I think Obama will come out OK on this one.

ArchPundit, an Illinois blogger did some digging and has some good background on this one.  

http://archpundit.com/blog/200...

He came to the following conclusion:

Rezko is tied to nearly every major politician in Illinois over the last couple decades going back to Jim Edgar under whom he received his first state contract. Rezko's reputation as a slumlord largely got started after Obama was not practicing law full time and was largely dealt with by the City of Chicago and not state government entities.

It's fair to say Obama used poor judgment in buying the strip of land from Rezko, but of the many ties to Rezko in Illinois, a two key things stand out:

  1. Obama did no favors such as providing money from a Member Initiative to Rezko
  2. Obama did not receive any personal benefits from Rezko

The dumbest thing about the relationship from Obama's standpoint is that one of the most squeaky clean pols in Illinois didn't think before buying a 10 foot strip of land for above assessed value from a guy about to be indicted. In Illinois that's amazing, in the Presidential race, it's the best personal record of any of the candidates.

The dumbest thing about the relationship from Obama's standpoint is that one of the most squeaky clean pols in Illinois didn't think before buying a 10 foot strip of land for above assessed value from a guy about to be indicted. In Illinois that's amazing, in the Presidential race, it's the best personal record of any of the candidates.

How much above assessed value?  I know that here in Florida the assessed value (assessed value by the county for tax purposes) is much lower than the market value that an appraiser would determine.

I guess the key question here is what number we are looking at.

If Obama paid much more than appraised value (as opposed to assessed value by the tax collector), to be honest that would raise some alarms in my mind as well.  Here is what the link you provided says about the matter...

Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006.

OK, so when I think logically about this...Obama paid much more than market value - instead using what he feels is a fair value based on a fraction of the other lot.  If I were a politician and in the business of selling special favors, I would want to pay way below market value.  That's the way bribes work ;-)  

So in my mind Obama did absolutely nothing wrong here from an ethical standpoint.  But from a financial standpoint, I think he is an idiot.  He should have paid what the appraiser said the strip was appraised at.

If I have anything to question Obama's judgement about, it has more to do with management of money.  I hope he doesn't spend our tax dollars as wrecklessly as he spent his own money here.

The landstrip deal is really a distraction from what I think may be the biggest part of the story - that is the purchase of the lot by Rezko's wife on the same day.  Here is the explanation:

Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.

OK, that sounds fine.  But, this also indicates that Obama and Rezko have had a much closer relationship than what he lets on to.

Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

At least Obama let's his realtor negotiate the price here ;-)  He gets a good deal, Rezko pays market value.  

The more I think about it, this all makes total sense.  Rezko is a developer.  He makes money on property.  I would pay market value for that lot if I knew it would be next to a US Senator's home.  Senator Obama is somewhat of a celebrity.  His celebrity will in itself bring up values of other homes in the neighborhood.  You would be dumb, as a developer, to not buy that property.  He can later sell it at a premium.  So in a way, Obama did him a favor.  Nothing wrong here.

I remember when white people complained that black people moving into a neighborhood would bring down property values.  Now we are complaining that they are raising property values.  Go figure.

(Hint: No wrongdoing.)

No wrong doing.  

The worst thing I can find is mismanagement of his own money.  But there's no crime in that ;-)

He paid more than market value to assure that no impropriety occurred.  In other words, he thought the initial price was too low, so he paid more to remove even the appearance of any impropriety.  It's the only thing that makes sense.  He was trying to do the right thing, but got this dumpload of trumped-up "controversy" anyway.

then I will know you all have your heads in the sand.

Just what does any of your illogical explanations have to do with the question. "Will the Republicans trash Obama on the Rezko deal in the General Election".

The answer is a plan and simple YES, YES, YES.

Will it hurt him? Ans. All depends how he responds.

Don't any of you remember 2004?

Did any of you ever think Kerry would be swift boated over his War Record and loose the Presidentcy?

The answers I read make perfect sense and everything I could find indicates Obama did nothing wrong.  Did the responses go to the heart of the political question - ie will it harm Obama in a general election?  Perhaps not.

Why do you think this will harm him?  I look at the story and I see a few opportunities for Republican's to make suggestions - but nothing beyond circumstance.

I think that Obama will be harmed far greater because of his roots in Africa and (even though he is Christian) he is going to be portrayed wrongly as a Muslim and these arguments will appeal to the worst of us.

And those unfair arguments will have a significant impact on Obama in a general election.  

He will get swiftboated, I just don't think it will be because of this issue.  I hope he is ready to fight off the attacks if he is the nominee.

I have no idea how those concerns will play out in the rest of the country, but I remember the 2005 gubernatorial election where Tim Kaine's opponent accused him of having sympathy for Hitler over his stance on the death penalty.  The result was that voters punished his opponent by giving Kaine a substantial 6% victory margin in a state where a 50-50 split is considered a good showing by a Democrat.

Even putting aside the Webb/Warner/Kaine victory path, I think Obama could make a serious run here based on the Wilder v. Coleman gubernatorial race in 1989 (Wilder won by gaining massive support from the Democratic base; while Coleman, a Republican, who was viewed by the party base not unlike McCain and Romney are -- as unfaithful -- found himself unable to muster a sufficient number of votes from the party faithful to put him over the top in a very close election).  

All this presupposes that Obama actually wins the nomination -- which still remains an open question.  I think Edwards could follow the Webb/Warner/Kaine path if by some miracle he was able to pull of the nomination.  Clinton, as you can see by the comments here, has a dedicated base of support in Virginia, but I think she would need the most help in terms of anti-GOP sentiment to put her over the top.  Of course this is all guess work given how much of the race still needs to play out.

Feb. 5th and Feb. 12th should help to clarify the picture a bit more.