Star asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Obama supporters: What do you think of this?

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

This is from judicialwatch.org

What do you think of Obama now? I liked him as a candidate, though I dont agree with his policies, but now I am totally against him.

Update:

And dont go bashing the group that wrote this. It is fact. If you would like more "credible" sources, just email me.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    These are such poor quality answers.. Logic doesn't seem to work with the typical Obama supporter you encounter on Y/Answers (to be fair there are a few intelligent ones).. For the most part many of them will respond with "He's a good man" or "He's for change" These are emotional & subjective responses not based on actual facts.

    I'm unsure of the credibility of www.judicialwatch.org, but these allegations certainly aren't new. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt since he did apologize for it.. every presidential candidate has made mistakes in the past.. this may have just been an honest one..

    I'm not as concerned with his involvement with Tony Rezko, as I am with this:

    "The junior Senator from Illinois denounces the corrosive influence of private political cash on U.S. democracy while cozying up to Chicago's notoriously corrupt Big Money Mayor Richard M. Daley (with whom he shares the same high-priced campaign consultant (David Axlerod) and raking in campaign largesse from wealthy world-capitalist interests. His top career sponsors include Goldman Sachs, Exelon (the world's leading nuclear plant operator), the Soros Fund Management, J.P Morgan Chase & Co., leading corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, Sidley Austin LLP and others), top Chicago investment interests (including Henry Crown & Co and Aerial Capital Management) and the like.

    Obama's reliance on such deep-pockets supporters helps explain why he voted for a business-driven "tort reform" bill that rolled back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. It is certainly part of why he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. It is undoubtedly related to his vote against a bill that would have killed an amendment to the 2005 energy bill that Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste called "one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation." Under the amendment, which passed with Obama's help, U.S. taxpayers are providing millions of dollars in loan guarantees to power plant operators. They "risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default," as Ken Silverstein wrote in the November, 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine ("Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine").

    Special interest influence is certainly behind Obama's constant plugging of federally subsidized ethanol ("E-85") as an environmentally friendly "alternative fuel." Reliance on corporate cash and power is also likely related to Obama's opposition to the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the curious grounds that such a welcome social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry and that "voluntary" solutions are "more consonant" with "the American character" than "government mandates." The latter judgment is advanced despite the fact that a large U.S. majority supports government-mandated universal health insurance.

    Obama, it is worth noting, received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, is a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006. For what it's worth, she also received $51,200 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm where she was made a director after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.

    One day after Obama denounced Big Money control of U.S. politics in Iowa City, Iowa, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Obama has also received a combined $170,000 so far this year from financial giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, who together spent $4.6 million on federal lobbying in 2006.

    "Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total ‘from donations of $1000 or more.'"

    The Los Angeles Times also reported that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total "from donations of $1000 or more." Obama has "played up populist themes of [campaign finance] reform," trumpeting his "large number of small donations" and claiming (in the Senator's words) to be "launch[ing]a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars.". But his astonishing first-quarter campaign finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million from "big donors" ($1000 and up) - a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist and remarkably pro-labor John Edwards' total take ($14 million) from all donors.

    According to Chicago Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, "Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary' people to his campaign, a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers' is raising millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis be on the army of small donors who are giving - and raising - money for Obama. In truth, though, there are two parallel narratives - and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on wealthy and well-connected Democrats."

  • 1 decade ago

    I'd say you must be pretty easy to give up on your candidate so easily. Sure Judicial Watch is bonified but so is Hillary Clinton we she says she has experience.

    When you want to beat up Obama for any RE deal, you should look at the rest of your party....Hmmmmm., Let me think, Oh Yea, there's that pesky guy from Nevada, yes it's Harry Reid! Despite known mis-steps about declaring his RE investments, he was still able to deflect any suspicion that he was a flat out crook. No, don't look at Obama so hard when the rest of the wealthiest party (Dem's - hey check it out with Judicial Watch!) is taking the American public to the cleaners....

    I'm independent and sorry about being sarcastic, but what do you think politicians do? Political Science 101 "A campaign pledge is not a true mandate". In other words they can lie until they are elected.

  • 1 decade ago

    If this is the best attack you can mount against Obama then we should all vote for him.

    If Obama was "nabbed" in a violation of federal law as you state then how come he wasn't arrestted or charged with a crime.

    You say he bought stock. You don't say he sold it. How much profit has he made from the scheme?

    judicialwatch.org is not revered for their self-proclaimed non partisanship.

    Even if the allegations you make are true, it's chicken feed by the standards of our Congress and Senate.

    I feel compelled to question the veracity of your statement that "I liked him as a candidate, though I dont agree with his policies. . ." What was it you liked if you disagreed with his policies?

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I never liked him from the get-go. I am very familiar with Judicial Watch and none of these allegations come as a surprise to me. There will be more to come about the great OBAMA before it's all over, count on it!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • xo379
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Well, almost EVERY other candidate is listed on that site as doing something bad--but only Democrats.

    Hillary gets bashed. Obama gets bashed.

    Search for Ron Paul. No results. Search for Romney. Nothing negative. Joe Biden? Nothing negative. Kucinich? Nothing. Huckabee? 2 bad things, but nothing major. John McCain? Nothing bad.

    No mater who you search for, the results that show up include bad things about Hillary mostly...some Obama too.

    I'm not bashing the website. Just pointing out that they may not be completely fair. They are, as they say, "conservative."

  • 1 decade ago

    Here is another link to the story. Obama said he "regrets" this deal they made. I bet he regrets getting caught. But, being the slick lawyer he is, he made it just barely legal.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

  • 1 decade ago

    Good post but how come it comes out 2 weeks before voteing starts. Why not months ago?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    First..Republican Rhetoric, second, IS THAT ALL THEY GOT?? hahahahahahahahhaa.....grasping at straws seems to come to mind.

  • 1 decade ago

    cant trust judicial watch...just a bunch of republicans

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The way you say you are totally against him because of an article means you are probably weak minded. Al canidates have something they don't want you to know....Except maybe

    Ron Paul 08'

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.