Longtime patron may be a problem for Obama (LA Times)

a lengthy and informative article, but I thought this paragraph really stood out:

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rezko23jan23,1,392172.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Which asks the question, really, is he lying or is he thick as shit incompetent.

and sometimes not so bright

Obama doesn't recall.

papers themselves.

And, by interesting, I mean bullshit.

they've been on this story for the past year!

Obama's letters for Rezko

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

Obama still answers for old ties to Rezko

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0704230648apr24,1,671186.story

Obama and his Rezko ties

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

Obama-Rezko ties again at issue

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

and that's the tip of the iceberg

seriously, if you're going to try and defend Uh-uh-bama, the least you can do is make sure what you're asserting isn't ... uh, bullshit.

I don't know who crafted this response, but it now stakes him to certain factual assertions that will be proven inaccurate. If you are going to 'come clean' and put something behind you, it is imperative that you get the facts correct.

This statement will come back to haunt him:

"Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed."

If this fact is true, it undermines the provisio 'When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him....'

COMPARE: "During the weekend, Obama gave to charity more than $40,000 in past political contributions linked to Rezko."

but Obama's judgment is being called into question for still associating with this man.

from the same article:

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

but it's his judgment that's being called into question, not whether or not he did anything wrong

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

to DU.

I think you forgot to put "slumlord" in the title of your OP. (If you're going to sling it against the wall, you need to make sure that its "stink" factor is as obvious as possible. Whether there ends up being anything to the connection, constantly bringing it up is useful for political purposes - see "Whitewater" in the Clinton days.) ;)

brought up zilch. Patron Saint Patrick Fitzgerald -- of Scooter Libby fame --, on the other hand, begins his trial of Tony with rock-solid evidence on Feb 25th.

Nice try.

in this case. I can't predict the future or evaluate the evidence with the same certainty that you can. Congratulations.

I only tire of partisans on all sides constantly throwing the same s--t against the wall, whether it is Tony, race-baiting, haircuts, etc. rather than discussing issue, experience, vision. Heck, even discussing the "horse race" aspects of the process (polls, endorsements, strategies) would be better than this.

get over it.