Democrats and Land Deals

Blogs and legacy media have been abuzz about the Tony Rezko trial and the potentially negative impact it could have on Obama's chances to become the Democratic nominee. In fact, the Clinton campaign has pretty much staked its chances on the possibility that some as-yet undiscovered piece of information will sink Obama before the convention or at least prove embarrassing enough that superdelegates can assuage their guilt and vote for Clinton.

To me it sounds a little like Clinton is waiting for voters to realize that politicians have crooked friends. I know, I'm shocked, shocked. If it turns out that Obama got a sweetheart deal on some land in exchange for some favors, is it really going to surprise or turn off Democratic voters--especially if there's no proof? (I should mention for the sake of fairness that no one is alleging such an exchange at this time; he had a "bone-headed" land deal in his own words, but there's no evidence of favors or whatever.) And how lasting will that damage be, anyway? After all, Clinton has some land deal issues of her own.

I'm really asking now. What's the deal with this Rezko thing? The hypothetical Democratic voter or superdelegate cares why? Especially compared to scandal-heavy Clinton?

posted by Gabriel Malor at 03:49 AM

| Access Comments