Last night, Barack Obama gave what will amount to his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.  I’ve been pretty critical of John McCain on this blog, so now it’s time to take some time and critique many of the policies that Senator Obama is proposing.

I’ve written my comments below in blue, and have bolded the parts of Obama’s speech to which I’m responding.  You can view the transcript of the full speech here.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: It’s not change when [John McCain] promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn’t making the American people any safer.

This is a very astute argument, but it is somewhat surprising that Senator Obama has not taken stronger stands against the war in Iraq during his time as a U.S. senator.  As Matt Gonzalez has noted, while it’s true that Obama opposed the war in Iraq in the Illinois state legislature,

In the July 27, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune, he was quoted as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”  If Obama were truly opposed to the Iraq war, why did he not advocate troop withdrawal at this time?

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

I largely do not mean to question Obama’s rejection of the Iraq war, because I believe him when he says that he is opposed to it.  But I do wish to make two points:  1. If Obama was willing to support troops in Iraq when the war was going “better,” then how can we trust him not to do the same with respect to other conflicts in the future?  2. As Matt Gonzalez noted, “Was Obama playing politics with the war and signaling to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation?”

So I’ll say this: There are many words to describe John McCain’s attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush’s policies as bipartisan and new, but “change” is not one of them.

(APPLAUSE)

“Change” is not one of them, because change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

Again, I agree with this point, but I would like to see Senator Obama explain how he will determine which wars should be “authorized” and “waged.”  As a side point, I find it interesting that a scholar of constitutional law seems to imply in this statement that the Iraq war was authorized, when in fact the Congress never passed a formal declaration of war.

(APPLAUSE)

I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

I agree again, though I would like Senator Obama to clarify what he means by “every other threat to America is being ignored.”  More specifically, what are these threats, and what should we be doing about them?

(APPLAUSE)

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but we — but start leaving we must.

This sentence really worries me, because it seems more of a hedge with regards to removing troops than anything else.

It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home.

Agreed, though what does Obama think about not putting our troops in harm’s way in the first place?  It seems to me that while he objects to the Iraq war, he is willing to use American troops to intervene in other areas of the world.  As examples, Obama has publicly favored intervention in Sudan, and also has stated that he would use force against Pakistan if there were evidence that they were harboring terrorists.  I respect these positions, but they do not strike me as compatible with someone who believes he is bringing ‘change’ to politics in this country, because such statements are wholly consistent with the Bush doctrine that he says he is against.

(APPLAUSE)

It’s time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.

How should we be refocusing our efforts on “Al Qaida’s leadership and Afghanistan?”  Does this mean that Senator Obama favors sending more troops there?  And with respect to climate change, poverty, genocide, and disease, what tangible actions does Senator Obama favor?  Being that we have been worrying about all of these ills for a long time now, why does Senator Obama believe that his actions will yield different results than actions taken in the past?  Where will Senator Obama get the funding to tackle all of these problems at once?  And how will increase spending without seeing the U.S. dollar crushed to a further extent than it already has been?

As an example, Senator Obama, according to his website states that he favors a ‘cap and trade’ solution to climate change.  But as economist Robert J. Samuelson stated in his recent editorial in the Washington Post,

[Cap-and-trade] would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. … If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today’s energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or non-fossil-fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear won’t automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn’t keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result. The models don’t predict real-world consequences. Of course, they didn’t forecast $135-a-barrel oil.

As emission cuts deepened, the danger of disruptions would mount. Population increases alone raise energy demand. From 2006 to 2030, the U.S. population will grow 22 percent (to 366 million) and the number of housing units 25 percent (to 141 million), the Energy Information Administration projects. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is, at best, optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300 a year.

That’s how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As “allowances” became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously. It could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds; or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities and states. Call this “environmental pork,” and it would just be a start. The program’s potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today’s farm programs — and multiply by 10.

So, I would like to ask Senator Obama how his favoring of a cap-and-trade solution to climate change squares with his views that we need to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington and reduce that current economic burden being faced by lower- and middle-class American families.

Change, Minnesota, is realizing that meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy: tough, direct diplomacy, where the president of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.

I agree that the president should negotiate with foreign rulers.  But what need do we have to negotiate with “petty dictators” in the first place?  As an example, Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he is in favor of negotiating with Iran.  But as J.H. Huebert has noted, since Iran hasn’t threatened us,

What do we have to negotiate over? Any negotiation would have to be a matter of the U.S. making threats of violence against Iranians and Iran then negotiating its way out of them.

The [most] appropriate action with respect to Iran is for the U.S. government to cease our trade sanctions…  Anything else that Obama or any other candidate offers is different only in degree, not in kind, from the aggressive policies of President Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That’s what the American people demand. That’s what change is.

Was it ‘courage’ and ‘conviction’ according to Senator Obama when Harry Truman opted to drop nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities when, as many historians have noted, it was obvious that the Japanese were days away from surrender?  Was it ‘courage’ and ‘conviction’ when FDR introduced price controls and rationing, or “relocation camps” for over 120,000 Japanese-Americans?  Was it ‘courage’ and ‘conviction’ when the United States sponsored an invasion of Cuba that violated Cuban sovereignty and made Castro more popular than ever?

With all due respect, these examples better illustrate presidents who valued policing the world, not ‘change.’

(APPLAUSE)

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.

Here Senator Obama ignores the fact that taxes on corporations usually get passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for their goods.  He also ignores that many of the same big companies that he demonizes are sharing their wealth with the workers who created it.  As one example, studies have shown that disposal income and living standards of citizens raise (*rise*) significantly when a new Wal-Mart opens in a town.  In addition to providing low-priced clothing, electronics, and furniture, Wal-Mart is now revolutionizing the health care industry, with its low-cost clinics and prescription drugs, and the food industry, with produce and meats that are far cheaper than other sellers.  In short, imposing additional restrictions on companies like Wal-Mart would only serve to lessen their ability to innovate in such clever ways by increasing the regulatory burden that they face.  This in turn would harm most Americans, not help them.

Don’t get me wrong: it would be great to get rid of all the corporate welfare that exists in the current corrupt system.  But imposing additional restrictions on business only would serve to further commingle the government with the interests of business.  Why not let them focus on profitability, instead of relying on Washington lobbying to improve their revenue?  Obama fails to acknowledge that the special interest peddling that he chides is a result of too much federal government involvement in the concerns of business, not too little.

I also would like to know what Senator Obama is going to do to solve our “crumbling infrastructure” problems beyond simply allocating more money to them. Does anyone honestly believe that the I-35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis because of too little money, or could it perhaps have had more to do with the fact that our infrastructure is publicly owned?  I do not think that it is a far stretch to assume that if last year’s collapse had occurred because of a private company, Obama would call for more regulation of the infrastructure industry.  It is curious that he does not see the need to hold the federal government to the same standard.

With respect to transforming how we use energy, Obama’s website and various speeches seem to indicate that he is in favor of increasing “energy independence,” and John McCain takes the same position here.  But why is energy independence a good idea?  If another country can provide energy to the United States more cheaply than we can ourselves, why should we not acquire our means of energy from there?  But more importantly, how does Obama propose achieving energy independence without raising costs to the American consumer, who he already acknowledges is in significant debt and is having difficulty affording necessities? I would add that the prices in free markets are already working to rectify the problems that Obama has discussed. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Sales of SUVs are falling; sales of four-cylinder sedans are up, and the number of miles driven by American motorists shrank in February 2008 for the first time in 26 years.” And if you don’t believe that, consider this fact from Forbes:

[For the first time in history] U.S. carmakers have relinquished primacy of position on their own home turf to Asian rivals for the first time. In a seismic shift in the automotive industry, consumers are voting with their wallets for the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles that Asian manufacturers have excelled at producing.

The combined U.S. market share of Detroit’s Big Three–General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler–slumped to a record low of 44.4% in May, compared with 47.8% for Asian automakers collectively. Japanese car producers by themselves seized a record share of the U.S. market, 42.5%, according to data for the month of May from Autodata Corp.

More specifically, Obama’s website touts that he wishes to impose higher fuel efficiency standards on the “Big 3” and force oil companies to invest their “windfall profits” into alternative energy sources.  But why does this make sense?  For one, it will make these companies less competitive with foreign car producers who do not have to deal with such restrictions.  I would like to understand how Obama sees this as a means to solving the problems that he sees when he visits the Detroit area.  It seems instead that those people reliant on jobs with these companies would be made worse off by making them less profitable.  More over, such regulations would increase the incentive to continue moving their manufacturing jobs overseas, an issue that Obama repeatedly spoken out against on the campaign trail. And of course, as Investor’s Business Daily recently noted, Obama also does not talk about labor market rigidities caused by unions, which saddle U.S. companies with such high costs that they can no longer make cars here and compete on a global market. So they make cars elsewhere, just like their new fuel-efficient Fiesta “global car” which will be made in Mexico City.

Obama also neglects to mention that oil companies are already heavily taxed, with over 50% of their profits already going to the federal government.  And being that their profit margin is only around 9%, lower than that of about 40 other sectors of the economy, why does Obama believe that it is a good idea to tax them even further?  Does he not believe that perhaps if they had more profit, they would have more to invest so as to stay competitive in the future?

I also would like to understand why Obama believes that additional federal funding of alternative energy is going to bring about a positive result.  Is there not already a massive incentive for companies to develop, for example, cars with 50 mpg fuel economy?  Clearly, such a car would yield massive profits to whoever developed it, so it is unclear to me why additional federal subsidization would help in this regard.  What does seem clear is that automakers are responding to increased demand for environmentally friendly cars through the development of hybrid vehicles, even if they do not represent massive improvements over other vehicles at the moment.

With regards to improving our schools, Obama has made increased funding to early childhood development programs a cornerstone of his education policy. In addition, he wishes to pay teachers more, give them more training, and provide more financial aid for education. But why does he believe that these federal government solutions will be any more effective than George Bush’s No Child Left Behind, a bill that was strongly supported by congressional Democrats such as Ted Kennedy? Few people would argue that the creation of the Department of Education in 1979, and increased federal government involvement in education has been anything but a failure. As federal government spending has increased, student performance has been consistently in decline.  One would think that Obama would recognize the fact that federal “solutions” to educational problems are part of the status quo and do not represent ‘change’ at all.  Real change would involve bringing education back to the local level, rather than sticking to ineffective federal “solutions.”  Remember, after all, that the United States federal government already spends more money per pupil than any other country in the world on education.

Obama finally touts his belief that we should renew our commitment to science and innovation, but I would like to understand how his belief in more regulation and taxation is going to increase our commitment.  Silicon Valley, for example, has prospered in large part because of the lack of regulation of the tech industries or taxes on the internet.  It seems more reasonable to me that we are already very much committed to such innovation by keeping the government out of such affairs.  Just consider the fact that prices of computers and electronics have been plummeting year after year, whereas those industries that the government is heavily involved in, including energy, education, health, and food, all have seen significant price inflation.

(APPLAUSE)

It’s understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.

It is very true that deficits went down under the Clinton administration, but records show that this had more to do with an increase in tax receipts than it did with a decrease in spending (the lone exception being a decrease in military spending, which came as a result of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” rather than any Clintonian change in policy).  The prosperity that the U.S. saw during the 1990s came from a massive increase in productivity due to the technology sector of the U.S. economy, as well as interest rates that were held below their market level.  I would like to understand how Obama, as president, is going to bring about a similar boom in productivity, particularly with the general increases in regulation he has proposed.  I also would like to understand how he is going to accomplish this increased prosperity with a lower value of the dollar (resulting from those same artificially low interest rates).  The falling dollar represents increased costs of inputs for American businesses, declining profit margins, and therefore higher prices for already-strapped consumers.  In essence, we are paying now for the excesses in consumption that occurred not just in the Clinton 90s, but also in the Reagan 80s.  But without cuts in spending, how does Obama believe we are going to pay off our massive national debt and restore prosperity to the United States?

(APPLAUSE)

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

I agree that John McCain is clueless with respect to the hardship that people are facing, and lacks any real knowledge of economics.  But as I outlined above, Obama has not shown an understanding of the adverse consequences that many of his proposed “changes” would create for the same people he is trying to help.

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy.

She needs us to pass health care right now, a plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need, Minnesota. (APPLAUSE)

The rationale that Obama is using here for a government-provided health insurance program is the same that was used to defend the prescription drug benefit – a program that was supported by both parties, and yet is now rejected as a failure by pretty much everyone.  Why does Obama believe that applying this same approach to health care insurance will rectify the problems that currently exist?  Moreover, how will Obama pay for his plan?  Someone will have to pay to keep costs and premiums lower than market rate, and it is likely that this funding will come from taxes imposed on the rich.

Does Obama not recognize that a significant portion of the health care costs that consumers must bear comes from the cost of regulation imposed on hospitals and health care providers?  The costs of workers to fill out paperwork and comply with health and safety regulations, like the costs of most regulations, are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.  If Obama were truly serious about cutting health care costs, would it not make sense to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on the medical industry?  And does Obama not recognize, as mentioned earlier, the clever ways in which the profit-motive of the private sector is already working to solve the many of the health care problems that exist?

Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators.

Of course, many of the dictators from whom we acquire our oil are the same dictators that we support with foreign aid!  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have not heard Senator Obama speak out against foreign aid that we send to Saudi Arabia.  Moreover, Obama does not recognize the role that the falling dollar has had on gas prices (gas prices in terms of gold have been largely constant).  Nor does he recognize that oil prices also are increasing because of increasing demand in parts of the world such as China, over which we have little control.  And of course, that increasing demand in China has been used to produce goods that we as Americans consume cheaply.  As addressed earlier, while it’s true that we are dependent on many countries for our oil, it is curious that Senator Obama does not single out the inability (due to environmentalist pressure) to build new refineries in the United States (we have not built a new refinery in over 30 years).  Increased demand from more Americans, coupled with decreased supply (both in terms of fewer refineries and an unwillingness to drill for additional oil in places where we know it exists, such as Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico) is also contributing to increase our prices.  But Obama does not propose lifting such restrictions, instead favoring policies of energy independence and cap-and-trade, which as mentioned earlier will only serve to increase consumer prices.

That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need, Minnesota.

I have dealt with these issues already, but it’s clear that the government is already taking a massive chunk of “oil companies record profits,” even though their profit margins are far below those of the average business in America.  Obama also fails to recognize, as I mentioned earlier, that the increase in oil companies’ profits has little to do with the oil companies themselves (because the price of gas and other oil-products is determined by the price of crude in the marketplace, not by monopolized price-setting power by the companies themselves).  Moreover, in so much as government restrictions have restricted the supply of refined oil in the United States, actions by the federal government are actually more responsible for our higher oil prices than those of the oil companies that he criticizes.

And with respect to the outsourcing of jobs, as mentioned earlier, it is curious that Obama brings this up as a problem when his proposals for energy independence would increase the incentive for companies to move their jobs overseas, not decrease them.

(APPLAUSE)

And maybe if John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.

Again, I would challenge Barack Obama to give an example where intervention at the federal level has improved the quality of education in the last twenty years, particularly in the light of the amount of money that is already spent by the federal government on education.  Moreover, I would like to ask Senator Obama how he will increase the demand for college education by declaring that it is a “birthright” without also serving to increase its price.  I worry when politicians declare something a birthright, because that just sounds like code for “we need the government to provide it.” And let’s not forget the question of why others should be forced to bear the costs of individuals’ decisions to attend school.

That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing. That is a debate I look forward to.

(APPLAUSE)

It is a debate that the American people deserve on the issues that will help determine the future of this country and the future for our children.

But what you don’t deserve is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon…

I agree entirely with this statement, and I applaud Obama for stating it publicly.  I would like to note, though, that when Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, he only voted “present” on the abortion issue, which should raise questions for Democrats about his support for abortion rights. So I wonder to what degree Obama is being noncommittal on these issues, rather than stating his views upfront.

(APPLAUSE)

What you won’t see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

I agree again, though I would argue that we are all individuals even before we are Americans.  I also find this statement somewhat hypocritical, because Senator Obama has been guilty of polarizing Americans regarding opposition to illegal immigration.  While I believe that there is some truth to Obama’s statements that racism or xenophobia play a role in some individuals’ anti-immigration sentiment, I also find it interesting that he voted in favor of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

(APPLAUSE)

Despite what the good senator from Arizona may have said tonight, I’ve seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I’ve brought many together myself.

I’ve walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the south side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.

I’ve sat across the table from law enforcement officials and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent 13 innocent people to death row.

I’ve worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break, to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent, and reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

With all due respect, I do believe that these are a lot of achievements for just one man in less than one term in the U.S. Senate!  Moreover, while Obama here decries corruption and the influence of lobbyists, I find it interesting that he has been largely mum with respect to his illegal dealings with Tony Rezko. As Chicago journalist Andy Martin has noted:

Obama and Rezko engaged in a structured real estate transaction where they coordinated the purchases of adjacent parcels of real estate. Rezko claims he paid “full market price” and Obama apparently received a “discount” of several hundred thousand dollars for his parcel. Rezko then improved his parcel to benefit Obama…

Instead of transferring cash to buy influence, Rezko was engaging in structured property transactions and preferential treatment of public officials to confer significant financial benefits on them, far above the legal limits of any legitimate political contribution permitted by federal law.

While Obama said recently these related and structured transactions were a “mistake,” this does not reduce the fact that they were a federal crime.  Instead of handing cash to Obama, Rezko handed Obama a preferential price for property. This is the same form of “honest graft” and preferential treatment that sent former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner to jail over 30 years ago, see United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1974).