Great timing for Obama.  The media wheel spins on.

The Hillaristas were claiming just pre-Wright that Rezko was going to sink Obama.  Not!  I hope Obama has learned from this that he just has to move straight ahead to confront all of the shit thrown at him.  No ducking, no wincing.  Open face, candor, charm, humor.  And none of it will stick.

That's the only thing that I saw missing from the Wright video.  It was too tense.  He needs to acknowledge the fact that there are people who harbor anger over old grievances and tie that to himself and to us.  "We've all had that experience, of nursing a wound.  But we don't have to live there.  We don't have to let that define our political life."

This is a great challenge for Obama and a great opportunity.  If he can use the Wright controversy to move his message forward, rather than simply to defend, Hillary won't just be done, she'll be forgotten, and McCain will be looking as old, tired, and washed up as he is.

I trust that this will get some play on Ben Smith's blog.  Maybe MyDD, but that's probably too much to hope for.

Can anybody imagine Hillary pledging to answer every question asked of her by journalists over the course of an hour and a half?

Are we going to see this highlighted on MSNBC, CNN and Fox?  (Well, maybe not Fox).  It deserves wide dissemination.

Where is pccostello? When will the true expert weigh in?

Admitting that past attacks don't hold up is not the Clinton way. Do not expect the Hillaristas to acknowledge that they ever said the name "Rezko." The Clinton way is to move on to new, fresh attacks. So you can pretty much count the minutes until pcc or another Hillarista replies here about where are all the pre-Senate tax returns, or how come Barack earmarked a mil for his wife's hospital and isn't that a bribe, or how come Obama only earmarked a mil to that hospital instead of the larger sums for other hospitals and doesn't that mean he hates the sick children of Chicago.

But never a word about past attacks that didn't pan out, nor any word about why Hillary can't be bothered to release her own tax returns, or the White House records that might prove just how involved she really was in her husband's historic achievements, or information about the foreign tyrants her husband sells favors to. That is not the Clinton way.

P.S.: If Hillary really was a critical player in her husband's foreign policy, such as in Ireland, Bosnia, and Kosovo, why doesn't she talk about her role in the 2000 Camp David summit, or the decision whether to retaliate for the U.S.S. Cole bombing?

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune...

This is good news.  I only wish we could be sure this would be the end of it.  I doubt it, though.  I hope Hillary drops it at least, but Republicans will no doubt just keep yelling "Rezko! Rezko!  Doesn't look good!" and before long Rezko is the new Whitewater.  

Roiduboloi, I posted a response to your last post on the making Obama unelectable thread, if you're interested.

Here's hoping he can pass everyone's Rev. Wright test...

Paradoxically, short term if not longer, this could bring about an uptick in attacks from the blogistes de la droite. They'd take it as a challenge to prove the Trib's judgement false by unearthing even more questionable evidence of ties. ("How many of *them* are/were on Rezko's payroll," etc.).

Back to you there newdex.

Where's pccostello?

One group of corrupt journalists acquit a corrupt political adventurer.

How can it be accomplished with a straight face and earn the respect of the cult membership?

Hi guys. You were asking for me?

s400:  "One group of corrupt journalists acquit a corrupt political adventurer."

The Tribune broke the Rezko story and were bothered by it on their (conservative) editorial page.  In short, what the f are you talking about?  That's what I thought.

This is a step in the right direction--he is at least trying to give answers now. However, we don't really know what he actually said there, we don't know what the reporters there (as opposed to to the pro-Obama editorial board) will make of what he said, and we don't know how his new claims will stand up to reportorial scrutiny. Obama has shown a growing tendency to make unbelievable statements when caught or pressed, as with NAFTA & the Canadians and as with Wright.

For example, does Obama's statement about Wright--that the opinions that Wright expressed in numersous sermons and videos were not opinions that Obama had ever heard Wright express--pass the believability test? Most people find Obama unbelievable on this. Similarly, Obama's inaccurate statement that no meetings or assurances had been given to Canada--which he might have well gotten away with--turned out not to be true.

His statements on Rezko will have to actually make sense and stand up under scrutiny. So, we'll see.

Oh pc, you are a charmer.  This wonderful blend of wishful thinking and terribly deliberate prose.  Most people didn't believe that Bill did not inhale.  So what?  You really have a lot of difficulty separating your own political views and desires from any objective view of the political world as it is.  (And, by the way, the news reports affirm, not impeach, Obama's claim that no contrary private assurances were given to Canada, although the same cannot be said of Hillary.)  

Not only will we see, we are already seeing.  And what we are seeing is that, contrary to every prediction you have made, and despite Rezko and Wright (as you incorrectly perceive them), the supers are now openly moving in Obama's direction, both in numbers and rhetoric.  As reported in the Times today, the meme that is taking hold there, and amongst the leadership of the party, is that the supers have to follow the popular will, not state by state or locality by locality, but overall.  To translate that for you, it means that when, as is overwhelmingly likely, Obama arrives at the end of the primary season with more delegates and more popular votes, the supers will see no alternative but to back him.  

For starters, wouldn't it be helpful if people just went to the Tribune's web site and read the interview wall to wall? Be my guest, and then look for a single question about all the money that went to various Rezko development projects (in tandem with Obama's former boss Allison Davis) from either the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago or the Woods Foundation. Not a one...nothing.    

Did he add more detail about that wacky home purchase (which truly is the side show to the whole odd relationship in my view)? Yes, we now know that Rezko somehow mysteriously bumped an option holder on the vacant lot though Obama has no idea why or how. We also now know that rather than someone he met a couple of times (as I believe was his position early on) he saw Rezko far more frequently and they and the wives hung out together for at least one weekend at the Rezko estate in Wisconsin.

And did the Trib buy it? Yup, sure did, all except the irascible and cynical John Kass. But keep in mind that this newspaper has adored Obama from day one as best evidenced by its late 2006 editorial "Run, Barack, Run!" when he was first considering the race. So now Obama is innoculated (for the time being, perhaps) on Rezko, can point to the Tribune interview session/love fest and the ensuing editorial blessing and simultaneously say "no more Rezko questions" and "hey, let's look at Hillary!". And indeed the best evidence is, well, this board.

Mission accomplished.

roi--

you are the one who is self-deluding. obama is down 8 points in a single day (friday) in the rasmusssen tracking--and i believe that reflects an average over three days, so the decline on Friday would have been even greater than 8 points.

Obama Gains 14 More Delegates

CHICAGO -- On a day when Sen. Barack Obama picked up more pledged delegates in Iowa and California, the senator from Illinois told a crowd in suburban Indianapolis on Saturday that it is time to turn away from the "forces of division," and to choose instead "a different path that says: We have different stories, but we have common dreams and common hopes."

pc, polls go up and down.  When there is bad news about a candidate, the polls take a hit.  If today's date were October 31, you might have a point.  It isn't.  I never said that the Wright controversy would have no impact of any kind no matter how temporary.  I maintain that it will not even come close to changing the arc of Obama's nomination (see above) or affect the general election.  Right now, Obama is the only one be targeted by anyone because he -- a better man than I -- has avoided going after Hillary.  McCain isn't in a fight yet.  Just wait until the general public gets a chance to hear the guy.

Sorry, I read the Rezko related interview and I wouldn't rate this as a pass. I would like to say two things:

1. I was impressed that Obama chose to do it this way. He's skillful -- and reminds me of.. Bill Clinton and his ability to deal with crises that he encountered during his 92 campaign.

2. But, as with Bill Clinton's responses, careful reflection and re-reading leaves many questions un-answered in my mind. There are some really serious lapses of judgement here (IMO). Note the timing of this (in 2005)! Note his response to the question -- did you really expect there would be no quid-pro-quo for Rezko's help in this matter? Note the simultaneity of the purchase of the house (esp. its price) and the purchase of the adjoining lot -- Obama had disavowed all knowledge as to the actual purchase here earlier, and I find all this either incredibly naive on his part, and that he is being ultra careful when he's talking about this using very carefully chosen, lawyerly wording.

In short, I find it both scary and re-assuring at the same time. Scary to see the country putting so much trust in this somewhat untested politician, but re-assuring in that -- like Bill Clinton -- he seems to understand mass communication, and adept at what words like "judgement" mean to his campaign.

Here it is in his own words, when Rezko offers to buy the adjoining lot:

"And my thinking at the time—and this is just to sort of flag this, this is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment where I could have said, "You know, I'm not sure that's a great idea""

and later

"A larger lapse of judgment existed when it came to the strip of property."

But when asked point blank:

Tribune: You worked in politics, organizing communities, you've known him for 17 years. The guy buys the lot next to you. You never thought, at any time, he's going to ask you for something?

Obama: No. No. Precisely because I had known him for 17 years and he hadn't asked me for something.

...

Tribune: Aside from the fundraisers specifically, could you talk a little bit about what other friends or donors he's introduced you to that are still helpful to you.

Obama: It's hard to recall who, you know, what sort of intersections there are here in town and sort of who I met who through because I obviously know a lot of people now in Chicago.

and later  on wrt. the UofC donation..

Obama: But you could make a good argument that this is something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system.

In short, if X donates to you, but Y asks you for a favor -- I suppose it's up to the press to figure it out! How wonderful. What would we say if Bush now said "yeah, there was some bad intelligence about Iraq that some slipped through our cracks, our screen system for national intelligence" ...

I could go on and on about my readings on the interview, but I'll close with a couple more general observations:

If someone does not exercise judgement in a matter that is as important as one's own home in 2005 (not so long ago), how exactly can he be expected to exercise good judgement in matters that affect our country?

The Dems (we) are in a pickle -- we did not vet this person who unfortunately by all counts will potentially be our nominee. He has run a much better campaign, and in politics -- to such a winner must go the spoils. I wish the Obama-bots would stop their attacks on Hillary Clinton -- who may have been done in by a combination of taking things for granted and sheer campaign incompetence. W/out such an embrace and a serious attempt to mend the party soon, I think the Dems are not likely to win in November.

Do think that if the public stopped disliking Hillary she would stop attacking Obama for the sake of the party?  Not likely.  Obama has treated her with kid gloves (because for a lot of reasons he had no choice and understood that).  But I don't count on Hillary to do anything for the good of the party.  Hillary is a party of one.

Did rezko ever ask for anything from Obama?  Did Obama ever do anything for him?  These are the questions that are going to matter a little bit for the public.  Why only a little bit?

Because, Did Mark Rich ever do anything for the Clintons?  Hell yeah.  Did he ever ask for anything?  A pardon for stealing tens of millions from the people of the US.  Did he get the pardon?  Hell yeah.  Did HIllary have any role in this?  Don't know, the Clintons are hiding the papers from public view.

Despite this, has Hillary still been a credible candidate for president?  Yes.

If the answers to the questions are that Rezko never asked for anything and Obama never got anything for him, Rezko is a non-event.

I would LOVE to see Hillary undergo that kind of scrutiny; but don't hold your breath. She insulates herself from serious questions from the media, affects a defensive posture ("Is it because I'm a woman?") and doesn't even allow YouTubers to comment on her videos (which, I thought, was the whole point of posting political videos on Youtube). I would bet the farm that Hillary will NEVER sit in a room with 3 dozen journalists for 92 minutes and answer every question they have on ANY topic, much less about her 2006 taxes, the funding of the Clinton Presidential library, or President Clinton's private Canadian-Russian oil deals after leaving the White House....