Rezko is a dead horse. Sorry. It's been beaten into a pulp in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere. There's nothing there. The worst we've proven amounts to 1) Obama doing his job in the right way, the way one would expect him to, and 2) making a questionable, but not unethical, not illegal, and not immoral real estate deal with no ill intent, which he's taken full responsibility for and apologized for.

The standard for ethics in government is not sainthood. You're allowed to make a mistake, a mistake in which there was no foul intent, no corruption, no illegality (and no one has alleged any of those things about the one questionable matter, which amounts to an unnecessary real estate deal).

I'll accept Rezko as a valid argument only if you feel that the standard is that any potential ethical violation, even if there was no foul intent, no corruption, no illegality, invalidates a candidate, at which point all three primary contenders for President need to drop out now.

Otherwise, give it up. It's adding nothing to the debate, and it's reminding a lot of people about a lot of questionable deals involving other candidates. Some of those you may like (when they involve McCain) and some of those I'm sure you don't (given who they involve).

After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[23] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[24] Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer.[25] As Director of the Developing Communities Project, he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development.[26] He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[27] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[28] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[29] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[29] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[30] He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[31

she's done nothing to deserve the way your candidate and your fellow Obamafiles have treated her. You didn't treat John Edwards like that and the only reason you treated Clinton that way was her gender - and you know it as well as I do.

You do realize that you just called all Obama supporters sexists, right.

If that's not what you meant, I like to hear that from you. If it is what you meant, I think you might need to rethink your views on how one-sided the mud-slinging is this election...

Personally, I don't like being called a sexist, and I think that's totally out of line.

I don't feel like wallowing in the mud or writing the length of reply it would take to deal with all of this nonsense. And yes, you've done this plenty of times and you should know better.

Quick replies:

1) The ad in question was repugnant fear-mongering. As Bill Clinton himself said back in 1992, when you see an ad like that you know the other guy is the one to vote for.

2) Obama has never said that his campaign has played the race card, primarily because it hasn't.

3) Of course the SDs are going to face primary challenges. It's obvious to anyone. If the SDs are that dull that they can't see that, honestly, why would you let them have a vote?

4) Seating the Michigan delegation... oh my. You lose me there. Seat a blatantly disenfranchising election? Where Obama did what all the major candidates pledged to do? The right thing? Tell me you didn't just say it's right to disenfranchise 45% of Michigan because they supported the candidate who did what he pledged to do. Please.

5) No interest in Michelle vs. Hillary. If name-calling is the best you can do, pack it in. We have real issues at stake.

6) The period comment is insane. Do you not know what that word means, in any context but female biology? Obama is not that illiterate and neither is Hillary.

7) Tea parties is marginally out of line. Again, it's pretty mundane namecalling. Obama's been called an empty suit, completely erroneously, a time or 10. Give an excuse, fine, but then admit that there's been substantial puffery of Hillary's record as First Lady. Time ran a nice article about it. Some of it's valid; I concede that, the Obama campaign concedes that. But there's been a lot of shameless puffery.

8) The person who's done a huge disservice to the race, party, election, and nation is Geraldine Ferraro. Assuming Obama's done every single last bit of race-card playing you seem to think he has, without a shred of evidence, it wouldn't hold a candle to what she's doing, and everyone without their head in the sand knows it. She's taking her race-baiting on right-wing talk radio, for goodness sake. The obvious, blatant, and unquestionable use of race gets addressed before things only proven by assertion. Sorry.

9) The Rezko issue has been beaten into a pulp by the Chicago Tribune among others. There is absolutely no there there. The only thing that's been established is that 1) Obama actually did his job as a state senator, and 2) he made a dumb real estate deal that he has apologized for. The record is clear that there's nothing beyond that; no bribes, no favors, no influence offered or provided, no nothing. At the time of the house deal and since then there is ample evidence that Obama has done absolutely nothing to favor Rezko, not merely a lack of investigation.

10) Everyone from the Canadian government down has confirmed Obama's version of the NAFTA story. Sorry for you. Obama's original statement were that there were no meetings between the people who were alleged to have had meetings. There were not. Then it shifted to other people. Those were not denied, but the content was denied. As it turns out, the content was as Obama described it. The meetings were originally described as having been requested by Obama's campaign. They were not, again as answered by Obama. Every single thing alleged about NAFTAgate was wrong... and I believe you've been around this block too many times to not know that. You're playing dumb in hopes that someone else will believe this piffle.

11) You're right, there's positive and negative documentation. Some people say she had a big role; others, very little. There's no consensus to the reporting. The only program that she unquestionably had lead responsibility for was a disaster of epic proportions. Yes, she has experience from it. No, it's not clear that it's all that much. Sorry.

12) Obama's record as a United States senator is equal to at the very least, and likely superior, to Clinton's in terms of bills authored, bills passed, influence on legislation, and so forth. There are several major bills commonly known as Obama-<X>. There are no major bills commonly known as Clinton-<X>. He's not running on State Senate experience. And exactly what was Bill Clinton's high office experience compared to that of George H.W. Bush? Or compared to Obama's, for that matter?

13) I specifically said that Vince Foster was a non-issue and there was absolutely no evidence of anything, that it was a completely bogus argument. It is. The only reason I mentioned it is as an example of the sort of issue that everyone knows is specious, but keeps getting trotted out anyway -- just like most of the arguments you're trotting out about Obama. You know they're dead issues, I know they're dead issues, and everyone but the clueless know they're dead issues.

14) Obama has spent his entire adult life in service to the nation, as a community organizer, constitutional law professor, state senator, and United States Senator. Unlike Hillary Clinton, his legal work in private practice was in the area of voting rights, community organization, and discrimination, not on behalf of corporations and land developers. He has not done legal work for corporations. He has not sat on the board of Wal-Mart. Remind me again how the work that Clinton did at Rose Law and Wal-Mart was service to the nation? Note: I am not stating nor implying that there is anything wrong with those positions, nor that she did anything wrong in them. But one of the candidates has spent their entire adult life in service to the nation, and it is not Hillary Clinton.

15) You do not know me. Do not presume to think for one minute that I'm attacking Hillary Clinton because of her gender. That you even bring it up says far more about you than it does me. Everyone who opposes her must be sexist, yes? There is absolutely no room for disagreement; if you disagree, you're sexist. And Obama introduced sexism into the race? Are you that blind? Perhaps this is why you think Obama played the race card too?

This one gets a longer response. I am not attacking Hillary Clinton, outside of some comments about puffery in her record. She is a fine person, a fine Senator, a fine Democrat. She would make a very good President of the United States. She should have run in 2004; we'd be in the midst of the Clinton re-election campaign right now.

But she's running against a candidate who is superior to her this time. It's not because she's a woman, or anything else. It's not about sexism. If she were a man and Obama a woman, Obama would still be a superior candidate and make a superior President. I am not trying to tear her down so Obama looks good. Why is it that you feel that the only way to make Hillary Clinton look good is to tear Obama down? I give her full respect. I suggest you do the same. It's unbecoming to her that her supporters seem to think that she's so slight as a candidate that their only option is to talk down the opposition. Be proud of your candidate and stop slandering the opponent with charges you know to be false and distorted.

16) Being called that name is utterly unacceptable. The Obama supporters who did that are vile. I do not stand for them. That does not make the endless repetition of false statements and slanders about Obama from Clinton supporters one bit more justifiable. Two wrongs do not make a right.

17) There have been a number of Obama supporters who have reported being banned from myDD solely for being Obama supporters. As best as I am able to ascertain, nothing they said was framed in unacceptable language.

18) Clinton has declared that entire states do not matter. My state is one of them. Pardon me if I take as much offense at what she's said about my state as you take about Michigan. It looks like Michigan is going to revote. Good. I've called for that numerous times.

Seating the Michigan delegation in its current form would disenfranchise about 9 times as many Michiganders (proper term, according to my Michigander father) as would a 50/50 split. I hate the idea of a 50/50 split. But it's still far more fair than seating the delegation as it stands.

19) I do not accept in any way that Obama is responsible for the ugliness of the campaign. Virtually every ugly charge that has been made: plagarism, cults, saviors, race cards, NAFTAgate, Rezko, sexism, ageism, etc, has come from the Clinton camp. I fail to see how that makes any of it Obama's responsibility. You know full well that Obama could hit back with a laundry list of allegations against Hillary Clinton that would make Rezko look like the smallest potatoes ever. They're all out there. I'm not alleging that any of them are true; they may all be as insubstantial as Rezko. But we both know what they are.

He hasn't done it.

Tell me again how it's all coming from Obama.

Tell me how Obama got Geraldine Ferraro to go on right-wing talk radio and vilely race-bait (note: not Hillary Clinton's fault, but clearly not Obama's). Tell me how he got Bill Clinton to go on Limbaugh's show (not with Limbaugh, mercifully) and pander for votes. Tell me how he got Hillary Clinton to praise John McCain (and lest you think that merely my opinion, Speaker Pelosi shares it. I suppose she's one of those sexist Obamabots?).

Tell me how NAFTAgate, a non-issue on which Obama told the truth and did nothing wrong, became a key issue in Ohio, when there were real issues that actually mattered? Who injected NAFTAgate into the discussion?

Tell me again how the candidate who has spent virtually all of the time since Super Tuesday either responding to attacks outside the scope of the issues, attacks made by the Clinton campaign, that have no substance and are invariably found to be bogus, or directly attacking John McCain, the enemy of the Democratic party, is responsible, instead of the candidate who has spent more time praising McCain than attacking him, has virtually ceased speaking about the issues, and is consumed with personal attacks, is the one responsible.

Tell me why the candidate who is running with broad coalition of supporters, who regularly calls for everyone to work together, regardless of race and gender and age and all that stuff, is the one responsible for divisiveness, instead of the candidate whose campaign endlessly parrots demographic blocks, their appeal to certain segments of the voting population.

Tell me why we shouldn't instead blame the campaign of which a chief strategist built his entire philosophy of campaigns around the notions of microtrends, of slicing people up into little groups, pitting them against each other, and adding them up into 50%+1. That's what he says he wants to do. That's the stated goal. Why should we believe that the divisiveness comes from the campaign stressing unity, instead of from the one that comes out and tells you, to your face, that they want divisiveness?

There are serious and real issues in this election. I know you know that. But you respond with a piece that repeats falsehood after falsehood and tortured logic after tortured logic, when you absolutely know better.

I have respect for Hillary Clinton. In another year she would have made a great President. I hoped she'd run in 2004 at the time. She would've had a coronation in the primaries and a cakewalk against Bush. I am not in any way opposed to her. She is a good and honorable person, as far as I know.

However, the campaign she has around her does not have my respect. It is not a good and honorable campaign. A good and honorable campaign would not have sent their candidate out to praise the opposite candidate ahead of their own party's frontrunner. A good and honorable campaign would not have surrogates who make it clear that they're seeking the white racist vote to win elections. A good and honorable campaign would not trash the party's frontrunner when they know the opposition would be horrible for the nation.

I have respect for most Hillary Clinton supporters. They believe in her. I respect that. She's a good and honorable person and servant to this country. She deserves respect.

I have absolutely no respect for the win-at-all-costs supporters who repeat falsehood and distortion over and over, that they either know or should know to be false. I have no respect for anyone who would defend the absolutely abhorrent words of Geraldine Ferraro, or minimize the enormous damage tolerance of such things will bring to every non-white-male candidate for years to come. I have no respect for people who repeatedly dodge any discussion for the issues so they can trot out a whole line of personal attacks. I have no respect for anyone who thinks the only way their candidate looks better than someone else's is to make theirs look bad.

And I have absolutely, positively, and utterly no respect for someone who calls me a sexist.

Then you should go do some research. Everything I discount has thorough proof behind it. Don't believe what you're being fed.