You definitely speak for me also.

Thank you for posting here, and giving us all a great round up of points.

I am fairly new to this site but you folks blow me away with your research. You are great. This is fantastic factual based information.

I am sending it to Thom Hartmann and asking him to publicly apologize to the Clinton campaign for repeating and giving air time to the Daily Kos smear.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You give me hope for America. Can’t wait till you post your full report.

We’ve previously heard the name Penny Pritzker as the Obama campaign’s finance chair. But wait, there’s more. Penny Pritzker was the board chair for Superior Bank of Chicago, which collapsed in 2001. So what?

Two points. One is the story of the collapse; two is where I’m currently reading about it.

Consortium News, headed by Robert Parry, has had editorials about the current election campaign which more often than not favor Obama. In spite of that, we now find posted there a writing called “Obama’s Sub-Prime Conflict” by Dennis Bernstein. It’s posted at
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html
and to be sure, it is informative reading which in spite of where it’s posted, seems to cast yet another shadow on Obama’s judgement, by detailing the sub-prime mortgage involvement and other sleaze underlying the collapse of Superior, with the obvious fact that Superior’s COB was Penny Pritzker, Obama’s campaign finance chair.

Maybe one reason it’s posted there is because it also mentions that Penny’s brother J.B. is a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Have at it folks.

In a comment to this post, Hilzoy writes

I think ex ante fairness is, as you say, crucial. That said, I really, really, really hope that someone in the party is working very very hard to avoid a situation in which I have to decide what to do if Clinton wins through illegitimate means.

I will vote for [Clinton] in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.) . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) This is where the “rules are rules” crowd really bothers me, they actually are not for the rules. The DNC delegate selection rules (PDF) called for a number of things (Rule 21 provided Florida a safe harbor for its delegates; Rule 20C.1.a. provided for a 50% penalty, not complete stripping of the delegates; Rule 20.C.7 called for the DNC to perform an investigation of the Florida situation, it did not; and Rule 20.C.5 provides the DNC the opportunity to approve a new process for Florida and Michigan to devise alternative means of selecting their delegates). None of these ex ante rules have been followed to date. One is being worked on, the revote primaries. But in Hilzoy’s mind, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, even after a revote, violates ex ante fairness. Please. Not to mention the fact that the ex ante rules allows for “raiding pledged delegates.” Yes, rules are rules, except when they are not. More . . .

Now I am on record for strongly supporting a revote in Florida and Michigan. Not because I worry about some obscure rules that no one really cares about anyway. I am for them because we must have accepted Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention to establish the legitimacy of our chosen nominee and strengthen our chances in the Presidential and Congressional races in those states come November.

The Democratic Party needs “legitimacy.” Not only in the selection of its nominee, but for the Party itself in Florida and Michigan. And believe you me, if Obama wins BECAUSE Michigan and Florida are excluded, as Hilzoy hopes, his nomination will NOT be viewed as legitimate by many many people, especially the people of Florida and Michigan. Nor will the Party look legitimate.

What we need to do is stop pretending that these “rules are rules” arguments are anything but political posturing and start dealing with the reality that we need revotes in Florida and Michigan. And we need them for Obama the nominee as well as Clinton the nominee. But mostly we need them for the Democratic Party.

Pretending that you are standing for “the rules,” even though the rules have been left by the wayside by EVERY PLAYER involved in this (the DNC, Obama and Clinton) may allow you to feel high and mighty, but besides being nonsense, it hardly solves the problem of establishing the legitimacy of our nominee nor our political problem in November in Florida and Michigan.

Let’s get real. Let’s revote Florida and Michigan.

I’m sorry, this may simply not be acceptable in th end for me because I’ll have to see how much further down the damn rabbit hole Obama is willing to go with his naive arrogance. If he continues his fraud of hope and change and gets the nomination, I will definitely vote 3rd party. He’d have to make a serious about face on his bullshit to get me at a “hold my nose” vote.

I held my nose and voted for that loser jackass John Kerry when his VP choice was fairly acceptable to me. Edwards got canned again because of the groomed 2 candidates.

Clinton has earned my vote. I’ve been very clear here at NQ that I used to dislike her quite a bit. But I’ve done my homework on the issue and I can vote for her without qualm. Even my most liberal ‘she’s a freakin war hawk’ friends cannot sway me about her because they too only fall back on unfounded comments.

But Obama has a major credibility issue that comes along side his youthful arrogance and dismissive attitude towards his elders and the supporters of his opponent.

AND BE REAL CLEAR
If that sorry piece of shit cannot update his info about the Kenyan photo controversy while pointing and blaming Clinton, then he’s definitely a fucking fraud. I’ve sent materials to the campaigns to prove the article didn’t originate from the Clinton campaign. And yet, as you can see from the link above, he went from “take her word” on it in Ohio debate to blaming the Clinton campaign without a shred of evidence.

He denied NAFTA convo with the Canadians, called it a smear…then was busted with a memo completely blowing their credibility.

So, sorry if I’m not buying in November.

The place is run by gangs these days and even the gang leaders are disgusted and leaving.

You can hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.

The extended amount of coverage at NQ about Obama is directly proportional to the LACK of coverage done about Obama in the MSM. We do not know what unethical issues Obama has until we cover some of the appearances of impropriety that warrant scrutiny and the questions related to his judgement.

I’m glad you feel comfortable with calling Obama a “decent man” but that is your opinion, not mine. I feel he might POSSIBLY be a decent man, but because of some very questionable situations around him, relations he has with many different quarters, and the scoffing at asking anything about him, I’m not very trusting of him, Axelrod or his messages.

Smear….interesting word.

“He hasn’t been convicted of any crime, YET”

Let’s get real. Please show me where Obama has broken the law?