«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Clintonites Claims "Unanswered Questions" Dog Obama; Obama Camp Says No; Voters to Decide

Unanswered questions about Tony Rezko, a friend and contributor, who is now on trial for corruption and extortion. Contradicted denials about a campaign adviser's contact with the Canadian government concerning NAFTA. And don't forget that lack of experience on national security.

The Hillary Clinton campaign seems rather satisfied with its current lines of attack against Barack Obama. On this morning's conference call with reporters, as voters in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont were hitting the polls, top Clinton aides hammered these points repeatedly, noting they were pleased that reporters covering Obama were beginning to ask him about these matters. Obama has "credibility questions," asserted Phil Singer, who handles opposition research for the Clinton campaign. Howard Wolfson, the communications director, made much of the fact that the Obama campaign had sent an aide to take notes at the trial of Rezko, a developer indicted on corruption charges. His trial began yesterday. The aide's presence "belies the fact," Wolfson maintained, that Obama has downplayed his relationship with Rezko, who helped raised about $150,000 for Obama and who bought a strip of property next to Obama's home.

The Clintonites suggested that Obama could be a witness in the trial--though the list of expected witnesses made public on Monday did not include the Illinois senator--and Wolfson noted that Obama will continue to be "dogged by questions" related to Rezko unless he "answers them fully." Due to these "unanswered questions," Wolfson said, Democratic voters will not want to seal the deal with Obama.

The Obama campaign insists it has come clean on Rezko. Obama has said he was dumb to have participated in a real estate transaction with Rezko when it was publicly known he was under investigation. The campaign gave to charity the $150,000 in Rezko-related donations Obama. Its position: there are no unanswered questions about Obama and Rezko. Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesperson, says, "After months of reporting and the many questions asked and answered, it is well established that this is not a case about Senator Obama. Senator Obama knew Tony Rezko for two decades in very different circumstances, none of which involve the actions with which Mr. Rezko has been charged."

Still, the Clinton campaign claims there are "major questions." Such as, did Obama do favor for Rezko's business partners? Did Rezko help Obama allies get jobs? It could be that the answer to such questions is a simple "no." There's no evidence that has yet emerge to back up allegations of this sort. But that does not stop the Clinton campaign from posing questions and then claiming they are unresolved.

The bigger question is, will this matter to Democratic voters? As the Clinton aides discuss the Rezko case, the NAFTA dustup, and their recent assault on Obama's national security experience, it seems that they finally believe they have managed to grab hold of Obama's tail. But there's no way of knowing if voters are paying attention to these attacks and if such matters will be a drag on Obama. (He has taken a a dip in the Texas polls.) If Obama does not fare well in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the Clintonites will argue that the "unanswered questions" have slowed him down, and they will keep on firing them at Obama, as the campaign heads toward Pennsylvania on April 22 (188 delegates!). But if Obama wins one of the big states or more, he--that is, the voters--will answer the question about the "unanswered questions." Then what will the Clinton campaign ask next?

Comments

why has not more been made about the "unanswered questions" with clinton? tax returns, documents, peter paul court case, etc. really... clinton is on such a high horse that she and her campaign sound delusional.

Posted by: jim on 03/04/08 at 10:17 AM Respond

A really intriguing symptom of the passion Hillary inspires from all sides: there is an exhibition on in New York now which shows in a very striking manner how the media has been "assassinating" Hillary, and how so many different angles of her personality (real or imagined) have been picked apart over the years... there's an online version at www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com

Posted by: Tchierry on 03/04/08 at 10:22 AM Respond

News from the Embassy of Canada - Statement by the Canadian Embassy
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/menu-en.asp?lang_update=1

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

Posted by: kravitz on 03/04/08 at 10:43 AM Respond

This is also an issue the MSM seems unwilling to check out...

Clinton, Hillary Rodham, (Senate, D-NY). Total 2007 Defense earmarks: $110,520,000. 2001-07 Campaign contributions from earmark recipients: $378,660 - http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/lawmaker.php?id=S0NY00188

vs.

Obama, Barack (Senate, D-IL). Total 2007 Defense earmarks: $3,300,000. 2001-07 Campaign contributions from earmark recipients: $97,250 - http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/lawmaker.php?id=S4IL00180

Posted by: rainier on 03/04/08 at 10:55 AM Respond

Will answering the so-called questions about Rezko address a presidential issue?

It is an attack on BHO's character and nothing else.

BHO should say until the trial is over he can't comment - and let the HRC/McShame attacks twist in the wind.

Let's hope the voters do decide and send the fearmongers a packin'!

Posted by: capt on 03/04/08 at 10:56 AM Respond

csis

Posted by: Kugi on 03/04/08 at 10:57 AM Respond

Voting is so ephemeral. One moment produces a certain result which two weeks or three days earlier would not have produced. Hillary will probably win Texas by a Hair.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 03/04/08 at 11:05 AM Respond

I must disagree with capt. Refusing to comment is the worst thing he can do. I'm starting to wonder if Obama is so focused on beating down the Muslim smear and the unpatriotic smear, that he's missing some real controversies that may be nothing, but he needs to let the media and public KNOW they're nothing, otherwise the media just reports that there's a controversy without giving the resolution.

He needs to thoroughly go over this Resko problem. He needs to attack Hillary for making a big deal out of the Canadian story without bothering to learn the facts or admit they got it wrong. Maybe his missed votes in the Illinois legislature were unimportant votes or were typical for all legislators, but again he seems to assume the public knows that. He needs to turn the Farrakhan endorsement into a comparison of his lack of connection to Farrakhan compared to McCain's eager acceptance of Hagee's endorsement.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 03/04/08 at 11:26 AM Respond

"top Clinton aides hammered these points repeatedly, noting they were pleased that reporters covering Obama were beginning to ask him about these matters"

Clinton tell media to jump; media asks how high?

Posted by: disdaniel on 03/04/08 at 11:40 AM Respond

DRUNK DRIVING. On a "side note" if the Clinton Campaign wants to throw out so many questions about Obama's Camp, why don't they "question" why they're Adviser Mr. Sidney likes to endanger the lives of ALL AMERICANS BY DRIVING DRUNK (oh actually, it an AGGRAVATED DUI BECAUSE HE WAS SPEEDING TOO. He should be TAKEN OFF their Campaign. RIDICULOUS.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/389355365/-1/news

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/blumenthalmug1.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/12/top-clinton-adviser-arrested-drunk-driving-media-mum

Posted by: TheMist on 03/04/08 at 12:04 PM Respond

It is an attack on BHO's character and nothing else.

Posted by: articles on 03/04/08 at 1:29 PM Respond

Somebody needs to resume pushing Hillery concerning the Rose Law Firm and the Whitewater Scandel that sent McDougal(sic)to jail.

Posted by: Joseph on 03/04/08 at 1:31 PM Respond

Joseph, if you mention Whitewater again, I'll have to call you a sexist.

Posted by: nic on 03/04/08 at 3:27 PM Respond

I would say, vote for no one.

For the first, all American candidates are from one of the two parties, both of which are the two wings of same bird. You won't get a real change from anyone.

Besides it would not surprise me if the whole end result was trigged anyway. Or if McCain would choose Cheney as veep.

Posted by: JJ on 03/05/08 at 2:03 AM Respond