Clinton and Her "Slum Landlord"

Hillary Clinton's most pointed attack on Barack Obama in this week's Democratic presidential debate referred to the Illinois senator's long association with Chicago developer Tony Rezko, who she referred to as a "slum landlord"

It was an edgy hit, but not an entirely inappropriate one. Obama has been linked in Chicago media reports to Rezko, and he'll continue to be asked to provide a lot more explanation than he did in the debate. The pressure will mount as Rezko goes on trial next month for fraud.

But Clinton's reference to Rezko has come back to haunt her -- perhaps more than it will ever harm Obama.

Turns out she was photographed with the "slum landlord" in question, which was apparently taken during a session where she and former President Bill Clinton were posing with contributors who had given enough money to get access to the power couple.

Clinton's response, when she was confronted by NBC's Matt Lauer about the photo with Rezko was to claim she did not remember the developer.

"I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures," said Clinton, who took another shot at Obama's links to Rezko by saying, "I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

Frankly, Clinton's line doesn't cut it.

When you attack your opponent for his ties to a "slum landlord," it is always a good idea to make sure you didn't pose for grips-and-grins with, er, well, a "slum landlord."

Obama's still got some explaining to do. But so does Clinton.

This round goes to Obama, although John Edwards must surely be surveying this "slum-lord" debate with a measure of delight. The slum-lord debate just makes the third contender in this race look like what he says he wants to be: "the candidate the grown-up wing of the Democratic party."

Comments (35)

1. "This round goes to Obama, although John Edwards must surely be surveying this "slum-lord" debate with a measure of delight. The slum-lord debate just makes the third contender in this race look like what he says he wants to be: "the candidate the grown-up wing of the Democratic party." ----Posted by John Nichols at 01/25/2008 @ 11:58pm

   That is....if HE doesn't have a photo he'd rather not come to light?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 10:35pm

2. BTW, Mr Nichols....

   ARE you going to figure out that keeping Edwards in the race is EXACTLY what Hillary wants?

   Splitting the "anti-HRC" vote until past Super Duper?

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 10:36pm

3. NICHOLS: This round goes to Obama,...

   Sorry, not in my eyes....another wrong call!

   I'm no FRANKG, but, in this case, HRC's having been in a photo w/Rezko, is......HRC's having been in a photo w/Rezko. There have been a smattering of media comments on Obama's ties to Rezko.....and possible ties to he & his wife having bought a $1 million+ house. Don't mean to slam Magic but this is what I recall....and I only quickly glanced those articles. thoroughly!

   Posted by Happy at 01/25/2008 @ 10:48pm

4. If the Dem nominee is Her Imperial Majesty (& her Pardon Seller hubby), one can always write-in for a candidate of principle & at least feel good about one's self, as the Republic is flushed down the toilet.

   Posted by sloper at 01/25/2008 @ 10:50pm

5. The preponderance of anti-Hillary articles here illustrates that quite clearly.

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/25/2008 @ 10:41pm

   Relax FRANKG! I'll wager there is a higher probability of TN openly endorsing HRC than Rush openly endorsing McCain!

   Count the number of TN writers, there is less than one handful who've been assigned to regularly put out less-than-positive stuff on HRC. Kinda effective diversionary technique...the same few making some noises.....nothing that will upset HER much....you know that KvH is a woman, a white woman!

   Posted by Happy at 01/25/2008 @ 10:53pm

6. This is actually hillarious to me. This is what I would like to call Karma. I think this is a poignant example of why attacking Obama with this negative campaign strategy may actually end up hurting the Clintons more. The pundits say its the opposite it is actually helping her and she will do damage control after the primary but I disagree. They pointed out that Obama was supporting Republican ideas with the Reagan comment it came back to them because they supported Regan ideas and now this. When you have a lot of skeletons in your closet some of it you apparently have forgotten you dont go and open someone else's closet. Cause now you have some splaining to do.

   Carol

   Posted by harriscrl3 at 01/25/2008 @ 10:59pm

7. Yeah I'm pretty unimpressed with the smearing of Clinton by this publication, especially in this instance.

   She brought up a point and the fact that some hack could dig up a photo of her next to a guy she identified as Obama having a close personal relationship with...

   People pay lots of money to be photographed with powerful people and get a chance at their ear. It doesn't mean they ever get that chance, or that if they do they get what they want.

   Clearly the insinuation is that Rezko and Obama had a less than savory relationship.

   Clearly Mrs. Clintons standing next to the man in a photo op bears no evidence of wrong doing.

   Clearly this is the sort of idiotic off the issues kind of writing that I avoid in mainstream media by looking elsewhere, ie, here.

   Clearly I might have to rethink that if you continue to publish so much trash.

   I don't like either of the two of them honestly.

   But I sure like HRC better than Obama. She's been in the game longer...you seem to detract her for playing that game and staying in it so long.

   So Obama hasn't had as long to play the game, he's a little cleaner...so what? Focus on the real issues please...

   Posted by exitandpanic at 01/25/2008 @ 11:01pm

8. That is....if HE doesn't have a photo he'd rather not come to light?!?!?

   Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 10:35pm

   for enquiring minds...........

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 11:04pm

9. I'd love it if (via amnesia) Hillary attacked Obama for losing money in a land deal...or accusing him of killing some staff member who actually committed suicide!

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 11:07pm

10. Its no surprise that at some point this Rezko character wormed his way into a photo op, probably for a price.

    by frankgrits.

    yep. always a price.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 11:07pm

11. Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 11:07pm

    you'd think hillary's photos from her wal-mart days would turn anybody off.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 11:08pm

12. Clinton is more wearisome by the day. We have a chance to redeem civic inspiration in this nation with either of the other candidates. Clinton is more of the same old corporatocracy we've been living with since Reagan.

    Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton stop the merry-go-round. Who's next, Jenna? then Chelsea?

    I don't agree with a lot of Obama's positions, (reauthorizing the patriot act, coal), I'm bothered by the lack of congruence between the Edwards platform and the Edwards record, but Clinton?

    Have y'all talked to any 18-30 year old Obama supporters? It's a revival, there is life & hope, service waiting to happen, civic responsibility blooming among them. It will be a shame if it's all for naught... they won't follow Clinton and we need their engagement.

    Then there's the coat tail problem... if the congressional majority doesn't swing Republican in '08 with Clinton at the helm it surely will in 2010.

    Posted by be peace at 01/26/2008 @ 01:50am

13. Both Obama and Clinton want to get out of iraq, but one of them is pro-nuclear power. Which one is that, Nation?

    Obama is off my list. He'll do to get the RNC out of the white house, but I'll be durned if I am going to see him as left of Clinton. Nope. He ain't. :)

    Posted by bellgong at 01/26/2008 @ 01:57am

14. I like how Frank indicts Obama saying that he has this long relationship ship making it sound as if he helped him build the slums himself. While he can write off Hillary's picture as just a picture. Has it maybe occurred to anyone that maybe Obama didn't know this guy had slums? How many people lie to their lawyers? I will answer that.. A lot. So don't judge on something you know nothing about and if you judge Obama on something like this you have to judge Hillary on being a lawyer for Wal-Mart. Explain how being a lawyer for Wal-Mart one of the more underhanded companies operating within the US is a good thing Frank? Since you seem to be able to write off everything Hillary does.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/26/2008 @ 03:31am

15. Posted by BELLGONG 01/26/2008 @ 01:57am

    Sure Clinton will get us out of Iraq. In 30 years. You say she will get us out of Iraq but she hasn't given a timeline and she says she supports war with Iran, so maybe she is just getting us out in order to get us into more war with them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/26/2008 @ 03:34am

16. How long was Hillary's relationship with Hsu?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/26/2008 @ 07:43am

17. The whole point of the Clinton photo with Rezko is the Clintons lied again and said they "never met him".

    The other point, is REZKO GAVE MONEY TO THE CLINTONS AND THIS MONEY WAS NEVER RETURNED!

    At least Obama returned the money or sent it to charity!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/26/2008 @ 08:01am

18. Liberals are finally getting a taste of the Clinton machine's handy work---when it was directed towards bad old republicans they could turn their head and just ignore it---after all those bad ole republicans deserve any thing they get---but now---Billary has unleashed their search and destroy routine on one of their very own--Barrack Obama and they are shocked and dismayed---the lies the deceit, the tortured words and phrases twisting and turning every little thing to their political will...Do the nation a favor---rid yourself and the rest of us of Billary---let a real campaign of ideas begin---Obama vs. McCain---two excellent candidates with real ideas---candidates who I believe will put the nation first and their campaign second. Do you want the political divide to widen?--nominate Hillary--- Do you want four years of political spin rather than truth telling? nominate Hillary---Do you want Washington to get even less done? nominate Hillary. End the madness.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/26/2008 @ 09:35am

19. Rudy asks "What are we going to do in Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq?"

    Why stop there, Mr. Guiliani?

    What about Darfur? Cuba? Mexico? New Mexico? The Arctic? New Orleans?

    Instead we discuss who blocked voters, who had unmonitored ballots stored in an unlocked room, who is not "electable", why they said something 26 years ago.

    She took money from a slumlord. He took money from a slum lord, he gave it back. She didn't know he was a slum lord. He didn't either.

    And she said it was LBJ. And he said it ain't about race. And it all misses the point.

    We are electing a person to do something in the future, not electing him on his past mistakes.

    The question you can't answer from any past mistake is what would you do AS PRESIDENT with the most powerful military force on the planet if something worse than 911 occured?

    What is your General Principle towards using military force?

    Would you change the current military position? How?

    What is your position on each ammendment of the constitution?

    What are your Guiding Fiscal principles?

    That is a simple test that has not been given to any candidate, yet we have already had 7 candidates leave the race?

    What the American people have already decided in this election is we are going to stay in Iraq and finish those 12 permanent bases, build the Iraq Embassy and let the Al Queda recover and regrow their armies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Osama has thanked us for coming to them, and by doing so it has bankrupted America, and morally bankrupt the core of the American spirit.

    Give these candidates a written, timed test in a monitored and filmed environment. Let's see their positions to direct questions and without the ability of their staff to augment the message.

    How is it that a test isn't given to anyone who wants to run for the most powerful position on the planet? Don't we test lawyers? Real Estate agents? Doctors?

    Give them hypotheticals. Let them take a test a week.

    "Candidate Survivor", Bagdad.

    Posted by Earl E at 01/26/2008 @ 10:22am

20. Funny how the records of Republican candidates are an open book while the Demoncrat candidates spend millions just to keep Hillary's and others records sealed so no one can see the malivolent truth of them. Even John Kerry still won't allow his service record to be opened by the Navy and the point there is mote!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2008 @ 10:59pm |

    and where are Poppy Bushes records?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 10:37am

21. I'm just going to go ahead and assume that if Hillary Clinton is the democratic nominee that The Nation will be endorsing the republican candidate. The preponderance of anti-Hillary articles here illustrates that quite clearly.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/25/2008 @ 10:41pm |

    There isn't that much difference between Hillary and most of the repubs.

    Support the war- check

    Support Patriot Act- check

    No oversght of Chimpy McFLightsuit- check

    Tax breaks for the wealthy- check

    4-800 dollar bribes for the masses- check

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 10:39am

22. Liberals are finally getting a taste of the Clinton machine's handy work---when it was directed towards bad old republicans they could turn their head and just ignore it- LEN MOSSE

    To bad you are just plain wrong. Liberals have been underwhelmed by the Clintons for years. If you paid attention you would know that Frank is the minority here, a Hillary supporter.

    FRANK, did Hillary do ANYTHING to get your son out of Iraq, or did she give Chimpy everything he ever asked for?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 10:43am

23. Osama has thanked us for coming to them, and by doing so it has bankrupted America, and morally bankrupt the core of the American spirit.

    Partially correct. We did not go to them, we went to a third country and created the "flypaper strateegery". That is why, yes, the warmongers of the US are responsible for every death caused in Iraq.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 10:45am

24. Witness Billary's grab for the ring of Sauroman/Mt. Doom. Precious.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/26/2008 @ 10:57am

25. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/26/2008 @ 10:57am

    Precious.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 11:04am

26. Here you go RIO, right out of your backyard

    12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 26, 2007

    By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News

    WASHINGTON – The Kentucky senator who stymied a bill to again require ex-presidents to release most of their records within 12 years stood by his maneuver Tuesday, and the White House reiterated a veto threat.

    "The president ought to have the right to withhold any records he chooses," said Republican Sen. Jim Bunning, adding that ex-presidents should have "a reasonable amount of time" to release records to the public.

    At stake is the executive order President Bush signed in November 2001 that lets former presidents seal their records indefinitely, effectively overturning a 1978 law enacted after Richard Nixon tried to destroy some of his papers. That law let ex-presidents withhold records much longer than 12 years in cases of national security and privacy.

    The Bush order overturned the law, covering records generated by the administrations of Mr. Bush, Bill Clinton, Mr. Bush's father and future presidents.

    To the dismay of historians, researchers and open government advocates, the order gives former chief executives the right to seal any papers for any amount of time, no explanation needed. And it grants ongoing control to their heirs, which legal experts call the first instance of hereditary executive power in U.S. history.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 11:08am

27. Rio-I see that you're still living in your partisan fantasy world.Bush kept his records a secret as do the GOP candidates.Politicians do the same things.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/26/2008 @ 11:37am

28. AN ARTICLE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ!

    NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture. Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS 60 Minutes program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday. He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions, said Piro. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack. He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack, Piro said. In 2003, a close aide of Saddam's told The Associated Press that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it. Keeping up the illusion of weapons program Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating. Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion. Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion. For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,Piro told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes. Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical,biological and nuclear weapons.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/26/2008 @ 12:17pm

29. LenMosse-Why did you guys decide to help the Iranians considering that many of you want to bomb them?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/26/2008 @ 12:23pm

30. "Any position on the Gazan refugees fleeing into Egypt, on the part of the candidates, or their supporters?" Posted by ZERO 01/26/2008 @ 12:32pm

    Of course not. That's not a US problem. It's a self-inflicted Gazan problem. Ask AIPAC, they'll tell you: If the Gazans would only behave as they're supposed to, Israel wouldn't have to discpline them. And in no uncertain terms they'll tell any US presidential candidate courageous enough even to breath the word "Gazan."

    Posted by sloper at 01/26/2008 @ 12:58pm

31. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2008 @ 12:17pm

    So, he fooled you too, eh?

    I'MNOBODY, The answer to your question is... fear. The warmonger attacks on Iraq helped the Iranians and Al Qaida more than the US.

    Here we have another Friend of Chimpy

    By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 56 minutes ago BAGHDAD - A son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is behind a group of foreign and Iraqi fighters responsible for this week's devastating explosion in northern Iraq, a security chief for Sunni tribesmen who rose up against al-Qaida said Saturday.

    At least 38 people were killed and 225 wounded last Wednesday when a huge blast destroyed about 50 buildings in a Mosul slum. The next day, a suicide bomber killed the provincial police chief and two other officers as they surveyed the blast site.

    Col. Jubair Rashid Naief, who also is a police official in Anbar province, said those attacks were carried out by the Seifaddin Regiment, made up of about 150 foreign and Iraqi fighters who slipped into the country several months ago from Syria.

    Naief said the regiment, which is working with al-Qaida in Iraq, was supported by Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, 36, the eldest son of the Libyan leader.

    Looks like the flypaper strateegery is working. Not so good for the Iraqi people, though.

    LEN, do you feel better knowing that your plan is to attract Al Qaida to Iraq so that you can hide behind Iraqi women and children?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 3:31pm

32. Posted by ZERO 01/26/2008 @ 12:32pm

    but their book is different...........

    they're evil..........

    especially the babies.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:39pm

33. Posted by CRABWALK 01/26/2008 @ 3:31pm

    but their book is different...........

    they're evil..........

    especially the babies.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:40pm

34. "especially the babies." Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/26/2008 @ 5:40pm

    Damn right. Soon as they're taught, they'll want to come over here & kill us because of the way we live, they'll be as envious & as hateful of US as their parents are now. Why wait? It's only common sense to remove the enemy before it's too late & they grow up & strike at US again.

    Ask Herod, he understood.

    Posted by sloper at 01/26/2008 @ 6:35pm

35. Posted by SLOPER 01/26/2008 @ 6:35pm

    i've seen muslims. they've come HERE!

    THEY'RE PLOTTING*! THEY'RE SCHEMING**! THEY HAVE CELLPHONES!!!!!!!!!!!!

    *to buy minivans and plasma tvs,

    **on ways to put their kids through college.

    OOH, CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 7:01pm