Never mind the brother... that's inconsequential. American presidents have always had odd relatives (remember Billy Carter?).
Why isn't the mainstream press harping on:
a) Obama's failure to accept Federal campaign financing - what's in Obama's campaign that won't stand the sort of scrutiny from the Federal
Elections Commission accepting Federal campaign money would entail?
b) Obama's career as a lawyer for Tony Rezko, the convicted-on-Federal-corruption-charges slumlord of Chicago's south side?
c) Obama's campaign's acceptance of a 3.5 million-dollar money transfer from a British-Iraqi billionaire just weeks before an imprudent land deal
that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, according to an investigation by The London Times?
The article is here:
"The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian
mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May
23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on
the same day, June 15."
c) the massive influx of "advice" and financial support from ethanol refiners, big New York law firms, bigger investment banks (like Perseus LLC,
which is one of George Soros' investment partners in a major pharmaceutical venture, Perseus Soros LLC - the head of the committee to select Obama's
vice-presidential nominee is also a senior staffer from Perseus LLC?
There's plenty more which indicates Barack Obama is a money-grubbing crook who should never have graduated from the Illinois State Senate.
He's Dan Rostenkowski in a nicer suit and a thinner body, and MUCH better press.
HOW does the Democratic Party keep on finding losers like Obama? It's uncanny, when you think about it. One of the two largest political parties of
the United States should be able to find ONE man or woman who is worthy of election to the Presidency, yet what do we keep getting? Obama. Kerry.
If, instead of putting Joe Lieberman in the vice-presidential role to Algore, the Democrats had let him run as President... a win in 2000 would have
been hard to avoid. Lieberman had better credentials in every respect than either Shrub or Algore.
Are Democrats afraid of winning? Or are they simply so gullible that they'll fall for every slick ad campaign served up to them in an election year?
A few minutes with Google would have turned up enough dirt on Obama to convince an open-minded voter that he's a bad 'un. So what's the
Democrats' excuse (apart from the fact that they had a paucity of choices - gee, Hillary, Obama or "Senator Gone" Edwards, what a selection... ).