that you are using as an excuse to avoid confronting the irresponsibility and hypocrisy of a guy that wants to be President. And a transparent dodge at that.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Apparently you are part of that group that says no one can criticize him under any circumstances on any subject. Not everyone agrees with you, and your Rezkophobia likely is curable. If you choose to call a diary that is based almost entirely on a detailed story from a liberal newspaper a "hit piece", you are just showing your biases. Likewise the claim that no one can criticize your prophet without proving McCain could do better.

As to your first question, the answer is quite simple, and even common where large amounts of government largess is involved. It's called oversight, and means the provider of the largess (who actually is just the steerer of taxpayers' money) has a responsibility to make sure those funds are spent on the purpose for which they were appropriated in the first place. Nothing new or novel about the concept; nor is it racist, a slur on Obama's vaunted work on behalf of Chicago's poor and disadvantaged, an attack on his wife, or a reference to Rev. Wright's videotaped epileptic seizures. Responsible (key word) oversight generally does not include lining the pockets of slumlords, who then send a tithe from it back to the pol as campaign contributions. The theme running through the Globe story is that Obama made no effort to do this. In fact that's what the people who live in the slums say. Are they all McCain supporters?

In looking back I realized that maybe I should have ignored your post, since you didn't even read the story, (Thus your mistaken claim that it's about Rezko.) So you have no basis whatsoever to criticize either the Globe article or the diary. Why don't you just read the Globe article, see if you can find evidence of any effort by Obama to keep these places from being converted into government-condemned slums, and then post your results here?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

They took millions in funding from the programs Obama created, then let the buildings deteriorate to the point that they were condemned or seized by the government. Some of these "housing for the homeless" projects apparently were so abysmal that people would rather live on the streets than in them. So your analogy breaks down there, I think. If McCain had a corrupt defense contractor in his inner circle of campaign advisers, we'd hear about it loud and clear. And even if he did, how would that excuse this kind of behavior from the Candidate for Hope and Change(tm)?

Also, the issue many of the residents raised is not about the money; it's about the complete absence of Obama, an advocate for the disadvantaged, from this entire scene. Meaning he was instrumental in funding these programs with buckets of cash, didn't pay any attention to how that money was spent, and continues to hang out with and take contributions from the people responsible for widespread failures of the program to help Obama's supposed constituents. Again, where's the comparison?

I don't get the part about privatization - are you saying conservatives are in favor of privatization by corrupt companies? Sounds like a "look over there" distraction attempt to me. Likewise calling this a "cheap shot". The Boston Globe's address is in the link - complain to them, not me. Just don't call them conservatives; I bet they have some Southies in the newsroom and they tend to be mean drunks.

I will research the issue of the degree to which Obama influenced disbursements of the funds from his housing programs. From what I know of Chicago politics, that won't necessarily be easy, but I'll give it a try over the long weekend and report back. Meanwhile, feel free to treat this as a non-story all you like. A number of people here said the exact same thing around Day 2 of the Reverend Wright Crisis (Part I) when I said that story would have long legs.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I admit that hadn't occurred to me, and from Harley's occasional, ah, criticisms of his ethics and character, seems possible. But are you are hinting at a Hilaryesque presence behind this? I know she never officially shut down her campaign, is still soliciting funds, and supposedly has somehow reserved the right to reenter the race if Obama flounders. But this??

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

It's all subject to change of course. But McCain is in very bad shape right now. Crikes, he's down five in Montana, he's already spending ad money in places where he shouldn't have to (eg Virginia).

I think there's a good chance he is simply a deeply flawed national candidate better suited to the Senate, where his various idiosyncracies seem like virtues, not red flags.

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

I've been to Chicago and love the city, but have no firsthand knowledge of any of the locales discussed in the article. If the article had been printed in the NY Post or shown on Fox News, I would be suspicious. To me, the fact that it's lengthy and specific and printed in a liberal newspaper, coupled with the non-response from the Obama campaign, gives the story credence. but I don't know the South Side of Chicago like you do - only by reputation.

Of course the usual suspects will be free to give me Indian rope burns, noogies, etc. if the story doesn't pan out. Or even if it does.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.