.
Again, you responded by not addressing my response.
If we are going to have a useful exchange of ideas, it would help if you would actually try to answer my questions:
Do you feel justified in "swift-boating" a fellow Dem. Do you feel justified in accusing Obama of "calling the Clintons racist" when he never did. Do you disagree that the Clintons are using race for political gain? Do you feel this is appropriate behavior for a Dem primary?
This is useless. Let's end it here.
Scratch my last comment. I guess I'm the one that needs to read better. Sorry.
-He never called them racist. Show me otherwise.
How can you say that with a start face?
To the best of my knowledge, neither Obama or his campaign ever claimed that HRC or BC where racist nor that their comments were racist. Obama said, "some people were offended by their (HRC ans BC) comments."
Those people were Brazile and Clyburn, who are not part of the Obama campaign. Why is this so hard for you to follow?
If you think I am wrong, show me some evidence.
