Glenn Greenwald in Salon, March 5:
'Rezko' is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the 'Rezko' affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption.
Results of Google News search for articles about Obama that do not include any reference to Rezko:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything to this Rezko business and Greenwald has a point that the media likes to whip up scandals, but let's be real...
Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).
See, I spent several minutes just now reading that hotbed of conservative media herd mentality, TPM Muckraker and learned this:
Obama has acknowleged, however, that Rezko's likely motivation for buying the lot was to curry favor with him. Rezko reportedly admitted as much to his business associates. And as The New York Times reports today, Rezko was so heavily in debt at the time he purchased the lot that he did it under his wife's name in order to protect it from creditors. And then there's the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions.
Evidence? No. Theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong? That's pretty much exactly what I'd call that.
