Spirit Plants - Discussion of sacred plants and other entheogens

Barack Obama's Tribune interview

Published March 16, 2008 by the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... full.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obamafullwebmar16,0,776532,full.story)

This is an edited transcript of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's interview Friday with Tribune reporters and editors.

Obama's opening statement:

So what I want to do, if this is OK with you guys, I want to start just by talking about my house purchase and Tony Rezko because that's something that I know you guys have editorialized on, suggesting that we haven't provided you guys enough information. I would love to have an exhaustive conversation about all aspects of it and ensure that by the time we leave here today, you may not be happy with all my answersâ€"but at least you can't say that I have not answered the questions. Is that fair?

Tribune: Sounds good.

Obama: And in preparation for this meeting, what I instructed my attorney to do and my staff to do, and Michelle [Obama's wife] and I also did, was just to go through everything pertaining to it.

We've prepared a document . . . Flynn [McRoberts, Tribune deputy projects editor] has it. There ya go. So we've got aâ€"it's got all the documents related to our side of the transaction. And, as well as an e-mail from the sellers confirming some key points that I'll be making during the course of my initial presentation and that we can follow up any of those issues later.

So here's what I'd like to do is start off by just laying out the context of my relationship with Tony Rezko so that people understand how the house purchase came about and how the lot purchase came about. I first metâ€"and by the way, one last point I want to make on this: Many of these things are points that have been raised in previous stories and have been asked and we felt had been answered, but I want to just reiterate it once again and then we can fill out anything else.

I first met Tony Rezko when I was still at law school, or at least I had just graduated from law school. He had two partners, a guy named Dan Mahru and David Brint. They had started a real estate company called Rezmar. They contacted me while I was the president of the Harvard Law Review and asked if I was coming back to Chicago and was thinking about future employment, would I be interested in potentially getting involved in development.

And so when I was back in Chicago, and I don't recall whether it was during the summer between, you know, my second and third year [in law school], or whether it was after I had graduated, or whether it was just visiting Michelle, I met with them.

They were, didn't talk to me about a specific job but explained what they were doing in terms of development. Because I had been a community organizer, I think that's what part of what prompted their interest because they were doing a lot of affordable housing work and work with community development corporations.

I had a relatively brief conversation, maybe 45 minutes, and ultimately declined to go into development, but that was the first time I met Tony Rezko.

Fast-forward a little bit, I did not have a lot of interactions with Tony at that point. I was working as an associate at a law firm. There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar because they would often partner with not-for-profits and we had a small transactional practice in the law firm that specialized in representing not-for-profitsâ€"you know, church-based organizations that were doing community development.

I don't recall exactly how many times at that point I had met Tony Rezko, but I don't think at that point I would have considered him a friend. He was an acquaintance.

When I decided to run for the state Senate, the way that I decided to run for the state Senate was I had been helping Alice Palmer, who was then running for Congress. She had asked me to help. She was giving up her seat, and I was, um, I got involved in her campaign, and some people asked me if I'd be interested potentially in taking her seat.

Tony Rezko, I think, had provided some assistance to her at that time, so I think that may be the first time where we started talking about politics. He agreed to support my Senate campaign. He was an active developer in, on the South Side, and he'd, so he had some relationships with some of the aldermen in the area that I did not have relationships with and he introduced me to them. It's hard to imagine, given the kind of fundraising I'm doing now, but the total amount that I raised for that first race was $100,000.

And I think it's fair to say, and this is an estimate, that Tony Rezko probably raised $10,000 to $15,000 of that. I don't, I can't say precisely because I no longer have those records.

But I think that's probably a rough guesstimate. As a consequence of that support, we became friendlier, and I probably had, I would probably talk to him maybe five to six months a year. We might have breakfast or we might have lunch.

At that time I knew him as a businessman who also had an interest in politics, but did not know the details of his various business interactions.

When I ran for Congress, I asked him if he'd be interested in supporting me, as I asked a number of people all across the city who I thought might be interested in the race. It was a difficult decision for him because he had a relationship with Bobby Rush. But he nevertheless agreed to support me over Bobby Rush.

And I would say in my congressional race, I raised about $600,000 total. I can't say exactly how much he raised but I'd say, you know, he was on my finance committee along with a number of other people. My guess is he might have raised $50,000 to $75,000. That would be my guess. And, obviously, I appreciated his support. I lost that race as all of you have recorded, uh, amply.

And so I remained then in the state Senate and continued to see Tony maybe socially for breakfast or lunch maybe four or five times a year.

Probably the only time that we got together with our spouses, there was one occasion where he invited us up to Lake Geneva with his family. We stayed there, uh, we were there for the day. And there was another occasion where, I, uh, as couples, he and his wife, me and Michelle and I, went to a restaurant here in Chicago. So friends but not constant, sort of, uh, not in constant interaction.

And right around, right after my congressional race, as some of you will recall, that's when Tony Rezko started, that's when Rod Blagojevich started running for governor. And Tony became a very important part of the governor's core political team. So he was fairly busy with that, I was working in the [state] Senate, didn't have as many interactions with him at the time.

And it wasn't until, um, it wasn't until I decided that I was running for the United States Senate that we started having a lot of conversations about politics again. I expressed my interests, described how I thought this race might go, and he ultimately ended up supporting me and was a part of our finance committee and was listed as part of our finance committee.

Again, at that time, there were no indications that he was involved in anything inappropriate. And I would say that, you know, our best assessment and the money that we've identified that he raised for us was about $160,000 during my U.S. Senate primary. And all that money has been returned, by the way.

Now, the only other things I'll say about the relationship that I think are important, he never asked me to do anything when I was in the state Senate. At no time did he ever ask for any favors from the government. In fact, most of the time until he started becoming active with the Blagojevich campaign, he didn't really have that many interests before state government. He was active, I think, at the local level as a developer, and so he constantly had things going before the City Council and probably the county, but there was really no occasion for me to help him in any significant way.

The one exception that I know of that he did have an interest in down in Springfield was on gaming. He was, he had an interest in, he was one of the minority investors in the Emerald Casino, and you'll recall there was a big to-do about that.

[Tribune note: Rezko expressed interest in becoming an investor but ultimately did not, according to 2005 Illinois Gaming Board testimony by former Gaming Board administrator Sergio Acosta.]

And in that circumstance, actually I was firmly opposed to gaming and some of the proposals that were being made down in Springfield, and he never pressured me in any way to get involved in that process in any meaningful way.

And so my relationship to him was as somebody who had always been a supporter, who had always been aboveboard, who had always been gracious to me and my family, who had not offered me gifts or inducements that would lead me to be suspicious of him and who had supported me, even in times where it was not politically easy for him to do.

That's the context in which my relationship and friendship with Tony evolved.

So just fast-forward, I win the Senate's race, I, we go to Washington because of the good fortune of publicity, my book starts selling. I had more money, our kids are growing and we become interested in moving out of our condo and buying a house.

So at that point, I contact our broker, who had helped us buy our condo, a woman named Miriam Zeltzerman and who was with a real estate agency called Urban Search, which is very prominent in the Hyde Park area. And told her that we'd like to list our condominium for sale and that we were interested in buying a new house.

I was in Washington much of this time so this is the beginning of 2005, or somewhere in 2005. So Michelle started taking some tours with Miriam. And at some point ends up being shown the house which we now live in, on [street name redacted]. Michelle calls me and says, "I'm in, I love this house, but it's more than we were talking about paying for, but I really think it's a great house, you should go take a look at it."

I did, and I also thought it was a terrific house. And what the seller, the seller's broker described to me was that the way that the house was configured, it had this huge yard on the side, on the south side of the lot, that the lot had already been divided in half, that the lot was being sold separately, that somebody already had an option on the lot, so that that was not part in any way of the transaction. And that the house, was selling, was listed at $1.9 [million], but in conversations with my broker afterward, she said that although the lot had an option on it, the house had been on the market for over, for quite some time.

I think originally the sellers had tried to sell it as just in, in one big chunk, both the lot and the house, and it had been on the market for at least six months, maybe close to a year. They hadn't been successful. That's part of the reason why, I think, they divided it. The lot was apparently fairly attractive, and they had gotten offers on that. The house was the thing that was difficult for them to sell, and it was owned by a doctor, a pair of doctors named the Wondisfords who were at the University of Chicago. They had to join Johns Hopkins because they had gotten a new job, so they were moving and so they were anxious to sell.

So, I then discuss it with Michelle as well as our broker and said, "Well, maybe it's worthwhile us putting down an offer, but we should get a better sense of what it's valued." And our broker said, "You certainly shouldn't be paying the list price on this because it might be a little bit overpriced." And so at that point, Michelle and I talked about who did we know that knew Kenwood who might have a sense of these properties.

And that's how Tony Rezko's name came up, because he was an active developer in that area and owned lots in that area and had done development in that area.

So I don't know, I don't remember exactly how this transpired, whether it was in a face-to-face meeting or I called Tony or what have you, but I said, "I'd like your opinion on this property."

He asked where it was, I told him, he said, "Well I'm going to be in the neighborhood. I might go by and take a look at it. I think he may have done so prior to me being with him, but I don't recall exactly how that conversation transpired.

The bottom line was that he said, well, he called me back or we spoke and he said, "If you want me to take a look at it, I'd be willing to go into the house and take a look at it."

I said, "Great." I arranged with my broker, he and I looked at the house, he said, "This looks like a very sturdy house."

And at that point, I think, he had found out, perhaps because he knew the seller's broker, that the person who was, who had the option on the lot was also the person who had renovated this house six years ago. It had gone through a gut renovation six years ago. That that individual was a former employee of Tony's who was also a fellow developer.

Tony asked me during the course of one of these conversations why I might not be interested in buying the lot and keep the property intact. And I said that, you know, it wasn't worth it to us to spend an extra $600,000 or so on a lot next door when Michelle and I were really interested in the house. So he said, "Well, I might be interested in purchasing the lot," and my response was, "That would be fine."

And my thinking at the timeâ€"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"â€"but my view at the time, when he expressed an interest, was that he was a developer in this area that owned lots, that he thought it was going to be a good investment.

And my interest, or my motivation was, here's somebody that I knew who, if this lot was being developed, it'd be better to have somebody who knew, who I knew, who, you know, would give me schedules, keep me apprised of what was taking place and so forth. So I didn't object.

He then said, "Well, let me look into it since I know the guy who has the option on the lot." And in the meantime we simply proceeded to then get an inspector to come in, take a look at the house; it passed inspection. And so we decided to put down a sales contract.

We put down a sales contract, or we put down an offer of $1.3 [million]. The sellers came back, they lowered their offer. I think it was to $1.8 [million] or $1.75 [million].

We raised our offer to five, uh $1.5 [million], and all this was done through our respective brokers. The issue of the lot and the lot price never came up.

It was never an issue in our purchase. Tony Rezko was not involved in those negotiations. Those were negotiations between our brokers, and we ended up agreeing to a sale price of $1.65 [million].

I have in the documents a statement by the sellers indicating that at no time did they ever consider the lot in relation to the price of the house, that they did not offer a discount on the house, that there was no contingency with respect to our house purchase relative to the lot. There was simply no connection between our purchase of the house and our price of the house and the sale of the lot.

As I indicated before, the lot was already for sale. I wasn't involved in that transaction. I'm not aware of how Tony ended up getting the option from the previous individual. That was not something that I was concerned with. I didn't know exactly what the price was that he paid. I knew that there had been an option there for 600 and something dollars because the broker had told me when I had first gone to visit.

But the notion, now, this is the area where I want to be absolutely clear, because, frankly, this has appeared in various, in various reports, or the intimation, and John [Kass, Tribune columnist], you've been very specific about this, this notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid or was somehow involved in that is simply not true. And the sellers have confirmed that it is simply not true.

Rezko bought this, and I don't know his motives, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that he perhaps thought that it would be nice to have a lot next to me, he perhaps thought that this would strengthen our relationship, he could have even thought he was doing me a favor.

But I also think that he thought that he was engaging in a sound business practice and that he was going to develop the property. And the, the fact that there wasn't some steep discount, is in part born out by the fact that he has now, he transferred the lot to his attorney, his attorney put it on the market and it appears that a sale is about to be consummated on the property for a price that I think reflects the legitimate value of that lot. So that's the house purchase.

And so the intimation that somehow the purchase of my house was somehow aided by Tony Rezko is simply factually incorrect, and it has been confirmed by the sellers that that is factually incorrect.

The next phase then is the strip of land that we bought from Tony Rezko that was adjacent to our part of the property. The way this came up, I wanted a fence to be erected between the two properties. Tony agreed to build that fence. The reason he agreed was that it was under, under municipal code, it was his obligation to build that fence and create a separation.

And during the discussions about building that fence, I suggested to him, you know, I would be interested potentially in purchasing either 5 or 10 feet, a 5- or 10-foot strip alongside that property to widen my side yard. And, but I said that "if it turned out that you had, if that was of interest to you and the rest of the lot was perfectly developable, then that's something that I would be interested in."

So I threw that out in a relatively casual way. This was not a big deal to us. It was not something that was critical to our property values, but it was something that I thought would be nice because I've got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And in fact, the way this came up was there was a, originally a play, big swing-set thing that went across both properties that we had to tear down, and constructing a new one, there wasn't going be enough room. And so that's what triggered my thinking that it would be nice to widen the lot.

He said that he would have his developer or surveyor, whatever the term is, come out and take a look and see how big the property would be and how much space they would need in terms to develop it to see if it would be something that would be buyable.

I, in turn, asked my attorney to do an appraisal of what it would, what a fair price for that 10-foot strip would be or a 5-foot strip would be to make sure that I paid fair market value for such a transaction. The appraisal actually came back relatively low, something like $40,000.

And that was attributable to the fact that there just aren't comps for a 10-foot strip of land and that was noted by the appraiser. The appraisalâ€"which is, by the way, all these documents are in thereâ€"the appraisal did note that the other parcel, Rezko's remaining parcel, would be fully developable if he sold this to me. And so rather than pay the appraised price, I paid one-sixth of the cost of his property. He agreed to sell that 10-foot strip.

And, you know, I made sure that all the paperwork was done, and since we're in a landmark's district, we contacted the [Chicago] Landmarks Commission; in fact Michelle had once served on the Landmarks Commission board. She called somebody she knew down there to find out what regulations or requirements existed in terms of both erecting a fence and any other T's that had to be crossed or I's that had to be dotted. And so then the transaction went forward.

Now, last point I'll makeâ€"I know I've been long-winded, but I figured I'd try to disgorge as much as this as possible and then you guys can ask questions.

The obvious question is, and this has been posed to me by the Tribune and by other news outlets: If you knew this guy was already under a cloud of suspicion or was having problems, why would you go through with a transaction with him?

The answer is that, at least with respect to the purchase of the house: He wasn't involved in the purchase of my house, and at that time, the news around Rezko's problems had not elevated to the levels that they did later.

This was somebody that I had known for a very long time. He had never asked me for favors and had not done me any favors. And so, although in looking backward, I can see how it could have raised issues, it didn't at the time for me. And that can be considered a smaller lapse of judgment.

A larger lapse of judgment existed when it came to the strip of property. Because at that time, it became clear that Rezko was getting into bigger problems, and this was now a business transaction with him. And this is what I've referred to as a "bone-headed" move.

But it is in the context of somebody, again, that I had known for a long time, who I was now a neighbor with, who, frankly, I did not think was doing me a favor because I was paying a substantial amount of money, and he continued to have a developable piece of property. In retrospect, this was an error, and I've said so publicly and repeatedly.

This was a mistake on my part. The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems, the mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics, and I should not have engaged in a business dealing with him in general. And I've acknowledged that, because it's raised the appearance of impropriety.

Having said that, the transaction was aboveboard. I paid the full market price for it, and I don't think there have been any suggestions that I did not. So with that, let me stop.

Tribune: When did you first realize that Tony Rezko might be involved in the kind of influence peddling that [he stands on trial for doing]?

Obama: He became very active with the Blagojevich administration so I was seeing him in Springfield. I had no indication that he was doing anything illegal, and since he's on trial, I don't want to characterize what he did or did not do.

I started reading the reports that were surfacing andâ€"I'll be honest with you, that, on the couple of occasions that it came up, he gave me assurances that there wasn't . . . that this was not . . . that he was not doing anything wrong. And that it wasn't a problem. And there's not doubt that, as things evolved, I became more concerned. But again, this is somebody who, in his interactions with me, had always been aboveboard, and so my instinct was to believe him.

Tribune: Do you recall when it first came up and how it came up?

Obama: I do not.

Tribune: Thank you, Senator. You've recounted the fundraising, sir; you've detailed about $220,000 to $250,000 over those years. You mentioned the state Senate campaign records weren't available to you. Can you just explain that a little bit?

Obama: Explain?

Tribune: The state senate records? Do you have the state senate records?

Obama: Well, keep in mind that any contributions would have been filed under state disclosure files for campaign financing, but my point is that I don't have internal records of who might have been a contributor that Tony Rezko encouraged to contribute. Frankly, I did not have a huge operation at that time. We have a lot of lawyers and staff.

Tribune: So you did not keep those sorts of records at the time? Or you kept them and you don't keep them anymore?

Obama: What I would have kept . . . I did not keep them because the records that I would have kept were the ones required for disclosure. You see what I'm saying? So, there are records. We did everything we needed to in terms of disclosing who made contributions.

But I did not have a separate list of OK, here are the people who are on a fundraising committee and here are you know, the people, they raised money from and so forth. Those are not records I have, and I'm not even sure I kept at that time, quite frankly.

Tribune: Do you know at this point how many fundraisers Mr. Rezko threw for you?

Obama: The only fundraiser that he held for me in the U.S. Senate race was the one he threw at his home, which I think we've already talked to the Tribune about previously.

Tribune: Prior to that, do you know whether there were other fundraisers?

Obama: He never hosted anything at his home and frankly, I don't recall himâ€"I can't say it never happened because we're talking about over the course of 10 years, essentiallyâ€"but I don't recall him hosting a fundraiser in which was at his home or in his office in that way. He would typically participate as part of a larger group.

Tribune: The June 2003 fundraiser that you have told us a lot aboutâ€"we can't figure out about who paid the expenses for that, such as catering, valet parking, etc. Can you help us with that?

Obama: You know, I can try to find out more, but typically what would happen would be that our campaign would offset costs that were attributable to our fundraising, subject to a rule that there are a certain portion that can be contributed by the host, above and beyond what they've already contributed financially.

Tribune: Would that have been reported?

Obama: That should be reported.

Tribune: Tony obviously, as you mentioned, became involved in the Blagojevich administration and was involved in recommending people for jobs and boards and commissions. Did you have discussions with him about either recommendations that you sought for people or recommendations that he was making?

Obama: Frankly, I've never had a big ward organization or a lot of people that I'm finding jobs for. That's just the nature of my office. I had one employee, and we had a district office director and some volunteers who were otherwise employed.

When the Blagojevich administration first came in, they contacted us and many other people asking for recommendations for people who might be interested in filling out state jobs. My recollection is that we sent a list of people, but it was not a list of people who I was particular close to. If I'm not mistaken, it included people who came into our office asking for jobs or this or that or the other. I did not have any formal discussions with Tony beyond one individual, and that was Dr. Eric Whitaker, who ultimately became the head of the Illinois Department of Public Health and who had been a longtime friend of mine, who I had known since he was getting his master's at Harvard and I was at the law school there.

He had expressed an interest in that post. I think he had applied separately, but I don't recall whether I called Tony or he called me. And I simply said, "I think this guy is outstanding and is certainly somebody who is worthy of an interview."

Tribune: And was it your understanding that Tony was going to effectuate that?

Obama: No. What I knew was, and I don't think this has been disputed, that he was one of a number of people within the Blagojevich circle who were, you know, helping to screen or interview potential candidates for administration posts.

Tribune: Senator, I wanted to ask something about the transaction if I could, going back. You said that he said to you, he'd be interested in that lot. Did he elaborate? Did he say why he would be interested?

Obama: Again, I mean, this is a conversation that took place four years ago, so it may not have been one conversation, it may have been over a couple of conversations. My impression was that he thought that this lot could be valuable, that there were development opportunities there. My understanding was that he intended to develop it. And as I said, I don't know all of his motives. There's no doubt, in my mind, that the fact that it was a lot next to a house that I was purchasing might have seemed attractive to him.

Tribune: And from your point of view, a friend of yours is going to buy a lot next to your house. Well, normally you would ask him, what he was going to do with it.

Obama: Well no, no, I did ask him. And my understanding was that he was going to develop it. But as I said before, the notion of having somebody I knowâ€"who as far as I understood was an experienced and well-regarded developerâ€"next to the lot was a good thing from my perspective.

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. And there wasn't anything that was contingent. It's not as if I couldn't buy the house without him owning the lot, and frankly I wanted the lot developed. I've said this before. You had a big yard. We had put up a fence. I couldn't use the lot.

I'm a public figure, and if you look at the configurationâ€"this is right on the corner of 51st Street, which is a busy thoroughfare with a lot of buses going by, etc., and the idea of having a house next to us, away from, pushing us away from 51st Street was actually an attractive thing for me. Now, in light of subsequent events, obviously, you can look back and say, the red light should have gone off. And as I've said, it's something I've acknowledged would have been a mistake. But as far as the house is concerned, that was a purchase that we were negotiating with the sellers, and we had the ability to get that house.

Tribune: So if I thought, and I have thought, that you needed Rezko to buy that lot, so you could afford that house . . . .

Obama: You are wrong, and the seller has confirmed that that is completely wrong.

Tribune: Barack, you talked about Tony taking over somebody's prior option on the lot. Was that Scott Winslow?

Obama: I confess I don't know the individual's name, and as I said, I wasn't involved in any way.

Tribune: How did you learn that the person there was, as you put it, a former employee of Tony's?

Obama: Tony told me.

Tribune: OK. When you talked to Tony about all this stuff and obviously, you have lawyers and he has lawyers, were you communicating entirely verbally?

Obama: Just by phone.

Tribune: So there's no e-mails and letters or correspondence?

Obama: I mean, the lawyers got involved in my purchase price in the house, but that was with the sellers, and presumably he had lawyers who he was dealing with in terms of the sellers.

Tribune: And your conversations with Tony were entirely verbal, taken place on the phone or in person?

Obama: Yes. Well, but keep in mind, the conversations weren't that extensive because the two transactions were separate.

Tribune: I'm missing something about when Tony submits his offer for the lot. Tony's taking the adjacent lot that's owned by somebody else. He tells you he's interested in it and he knows this guy, but by the account you've given, I don't understand when he tells you, "Barack, I'm going to get this lot next door."

Obama: Well, it was certainly before our closing. So I knew that. It was . . . I confess I can't pinpoint, I can't pinpoint it that much further. Now, there were 10 days that elapsed between the first contract we put in, the first bid, and the ultimate closing. Whether it took place before we put our first bid in, whether it took place after we put our first bid in, that I do not know.

Tribune: On that timeline, I'm a little. . . it sounds like things went very, very rapidly on your end. You've talked about this all happening in January 2005 and the first bid is Jan. 15, so is my understanding correct that Michelle takes that drive with the broker and learns about this within days of the first bid coming in? Is that correct?

Obama: You know, we had been looking for some time, so this wasn't the first house that she had seen. We had, she had probably taken a look at 8 or 10 houses.

Tribune: In December of 2004?

Obama: Yeah, and she had then narrowed it down to about four that she had thought I should take a look at. I had taken a look at around four. We had then seen this one. I took a look at this one. So we were eager to make a purchase, make a decision, in part because. . . . I'm trying to remember whether we had an offer on our condo or not. But there were questions in terms of, as there usually are, in terms of how do you time moving out and moving in.

Tribune: In the tour that you took with Tony, when we talked to you back in November of 2006 and before when we first spoke with you, that wasn't something that came up, it wasn't something that you presumably recalled at the time.

Obama: You know, I confess that I thought what was important was that I brought this property to Tony's attention and asked him for his opinion. And so the fact that he had taken a physical tour was not something that I thought was new information.

Tribune: It was something you knew at the time and we were asking about it, but it wasn't something . . .

Obama: I thought it was subsumed by the broader comment that I had contacted him asking his opinion, asking him to take a look at the property.

Tribune: But doesn't that walk-through between you and Tony certainly fuel skepticism that there was a contingency and that there was a coordination of your bids? I mean, you're walking through?

Obama: I don't think so at all. Again, the seller has confirmed that the negotiations were entirely with them, that we gave them what they considered to be the best offer and that the sale of the lot was completely separate.

Tribune: Well, they may not have known what you guys were talking about.

Obama: Well, I don't understand . . . how can we coordinate something if I'm negotiating with the seller, and they have already sold an option on the lot, so that lotâ€"my purchase on the house is in no way contingent on the purchase of that lot?

Tribune: The tour was only with you and Tony, and nobody else participated in that tour?

Obama: I think my broker, Miriam Zeltzerman, was there because she probably would have gotten the keys.

Tribune: OK.

Obama: Can I say this also? I mean, the fact that he took a physical tourâ€"I don't understand how that's any different than if I had talked to him on the phone. I mean, we're just having a conversation.

Tribune: I ask because again, the overriding question about all this and the one that you've been trying to address since the very beginning, but the one that's still lingering, is whether or not you and Tony coordinated the purchase of the home.

Obama: And I guess what I'm saying is, if we've got confirmation from the seller that the two transactions weren't related, that we in fact paid the best price, or gave them the best offer for the home, then why the thought that I coordinated would be relevant? Look, the overarching suspicion that has been raised by a number of reporters in this room is that there was some sort of subsidy of my house. If that is in fact not the case, then that should allay whatever concerns you have. Unless there is something that I'm missing.

Tribune: No sir, we have never communicated with the sellers and your transmissions of their e-mails to us is the first we've ever had of them.

Obama: I recognize that, and I should probably make mention of this: Part of the . . . difficulty that we've had on some of these responses has to do with the fact that the sellers are very private people and were not interested in being drawn into a media circus.

And just to give you some indication of what might prompt their concerns: One reporter got a hold of their 11-year-old daughter's cell phone and asked for them; one reporter showed up at their house at 9:30 at night; another somehow got through security at John Hopkins and started asking questions of the woman doctor who was on rounds there. And so, not surprisingly then, this was not something that they were eager to get involved with.

They are the ones, though, that did originally indicate to us when they first read the reports that this is just not accurate, and after some prodding, then we were able to get them to at least respond to a set of points that my lawyer laid out, my campaign lawyer laid out, so that they could confirm this. And again, this is subject to confirmation.

Tribune: I appreciate that, and I'm also . . our contact with them has been entirely respectful of their privacy.

Obama: No, this was not in any way suggesting that you guys hadn't been respectful. I'm just saying that, if you're not running for president, dealing with the national press is not something that people really look forward to. For me, it's great.

Tribune: Senator, could I try to understand a little bit, the virtue you and Michelle saw in developing that lot? I don't think 51st Street is all that busyâ€"it's not 47th or 55th [Streets]â€"and it seems that there is virtue in having that empty lot, particularly with that wall of evergreens that went up along the south side [of the lot].

Obama: I guess there are different aesthetic opinions. We did not think that . . . I could see the advantage of having the whole thing, and then maybe doing something with that. We were building a fence, we didn't own the lot, and having a house there would have been, from my perspective, probably preferable, partly because those evergreens are not rock solid. People often peer into our house. Or at least they did until Secret Service showed up. They are less likely to do so now.

Tribune: And you never had a conversation with Mr. Rezko about would he keep that vacant so you'd have that, it was clearly your understanding that . . .

Obama: It was my understanding that [he] was going to develop the property.

Tribune: And did he ever make any movement in that direction? Was there any effort to develop it?

Obama: Frankly, he had owned a lot of lots. I don't know, but what I know is that he was involved in a very big development downtown. I don't think that this was at the very top of his list. And by the time that . . . in any situation, the pace of developing a lot might not be immediate, but apparently he was in legal trouble at this point. And so I don't know his motives or what was going on at that time.

Tribune: Senator, do you know anything now about the perspective buyer? Was it a friend of his? A friend of yours?

Obama: No. It's not anybody I know, and it's my understanding that they are going to build a house on it.

Tribune: We had a meeting this week with the director of the FBI, and he didn't say Chicago was the No. 1 for public corruption, but he made it clear the city keeps him plenty busy. Do you think in the context of running for president, does coming out of the political environment of Chicago help or hinder in terms of how the nation looks at a Chicago politician?

Obama: You know, I, look, Sen. Clinton comes out of New York, there are apparently some issues there as well [laughter]. So, you know, I think that all of you have been following my career for some time. I think that I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics. I know that there are those like John Kass who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently, and I'll leave that to his editorial commentary.

But I think it's fair to say that I've conducted myself in my public office with great care and high ethical standards. And the fact that there is such an intense focus on this, and there are no other indications of anything in which I've even come close to the line, I think is an indicationâ€"it doesn't excuse the mistake I've made hereâ€"but it does indicate that the American people are going to be judging me based on my behavior, my actions and those have been aboveboard.

Tribune: I just wanted to go back to Tony for just a second. He has collected over years a large following of political friends, such as you. What is it about Tony that's so appealing to you guys? What do you like about him? Is it just the money?

Obama: No, no, no. As I said before, in my interactions with him, he was very gracious. He did not ask me for favors. He did not ask me for, um, he was not obtrusive. He wasn't one of these people who would insist on coming around all the time or being photographed with me constantly or, you know, you didn't get a sense that there were a whole host of motives or agendas there. He was very loyal, as I said. When I ran for Congress, he supported me over Congressman Rush, and that was a difficult decision for him. And so it felt like a very comfortable friendship.

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

Tribune: I presume that isn't what he was helpful to you with, introducing you to people, expanding your circle.

Obama: I'll be honest with you. He was helpful to me, as I said, early in my career, not so much introducing but reinforcing relationships with aldermen that he knew on the South Side, and mainly because of his development work.

And in terms of his fundraising, frankly, I think most of the people that he raised money from were business associates or friends of his who I did not end up getting, establishing, deep relationships with. They were people who might have come to a fundraiser with him, who would introduce me, I would say hello, make some small talk. I can't think of anybody who's been a lasting supporter of mine who was introduced to me through him.

Tribune: In the question that Bruce [Dold, Tribune editorial page editor] asked about the difficulties of coming up in Chicago and in the Chicago political way. When you were here several months, maybe a year ago, you saidâ€"either here or, I forgot, outside or where outside, I think it was right here in the roomâ€"that if you were, you know, that you would reappoint or seek to maintain Patrick Fitzgerald as the United States attorney. . . .

Obama: I think I said it here in the boardroom.

Tribune: Given the investigations that are going on now, if you're elected president.

Obama: I still think he's doing a good job. Yes.

Tribune: Would you keep him? And why would you keep him?

Obama: I think he has been aggressive in putting the city on notice and the state on notice that he takes issues of public corruption seriously.

Tribune: Does that position of wanting to keep the prosecutor in the job, does that, perhaps do you think it threatens or compromise any other political entities here in Chicago?

Obama: I can't speculate on that . . . I can't.

Tribune: I can.

Obama: You can, yes. [laughter]

Tribune: A couple of other questions on Rezko. When Tony sold the garden lot in his wife's name, didn't that strike you as odd?

Obama: You know, I have no idea why he did it. I don't think he was intending to hide something, because if he was then, you know, using your wife's name, Rita Rezko, probably wouldn't have been the best way to do it.

Tribune: Did he ever explain to you what he was doing?

Obama: No. I didn't discover it until the issue of him purchasing this lot broke through, uh, through you.

Tribune: When we talked back in 2006 you mentioned that you were paying, you paid the legal and the permitting fees for the fence and said that you were looking to see how much that was, how much he spent on that?

Obama: How much I spent on that?

Tribune: Yeah. Did you ever determine that?

Obama: You know, I confess that I didn't look at it carefully, but I'm sure we could find out. As I said, it would have been I'm assuming a couple of thousand dollars because I had my lawyer, who's still my real estate lawyer, Bill Miceli, do it. He could probably pull the bills on that.

Tribune: Was the paying for the fence by Tony, uh, would you consider that a gift?

Obama: No. He was obligated to do so under the municipal code.

Tribune: And you paid for the landscaping. And again that was something that the amount of money you were paying to landscape Tony's lot, to mow his lawn and so forth, you were not sure how much that was when we talked back in 2006.

Obama: Yeah, but I can give you a fairly accurate assessment, which is that we were probably paying a hundred to a couple of hundred dollars a month. I mean this is basically mowing a lawn and maybe trimming some brush. And, so, his half of it, I know that we actually got this reimbursed by the subsequent seller, or the subs owner. And so I can probably get you that figure, but I can't imagine that it's more than $1,000 or so.

Tribune: [inaudible] paid you back for the amount that you'd spent?

Obama: That's right.

Tribune: OK. And when did that happen, in the last year or so?

Obama: Yes.

Tribune: You don't really know?

Obama: I don't really know. Times are hard right now so I don't want to call it a nominal amount, but it was not an exorbitant amount.

Tribune: When the trial came up with Tony, one of the things that was disclosed is that in two instances totaling $10,000, Tony allegedly used straw donors to funnel money to your campaign. Have you conducted any sort of internal investigation to determine if there's other instances in your campaign?

Obama: Yes. We have tried to, what we have done is we have tried to exercise an excess of caution, subsequent to those disclosures. So any money that we can trace to Tony we have disgorged.

Tribune: Do you think he used you?

Obama: I'll be honest with you. I don't. I think that he treated me as a friend and with respect. And he did not ask me to do things, and he did not advertise our relationships generally. He operated with me in an aboveboard fashion. Now, again, I can't speak to anything beyond my relationship with him.

Tribune: Did you ever think that the bill would come due; the political bill would come due? Or that you'd get a call or he'd come in and say you know what, I really need this.

Obama: No, because I've known him for a long time. I assumed I would have seen a pattern over the past 15 years.

Tribune: Barack, one letter writer wrote to the Tribune and asked us: Gosh, if Rezko can do this good of a job of luring Barack, of getting into transactions will him, what is Barack going to do when he meets some of the wily characters that come trucking through the Oval Office, how's he going to handle Russian President Vladimir Putin or corrupt lobbyist lobbyist Jack Abramoff or one of the characters that come looking for favors, that come looking for liaisons and relationships?

Obama: Well, look, I mean I think that as I said before I've navigated some fairly difficult territory in my political career, and, you know, there's some folks in Springfield who are pretty wily. And I've always been able to operate effectively but also do so in a way that's consistent with my values and ethics. I make no claims of perfection, but I think that generally my judgment and my assessments of people have been pretty good and that's part of how I've stayed out of trouble in what can be a pretty hurly-burly political environment.

Tribune: The issue of judgment is one of the keynotes of your campaign right now. How should Americans look at this series of events that you've just laid out?

Obama: I think that the way they should view it is that I made a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety. But they should see somebody who was not engaged in any wrongdoing, who did not in any way betray the public trust, who has maintained consistently high ethical standards and who they can trust.

Tribune: There's been some sense that you've treated Sen. Clinton with kid gloves on the issue of ethical standards. If she were to do a session like this, what do you think we ought to ask her about?

Obama: Well, you know, I think that the one thing that we have talked about is that, or that I've talked about, I've talked about this in the debate and subsequent to the debate, she has essentially made two arguments for why she should be the nominee rather than me.

Argument No. 1 is that she is more qualified to be commander in chief, and we have argued that it's very important to focus attention on those claims because I actually think that her notion that she is vastly more experienced and more qualified for being commander in chief [is] simply wrong.

The second argument that she's made is that she's been thoroughly vetted and that I have not. And she uses this Rezko incident as Exhibit A.

And I think that it is important, if she thinks that that is one of her rationales for being the nominee, that somehow I'm more vulnerable to Republican attack than she is, that issues like disclosing her income tax returns, disclosing the donors to the Clinton library, are very relevant. And disclosing her earmarks, which we just did.

Those issues of transparency and accountability, I think, are important, and I would suggest that she should match our approach on all those issues.

Tribune: You had an earmark request for the University of Chicago, where your wife works. Is that a mistake?

Obama: Frankly, the U. of C. is a major constituency of ours. I mean they're a major employer in my state and a very important one. So I don't think that I was obligated to recuse myself from anything related to the university. When it comes to earmarks because of those concerns, it's probably something that should have been passed on to [U.S. Sen.] Dick Durbin, and I think probably something that slipped through the cracks. It did not come through us, through me or Michelle, and Michelle has been very careful about staying separate and apart from any government work. But you could make a good argument that this is something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system.

Tribune: The issue of [former U.S. Rep.] Geraldine Ferraro's comments on the role your race has played in this campaign. Then comes the video that has comments that your pastor Jeremiah Wright has made. How are we to look at these, what's the best way to look at this and in what context do you put them to the American people?

Obama: Well, you know, I think they're separate issues, but there is a relationship. I think you're touching on something that's worth talking about. I think, with respect to Geraldine Ferraro, I don't think what she said was racist, and I was asked about this and I said I didn't think that was what it was. I do think that what she said was wrong.

The implication was that I was an affirmative action beneficiary. I think you can make an argument that my race might have played a role in my selection for the 2004 convention, but it doesn't account for the fact that it was a pretty good speech. I think that my persona obviously includes the fact that I'm an African-American, and so to the extent that how I talk about issues of race and how I present myself is attractive to some voters, I think is undeniable.

To suggest that I could have gotten through the gauntlet of the last 13 months against very experienced, very savvy, skilled politicians and find myself in the lead for the Democratic nomination, including against the dominant political machine in the Democratic Party over the last 20 years, seems pretty dismissive.

And not just dismissive of me, but dismissive of voters. This idea that, "Oh, you know, let's get a black guy in there," I think just doesn't make sense. So I think that it was looking at an issue through a racial lens that doesn't make perfect sense. I mean, she could have made a subtle point about the role of race in my candidacy that could have been interesting. This wasn't it. All right, so that's Geraldine Ferraro.

Rev. Wright. He preached his last sermon, he's now in retirement. I've put out a statement today. Ill be honest with you, this is somebody who I've known for 20 years. I basically came to the church and became a member of the church through Trinity [United Church of Christ] and through him. He's the person who gave me the line "the audacity of hope." He is somebody who is a former Marine, a biblical scholar, has taught and lectured at major theological seminaries across the country and has been very widely regarded and admired.

And, you know, he hasn't been my political adviser, he's been my pastor. And I have to say that the clips that have been shown over the past couple of days are deeply disturbing to me. I wasn't in church during those sermons.

The things he said and the way he said them I think are offensive. And I reject them, and they don't reflect who I am or what I believe in. In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching. That doesn't excuse them, and I've said so very clearly, but that's not the relationship I had with him. That's not the relationship I had with the church, and if I had heard those kinds of statements being said, if I had been in church on those days, I would have objected fiercely to them, and I would have told him personally.

When some of these statements first came to light was right around when I was starting to run for president. He was a year away from retirement, and the church itself is a pillar of the community and a well-regarded, well-known church. I suspect there are members of the Tribune family that are also members of Trinity.

It is not what's been painted as this separatist church or what have you, it is a very traditional African-American church on the South Side of Chicago. And most of the reverend's sermons are the sermons of a traditional African-American pastor. And so my view was that it would not be appropriate for me to distance myself from the church. I put out a statement saying I profoundly disagree with these statements, and the fact that he is now retiring makes me not want to simply discard him. He's like a member of the family, he's like your uncle who says things you profoundly disagree with, but he's still your uncle.

Tribune: Geraldine Ferraro, she's asked to leave, she leaves the campaign, she should have left. And some people see that, legitimately so. Then how should we see . . .

Obama: I think people should raise legitimate concerns about it. And the fact that he's retiring, and we've got a young pastor, Otis Moss, coming in, means that people should understand the context of this relationship. That this is an aging pastor who's about to retire and that I have made and will make some very clear statements about how profoundly I disagree with these statements. I don't think they are reflective of the church.

They're certainly not reflective of my views. I do think there is an overlap in the sense that there is a generational shift that is taking place and has constantly taken pace in our society. And Rev. Wright is somebody who came of age in the 60s. And so like a lot of African-American men of fierce intelligence coming up in the '60s he has a lot of the language and the memories and the baggage of those times. And I represent a different generation with just a different set of life experiences, and so see race relations in just a different set of terms than he does, as does Otis Moss, who is slightly younger than me. And so the question then for me becomes what's my relationship to that past?

You know, I can completely just disown it and say I don't understand it, but I do understand it. I understand the context with which he developed his views but also can still reject unequivocally. . .

Tribune: You reject his views, you won't reject the man. Is that it?

Obama: Yeah, exactly. And this is where the connection comes in. I mean, I do think that Geraldine Ferraro, the lens through which she looks at race, is different. . . . She's grown up in different times. The Queens that she grew up in is, I'm sure, a different place than it was then. Just as Chicago is a different place than it was then.

So part of my job is to see if I can help push the country into a different place with a different set of understandings. But as I said, it doesn't excuse what the reverend said, and I'm very troubled by it. And if, as I said, if I had heard those sermons, if I had been there when those sermons were taking place, I would have raised that with him, and if I had thought that that was the message being promoted on a consistent basis within that church, I don't think I could be a consistent part of it.

Tribune: A lot of people want to talk to you, for you these days . . .

Obama: Yes.

Tribune: . . . quoted your Iraq control plan is the best case scenario. What do you say?

Obama: What I have said consistently is that there are strategic questions around Iraq, and there are tactical questions around Iraq. The strategic question is, in my mind is, is it time for us to begin a withdrawal, and the answer is yes.

And so what I've said is that I would call on my joint chiefs of staff immediately upon taking office and give them a clear message, which is that we need to begin a phased withdrawal. My understanding is that we could withdraw at a pace of one to two brigades a month and that at that pace we would have the combat troops out in approximately 16 months, depending on what troop levels were when I was sworn, when I've been sworn in.

But what I have also said is that I will always listen to the commanders on the ground and I will always reserve the right as commander-in-chief, to do what I think is in the best interest of America's national security. And so if I have strong evidence and that we need to modify the pace of withdrawal to ensure the safety of the troops, of course that's something I'm going to take into consideration. But the overreaching belief on my part is that we have to set a timetable and send a clear message to the Iraqisâ€"there was, you know, an interview with General [David] Petraeus just this morning in which he indicated, as I've believed for a very long time, that the Iraqi government has not taken advantage of the lowering level of violence in ways. That's his assessment. And that we've got to put pressure on the Iraqis to stand up. So . . .

Tribune: Do you think this country is in a recession or area we heading to a recession, and how do you think Congress should respond?

Obama: A couple of points, in traveling around the county this year, regardless of whether we are technically in a recession, there's significant amount of anxiety and hardship among the American people well before Wall Street got notice of it. Wages and incomes have flatlined and costs have gone up for everything from health care to gas at the pump.

There is no doubt with subprime lending crisis and credit crunch that we are in a bad economic situation. I hate to say whether there is a recession or not, I think we'll find we are in the midst of a recession, but I can't speak to the technical aspect until the data comes out and we don't have that yet. But what is indisputable is that the economy has slowed down substantially. That investments and job growth have retracted.

Credit market is frozen and we're going to have to break out of it. Now, I think that the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates, they've tried creative ways to pump up credit markets and pump more liquidity into the system and unlock the credit market, but until those credit markets have more confidence, that there's a been a bottoming out of bad debt and paper out there, then we're going to continue to have problems.

And part of our job and part of Congress' job is not only to prime the pump through the stimulus package that has already passed, but I also think a critical area is to shore up the housing market, so I'm glad to see the president put forward proposals that are prospective proposals. I have been working with Sen. [Chris] Dodd on a mechanism that can put some floor beneath the housing market, one that does not advantage speculators or people flipping properties but at least give some, some confidence that your not just going to see an irrational plunge in values.

There's going to be some declines in housing values before they pick back up, but there's a big difference whether that decline is 10 percent, 20 percent or 40 percentâ€"that it's important for Congress to act even as the Federal Reserve has acted to make sure we are providing some level of confidence.

Tribune: [inaudible, question has to do with Federal Reserve and the precedent of bail outs.]

Obama: Well, I haven't seen all the details yet because it's happened as I was traveling. I can tell you that my philosophy on this is that intervening in bubbles that burst is not always helpful and can just delay the pain. And there's going to be some pain in the credit markets because there's been a lot of irresponsible loan activity out there. On the other hand, I do think that what you don't want is a cascading decline of the credit-card markets across the board when you start seeing companies that are sound or debt that is sound punished as well. Drawing that line is difficult, I think there are times when you've got to be pragmatic and say that, theoretically, we don't want a bail out but in this situation, you don't want a collapse of the financial markets. That's why I want to take a look at how they structured it, that's general impression I would take.

Tribune: Senator, last time you visited us in this room, you were on the eve of a Hawaii vacation, and at the time, you were going to quit smoking and you and Michelle were going to decide whether or not you were going to run for president . . .

Obama: Right.

Tribune: . . . and your two memoirs show impressive ability, a habit of introspection and thinking about times as you are in them. Here we are, a year and a couple of months later, and you've made your decision to plunge into it and are quite possibly on the eve of the nomination, and when you think about that time, and in looking back on what you learned about yourself and flashing forward, what's different from what you expected?

Obama: Well, . . . the campaign in some ways has exceeded expectations. I didn't expect the levels of excitement, particularly among young people and people who haven't participated in the process. Some of them I didn't think would be such high levels, that's one of the great pleasures of this campaign. The spontaneous organization, and frankly, I've been shocked by our ability to raise funds.

In February, 90 percent of donations came over the Internet, 50 percent of them were less than $50, 50 percent, and we raised $55 million dollars, literally I did not have a fundraiser, I mean, there's just that sense of excitement and interest, and so the feeling that we're, we're tapping into something that was real, um, that there's a genuine hunger for a different kind of politics and less rancor, a politics that wasn't special interest driven. That, that, I think, I have been very pleased with. I did not expect, did not expect the campaign to last so longâ€"the primary.

Frankly, I think all of us thought that by Feb. 5th this would be over. And at this point I don't think it will be over till the last contest, which may or may not be Puerto Rico on June 1st. And so it's been an endurance test, and I think that I've learned that I can work seven days a week for 13 months and not collapse. I have learned that I, uh, that I have a good, that I've actually, I have a temperament that I think is suitable for the presidency and, as well as campaigning, and I don't get too up when I'm up or too down when I'm down.

And I've been, I think, fairly steady and I've learned how to be a better candidate. At least outside of editorial board meetings I've gotten better, which means keeping my answers shorter. I had a, I think I am, a much better debater in the traditional debate context than I was. I guess after 20 debates either you get better or you're voted off the island. I, uh, what I, what I found partly because of the length of the campaign is that you have to constantly renew yourself, and what you're saying and what you're doing and I think that that is a challenge. Because there's such a premium on the next thingâ€"make the next app

This is a long interview, very wide-ranging, may help those wondering who he is and where he stands get some answers.

Text of speech Obama gave earlier today. Hard for me to find anything with which to disagree. Obama usually comes off as reasonable and his remarks well thought out, imo.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm)

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008/ 10:17:53 ET
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution â€" a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part â€" through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign â€" to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together â€" unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction â€" towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners â€" an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts â€" that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely â€" just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country â€" a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems â€" two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth â€" by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note â€" hope! â€" I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories â€" of survival, and freedom, and hope â€" became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish â€" and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety â€" the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions â€" the good and the bad â€" of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother â€" a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America â€" to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through â€" a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments â€" meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families â€" a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods â€" parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement â€" all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it â€" those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations â€" those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience â€" as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze â€" a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns â€" this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy â€" particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction â€" a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people â€" that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances â€" for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives â€" by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American â€" and yes, conservative â€" notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country â€" a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen â€" is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope â€" the audacity to hope â€" for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds â€" by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand â€" that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle â€" as we did in the OJ trial â€" or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation â€" the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today â€" a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.





END

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 9#23691239 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23691239#23691239)

The above link is the video for the speech LW notes. I don't think in my lifetime I've felt like I would be honored for a candidate to serve as President if elected. I would feel honored by Senator Obama becoming President Obama.

For a long time, I mourned that VP Al Gore was not running again. I am now able to let that regret go because I believe a man of Gore's caliber IS running, and we CAN vote for and elect him.

To go from Bush* to Obama would be like moving from the deepest shit hole of despair to a place of sunshine, and breeze, and many hopes. He notes there will never be perfection, but to try, to start, is all.

And to think, cen, only months ago you were contemplating Hillary as the best candidate in this election. Hopefully Obama gets heard by more folks like you who were/are on the fence and takes this race home.

lw

I never thought of her as the best candidate, though I did and still consider her a valid one. The problem is that her candidacy has fallen apart under the weight of her arrogance and bad advisors.

Obama, on the other hand, has weathered a number of crises well. He's shown himself to be rational, passionate, articulate, impressive on all accounts.

Obama is about the future, he's made that clear. Clinton is fighting old battles. McCain is just a monster. I hope that we get the sum of our hopes this time, not the depth of our fears.

How will it work if he gets elected? This depends on two things among others:
1) Has Bush invaded Iran? Will Obama inherit this new nightmare?
2) What is the makeup of the Congress? Will he be able to get legislation through or will the Republicans and conservative Democrats stall everything?

No assurances, even if we get Obama. But I see him as the best of the three possibilities. That is, he makes me most hopeful. Clinton less so. I don't hate her as some here do, but she is campaigning like a punch drunk boxer who blew his shot, and yet won't go down.

So, if Hillary can't run a successful campaign when she has the inside track, just what exactly makes her a viable candidate in your eyes? I don't quite get the allure you have exhibited for "that woman."

I also cringe a little when you put Gore and Obama in the same sentence. Gore let us down when he slunk off into the night and left us holding a sack-o bush for four more years, imo. I'm confident Obama would chart a course somewhere between "do nothing" (As Gore did after the Supremes gave the whitehouse to Bush) and the violence Gore stated would be the only out of that situation if he failed to go quietly into the night.

lw

Gore may have had an unexplored option or two beyond armed insurrection. I'll give you that much. But, I don't see where he let us down. What exactly was it he was supposed to have done?

Cen, I think it's that letter "D" beside her name that makes her a viable candidate in your eyes. If she was an R with the exact platform, you would be against her.

Obama is OK but I am not waving any pompoms at this moment. He seems more like the best of a sorry lot than an ideal candidate. If he said he would end the war and pull us out that would make a big difference. And I'd like to hear something about scaling back the drug war though I understand that might cost votes from the old lady segment and crossover R's.

I would prefer a multi-party system or no parties, as there were none in the origins of the country, nor mentioned in the Constitution. As of now, just two parties who tend to resemble each other, but not enough to be indistinguishable. Progressives tend to side with Democrats, and religious conservatives tend to side with Republicans. So they tend to produce candidates to fit their base. Thus the differences, where they exist. It's imperfect, and leaves many people wanting more.

The Gore of 2000 was in many ways a weak candidate, and I wish he had done more to oppose the Supreme Court unconstitutional annointing of Bush, but he thought he was doing the right thing. In my view, his work since then on the environment and public condemnations of the Iraq War have shown him to be one of the few who can grow and change. I guess I'm arguing perceptions here, and whether you value what he is doing as valid, but it's my take.

As for Clinton, she is a viable candidate in my view for the positions she currently holds, and the experience she has had in government as senator and first lady, and fighting the right-wing. I think she overplays what she has, but I am looking on this whole election season as a kind of job interview thing gone mad. Who can take their story and tell it best? This tends to involve heavily emphasizing what experience one validly does have, twining that with beliefs and values, and trying to produce a package irresistible to the most voters in November.

That all said, Clinton has waged a poor campaign, burning bridges left and right. She's all but lost the progressive base. Should she get the Dems' nomination, somehow, it will be hard for many to jump on her wagon. But, honestly, a look at McCain and his vows of bomb-bomb-bombing Iran, and I'll do it, and I think she will do a decent job as President. I just believe Obama will do better.

Obama convinces me he knows the War is wrong, will end it, knows the poor of this nation and others need help and will do all his powerful office can to help through legislation, understands that Bush's successor has a lot of shit work to do, and is willing to do it. I like him, I respect him, I am going to vote for him. At this point, it's a matter for me of wlll he be on the ballot in November, and will enough of us embrace him.

cenacle, you still have not told us what "more" Gore is supposed to have done but didn't do. Should he have flogged himself bloody in the public square? I think what he has done has been exemplary. I do not see what your complaint is.

Quote...a look at McCain and his vows of bomb-bomb-bombing Iran

Actually, it's 'bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran' to the tune of Barbara Ann. And yes, Mccain is a little insane on that subject. It shoud get him defeated in the fall but lots of polls are showing him doing well against either demo. I think Hill would be more vulnerable since she voted for the war up until she decided to run for office.

Obama has said we will have to stay in there but he is more against it than Hill. It's like the powers that be decided we will stay there and the candidates must go along with it or something unpleasant will happen to them. But Obama will only do the least he can get away with while Mccain will bomb iraq, bomb iran, bomb anything they tell him with gusto. Hill is weasely and seems not to care.

Gore could have demanded a recount of FLorida votes and then worked diligently to uncover and bring to public light the systemic inaccuracies and irregularities that were accepted and allowed. Imo, he could have staged PEACEFUL protests similar to what Dr King advocated in the march for civil rights. Peaceful protest CAN and HAS changed societies. The recent Orange Revolution in The Ukraine is another example of the potential results of peaceful protest.

I believe the integrity of this country's political system is worth fighting for, btw.  And if that means the american public are forced to watch their friends and neighbors getting wacked by baton wielding thugs under order of the current administration, then that's the way it has to be.

Gore apparently either didn't believe the irregularities were as bad as I do, or he did understand the situation and decided to do nothing about the political travesty that unfolded before our eyes.

Either way, and I'd rather have him tilting at global warming windmills than running our country, for which so many have fought and lost their lives.

lw

Walk your own walk, I'll tend to mine. Show me some viable third parties and I'll look 'em over. I voted Green Party back in 2000. All I can say for that election is that Gore ran a lousy campaign, and nobody knew Bush would have a 911 or that it would turn the world toward darkness. We was all chumps, I guess.

Haven't seen much of third parties since then. I think Perot had a party back in the early 90s too. The problem with third parties, as Nader has said, is that the Dems and Repukes work to keep them off the election ballots. Both major parties like things as they are. Divvy things up between themselves so that things don't get too out of hand. Keep the cash and power close.

I don't personally have time to start a third party, but I will tell you I keep my eye out for them. Not seen much yet. I think it would have to be more than a cult of personality, like Perot or Nader. It would have to be a party that starts up on the local, state, AND national levels. Gets rooted in deep.

Hey, there once were just three TV networks and PBS. Now's there's cable, satellite, pay-per-view, online streams, and so on. Just gotta get that first one into existence that sticks. Let me know if you find any, Stoney, and I'll do the same.

lw

QuoteGore could have demanded a recount of FLorida votes

He did. That's what in large part the sup court appeal was about. Perhaps you heard about it? As for the peaceful protests, what exactly was he going to say? "I got robbed, lets demonstrate until I get the presidency" Yeah, that would have made him look like a real statesman. If he had followed your advice, he would still look like a petulant whiner who could not accept the fact that he lost. Would you have gone to a demonstration in which the unifying cause was to show support for Gore after he lost? You, like everyone else, would want to know something more solid than "I got robbed" You would be criticizing him to this day if he had done that. But since he didn't, you say he should have.

Quoteand then worked diligently to uncover and bring to public light the systemic inaccuracies and irregularities that were accepted and allowed

Don't you think that if he had hard proof he would have brought it forward? Obviously he didn't have it. All you are advocating is whining. "I heard there was lots of cheating" is the mantra of a loser. If you have no hard proof, you are better off keeping your mouth shut than making accusations you can't back up.

By not taking the path of the loser and poor sport which you advocate, he has recast himself as a statesman and done some real good.

If King had held rallies to say he personally should get something and not blacks in general, people would have turned away from him. People can sense self interest from a mile away.

Now cen

QuoteGore apparently either didn't believe the irregularities were as bad as I do, or he did understand the situation and decided to do nothing about the political travesty that unfolded before our eyes.

Or he understood the situation far better than you do. You like lw advocate something that has no solid basis and can't work. It comes down to proving you were robbed as opposed to believing you were robbed. Screeching from the rooftops does not accomplish anything unless you have proof. Names, dates, sworn testimony and physical evidence. With that you have a case though you might not win. Without it, you have nothing at all. Don't you think Kerry was robbed too, probably the same way. Why didn't he do the 'child throwing a tantrum' bit that you and lw advocate? Because he, like Gore, is a little more mature than that. Plus it does no good.


Since you think Hillbilly is a better candidate for president than Gore, that tells me all I need to know about your selection process.

Cen's process for picking a candidate

1. Are they demo? If yes, go to 2, if no go to 5

2. Do they say the things I like or at least some of them? If yes, go to 3

3. Are they the nominee for the demos? If yes, go to 4. If no, go to 5.

4. Vote for them.

5. Do not vote for them

Works every time!

Hey, I'm willing to go with the assumption that Gore had no leg on which to stand in his failed presidential bid. Foul play aside, Gore lost the race in his home state of Tennessee. In all of the U$, folks in Tennessee know Gore better than the rest of us, imo. They didn't vote the guy in. And that's all he would have needed in a clean election to win the presidency. Just win his home state.

Either way, the guy didn't have what it takes, imo. ANd uttering his name in the same sentence as Barak Obama is a joke, imo.

lw

That I can agree with. However, he did win the popular vote and got robbed by the rupub cheating machine. You seem to think Obama is some kind of saint or wonderful politician. Are you ever in for a disappointment!

All major politicians are beholden to the same power brokers and take orders from them. That's why none of the 3 are saying they will pull out of Iraq right away. Ron Paul said he would which is why he will never be a major player no matter how much support he gets.

If somehow Obama wins, the most I'd hope for is that he would wind down the Iraq invasion but not end it and drag his feet on invading Iran. He might be able to avoid that, I don't know. He will develop amnesia on his statements about pot and look the other way while the feds do more raids. But it will be less than under Bush or Clinton. He will give lots and lots of extra handouts to blacks.

That's all you're going to get. What, you were expecting more? Get real.

I like my reality just fine. Obama's ability to govern if elected will be affected, in part, by the cooperation or resistance of Congress and, from the looks of things currently, things are hopeful. So I'm hopeful. Nobody knows the future, or things would not be how they are now.

I'm with you on that one, cen.

Stoney seems to do a lot of bitching and moaning but offers little in the way of solutions or even mention of  viable candidates.

Obama spent a ton of time in Iowa this last year. We got to know all the candidates pretty well. Watched the mud slinging fest.

Stoney: Ive asked you on a few occasions to give me details on the shortcomings of Obama. So far you have failed to contribute much in this regard. So I'm guessing it must be some kind of a hunch you have.

lw

lw, I've said over and over my reservations about Obama. If you can't hear it, I'm sorry. And for bitching and moaning, that's all you do about Gore who has at least done something positive with his life after the election. Following your advice he would be a pathetic loser now.

We shall see how many promises Obama keeps and how he keeps them. Looks like he will be the one.