I didn't consider either posts a derail
Because you agree with their politics?
IMO, the moment they posted, they started derailing this thread. And I have the right to respond to any assertion made on the thread that the moderators do not remove as off-topic. That's why it upsets me that Lisa Simpson chose to remove my post on the Foster matter but leave the post implying the allegations there was foul play in the Foster death are baseless smears by republicans. That's seems to show a certain degree of political bias. In fairness, they should remove that post as well.
And it is curious that another moderator then posts to this thread on a matter that is again off-topic (and you admitted that when you stated "This isn't the thread to debate it") but you have no problem letting it remain ... only in letting someone else rebut it. I think that shows your political bias.
The fact is that the assertion by Upchurch that there was nothing to a alleged connection between Obama and Raines is false. And here's the proof since you decided not to chastise Upchurch for the derail as I asked.
-------------
Anita Huslin of the Washington Post (hardly a source you can dismiss as right wing) wrote that Raines had
“taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." So either she is a lousy reporter, was lying or Obama's campaign is lying in denying that happened (they are on record saying that they "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter.").
Now Upchurch cited a wikipedia article that states "Huslin never made any claims that Raines was an Obama advisor." But no matter how you spin it ... if what she wrote is true in that original article, then Obama's campaign CALLED Raines (not the other way around) SEEKING ADVICE (like one would going to an advisor) on MORTGAGE AND HOUSING matters (at a time when Raines was widely known to have been a corrupt CEO of Fannie who made millions while Fannie paid a record $400 million dollar civil fine for cooking the books).
Upchurch's wikipedia article also links a later WP article (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html ) that said the attempts to connect Obama and Raines is "a stretch". It's rather funny to see the Washington Post publish an article claiming the evidence McCain has for an Obama-Raines connection is "flimsy" when it was the Washington Post and one of their "journalists" who broke the story in the first place.
Of course, Huslin has partially revised her story (I suspect she wants to keep her job at the Obama Friendly WP). Now she says Raines said he got calls from the Obama campaign on "general housing, economy issues" but not the mortgage meltdown or anything Fannie specific. This still contradicts what Raines is now claiming ... that he wasn't consulted on "housing or economic matters". This still contradicts the Obama campaign's denial that they sought his advice on any matter. So who is lying? Huslin? Raines? Obama? Has the WP fired Huslin? Since they haven't, I have to side with Huslin. In which case both Raines and Obama must now be lying.
And if we again believe Huslin, is what Raines told her a denial that he was consulted like he was an advisor? NO. And the topic would still have something to do with an arena in which Raines was already known to be utterly corrupt. This really doesn't help Obama. Obama's campaign wasn't wise to seek ANY advice (especially advice on housing and economics) from someone who was charged with essentially stealing tens of millions dollars in an Enron-like scandal related to the mortgage/foreclosure issue. It shows very poor judgement.
And it's not only Obama and Raines who appear to be lying. So is the Washington Post.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/how_close_are_raines_and_obama.html
Howard Kurtz, the Post's media writer, said: "(Raines) has never been a close adviser to Obama." The McCain campaign never said he was. The only description in the ad of the Obama-Raines relationship is a direct quote from Ms. Huslin's story. To diminish the impact on Sen. Obama of the disclosure of an unsavory association, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Kurtz distorted what Sen. McCain actually said.
And finally, let's make sure that everyone here understands there are other connections between the Obama campaign and the people most heavily involved in the Fannie and Freddie mortgage scandals. Jim Johnson, a long time democrat and the former CEO of failed Fannie Mae, had to have been involved in Fannie's already proven cooking of the books. He also received questionable loans from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of failed Countrywide. And Obama had to have know that when he chose Johnson to join his campaign and help vet the VP candidates. And even after questions about this were raised and he resigned (
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/11/Obamas_chief_VP_vetter_resigns/UPI-36251213219865/ ), Johnson is still working as one of Obama's largest campaign contribution bundlers.
Or how about Jamie Gorelick? Remember her? She was Clinton's Deputy Attorney General in the mid-nineties who, among other things, was the author of the "wall" against sharing intelligence data between foreign and domestic agencies that many believe partially led to 9/11. She then found her calling as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae during the time of the fraudulent accounting (notice how all the Clinton people flocked to Fannie?). She walked away with tens of millions from Fannie. Yet Obama's campaign was apparently considering her for Attorney General if he wins the Whitehouse. (I'm sure he'd deny that now.
)
-----------
Again, I make the offer to remove this post if Upchurch will delete his. And Pookster, if you choose to call the moderators and demand my post be removed, be sure to tell them to remove Upchurch's out of fairness to the truth. Afterall, isn't Obama for fairness and truth?
