Today's fun: Google Hillary Clinton, Peter Paul, Aaron Tonken, David Rosen

[wndycty]

You think Rezko is bad google Hillary Clinton, Peter Paul, Aaron Tonken, David Rosen.

Now Hillary's folks will say the is has been debunked by fact check. . .but what they won't address is the fact that these 3 men were involved in a Hillary Clinton fund raiser. There were indictments, acquittals and a conviction. Not much better than Obama knowing Tony Rezko.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401150.html

[MonkeyFunk]

1. The freepers get all hot and bothered over Peter Paul, too

But I suspect nothing will come of it.

[wndycty]

2. You mean like the way the Freepers get all hot and bothered over Rezko?

Let's be consistent. You want to play the guilt by association game? Then lets play the guilt by association game.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Clinton has no association with Rezko

other than a photo taken 11 years ago.

There's no THERE there.

[wndycty]

5. Yes but she does have a relationship with Rosen. . .

. . .who was her chief fund raiser in 2000 and then indicted for fund raiser improprieties. Granted he was acquitted but Rezko has not been convicted yet. . .AND Rezko's wrongdoing has nothing to do with Obama. Rosen, Paul and Tonken's wrong doings were tied to Clinton.

[kikiek]

4. Unfortunately Obama did more than "know" Rezko.

[wndycty]

6. Yes and Hillary did more than know Rosen. . .

. . .he was her chief fund raiser.

[kikiek]

7. Show me the level of dealing that Obama has been involved in. His isn't old stuff like you're

trying to drudge up. This is now and happening. And for some misguided reason you blame Hillary for. This investigation has been going on for some time. Things catch up to ya. Time for Obama to take the heat and settle it if he can. If not he best drop out.

[wndycty]

8. OK but 1st tell me about Obama's wrong doing with Rezko. . .

. . .you throw it out. What is Obama's wrong doing with Rezko. What has Obama done that is remotely illegal or unethical. There was the questionable land deal, but the land deal was never ever even remotely considered illegal, it was just a business deal with an unsavory individual.

So tell me what exactly has Obama done wrong or more importantly, WHAT is the accusation against Obama as it relates to Rezko?


Now if you look at the whole Clinton Tonken Rosen Paul debacle you will see the there were indictments as it relates to fund raiser improprieties as it directly relates to Hillary and there was at least one conviction. So go right ahead, tell me how is Obama's connection with Rezko worse than Hillary's connection to Tonken Rosen and Paul.

[kikiek]

9. Well since Rezko is under federal indictment and Obama has used him for personal gain it don't look

too good. His responses so far haven't been completely truthful as pointed out in the news. He needs to come clean and not just sit back and wait to see what comes up. I want a democrat in the presidents office no matter who gets the nomination. I don't want crap coming up after the nomination is won. That is the bottom line. Deal with it now not later.

[wndycty]

10. What wrong doing has Obama been accused of? None. . .

. . .its guilt by association. So again what wrong doing has Obama been accused of?

[kikiek]

12. There are many questions about the land deal and donations that are connected to him. You are well

aware of this so I don't see the point in looking up all the articles for you. He cannot leave this hanging out there. If it is all as innocent as he says then he should deal with it. His behavior is suggesting he is hiding something. That will only get the media looking for more. This could be his downfall whether or not he deserves it. He needs to address it and bring out anything he has to prove nothing is there. That is the way it works in this country. When you are a democrat you need to prove innocence. The Clinton's will attest to the fact that the burden of proof is not on the accusers.

[wndycty]

14. Are you ever going to address Clinton, Paul, Tonken and Rosen?

Or just keep avoiding that discussion?

[kikiek]

16. I don't need to. She isn't being accused of anything! She would be if they had anything!

[sam sarrha]

11. >>Links>>> how about this...??

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-rezko-clinton-080122,0,5430503.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&resnum=0&q=tony+rezko+obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+republicans+rezko&btnG=Google+Search

[wndycty]

13. Have we talked about wrong doing? Have we talked about Obama being under investigation?

Have we talked about what illegal enterprise Rezko ran to benefit Obama? Again google Clinton, Rosen, Tonken and Paul.

[jefferson_dem]

15. To be lectured on ethics by Hillary and her supporters is comical.

Thus far, I've been hesitant to drag out all the nasty skeletons for a reuinion but we know they are there.

[kikiek]

17. Yes productive and relevent. Go nuts. Never mind, you're already there.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. how hypocritical of you. Why are you not bothered by Obama's stuff

and only bothered by Clinton's? Seriously. Does it bother you at all?

[jefferson_dem]

19. You're funny.

Now we're all supposed to be equally objective and outraged over a "scandal" that has some in the media class chirping?

Didn't you leap to defend Billy Shaheen's deplorable drug use references?

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. so...are you going to answer my question or not?

[jefferson_dem]

22. Seriously...

Ethics in government are important. If there are proven violations by any public officials, especially any Dem running for President, it bothers me.

Now, in the name of non-hypocrisy, i'll expect to see you piling on Hillary when her next scandal breaks. Right?

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. well, are you concerned with the fact that it is proven

that Obama got his house and the adjoining land from Rezo for next to nothing compared to its value?

[jefferson_dem]

25. I'm not sure A. that's proven; B. that signals a violation of governmental ethics.

Now you answer these.

Didn't you defend Billy Shaheen's deplorable drug-use reference?

Will you now, in the name of your newly found principle of non-hypocrisy, be consistent in criticizing all of our party's candidates when questionable ethical issues arise?

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. wait a minute. That is a bush answer. At First bush said he would get rid on anyone

involved--then later it had to be proven it was illegal.

Nothing Clinton has done is illegal, yet you are not giving her that same benefit of the doubt what is up with that?

I do not agree that Shaheen's statements were deplorable. He was talking about the media giving Obama a free pass (which they are) and the question was asked, what dirt is there on Obama. Now, if Obama did not want to talk about his drug use (into his 20's by the way) then he should not have mentioned it. And indeed, he mentioned it in his campaign speeches. And Sheehan responded that the republicans could exploit that cocaine use ADMITTED COCAINE USE. And how could they? Well, what do we know about his cocaine use? We know that it was into his 20's. how much? Did he just buy it? Did he sell it? What are the paramaters around the use?

Those are valid questions. Those were distorted by the media and by people on DU to say that Sheehan suggested Obama was a cocaine dealer. That is not true. That is a distortion of a response. Now, remember the context. Clinton is getting reamed in the media for every blink of her eye--and it was suggested that she could not be viable in the general because of her baggage. Everyone has baggage.

I think what was unfair, is the distortion and twists.

[SoxFan]

21. Another lovely FOH for you

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brady-kiesling/reining-in-the-ethnic-lob_b_77661.html

[george_maniakes]

23. Would you want obama to win...

because people liked his ideas, or because you turned off more people from voting. This tells people nothing about why they should vote.