The New York Times Goes After The Rezko/Obama Connection ..WaPo Goes After Obama’s Record

I have discussed Obama’s land deal hear, here and here. Today, the NYT’s has a great piece of investigative journalism:

Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper articles about corruption and fraud.
None of that stopped Mr. Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Senator Barack Obama from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.
Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger as Mr. Rezko goes on trial on corruption charges starting Monday.
Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Mr. Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the State of Illinois. Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developer’s decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood.
But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

The Astute Bloggers featured this Sun Times piece.

Ed:

The Times develops the connection further between the Rezkos and the Obamas on the purchase of the house and lot that put them in business together. They report that Barack Obama could not have purchased the house without someone else buying the adjacent lot on the same day, as stipulated by the seller. The sale had to be coordinated between the two, and Obama had to be aware of Rezko’s odd decision to have his wife front for the purchase of the lot, despite her lack of income and assets.
Obama had to be aware of more than that, as well. By the time of the real-estate deal, Rezko had already become the focus of lawsuits and a federal investigation. Chicago authorities had publicly announced a probe into Rezko’s business practices with the city — specifically for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of his business as a minority-owned enterprise in order to compete for municipal contracts. The newspapers had reported for at least two years about Rezko’s malevolent influence in the state.

Why was a politician supposedly interested in clean politics doing business with someone with such a bad public reputation, and with a man whose creditors had already begun to take him to court?

That is a good question. When that trial starts tomorrow, I believe that the press will go into hiding. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t see them pursuing the story. Ed seems to think that the NYT’s sent a message to Obama, the kid gloves are off and your free ride is over. He may be right, based on this David Ignatius article is:

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday’s probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real “Where’s the beef?” about Obama, and it still doesn’t have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it’s fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Ignatius point out the obvious to anyone that has been paying attention. I say that not to put his work down, but Ignatius and the rest of the MSM should have been talking about this from the beginning. Ignatius does touch on some key issues regarding Obama’s rise, but he really should refer to Todd Spivak on the subject of Emil Jones Jr. making Obama a US Senator.

Is the honeymoon over between an adoring press and Barack Obama? I doubt it, but I do hope Ed and the MSM prove me wrong!