Third party validation is always welcome, especially when supporters of certain candidates willfully ignore their particular candidate’s shortcomings. This is why I am so elated with this article published today in the Washington Post. Highlighting Obama’s trajectory from community activist to machine politician, this article puts to rest the myth that Obama is a political outsider. A product and a supporter of the Chicago political machine, Obama and his prevaricating rhetoric give this voter a reason to question his integrity. In other words, Obama’s mendacity creates the cynicism he so vacuously criticizes in all of his campaign speeches.
Obama claims his lack of experience in Washington is an asset, as he is not a product of the various establishment politicians in that troubled city. But in Chicago Richard Daley, the incumbent mayor who is the epitome of dirty machine politics, is not surprisingly beset with his own problems: allegations of nepotism have clouded Daley’s office, particularly in respect to hiring practices and to city contracts. Obama has acknowledged these problems, stating that it gave him “huge pause,” but he nonetheless endorsed Daley, claiming somewhat disingenously that Daley had addressed these problems.
Why the switch? Why is Obama equivocating? Why did Obama endorse Daley for his reelection on 22 January? Is it the result of Daley’s impetuous endorsement of Obama on 20 December, an endorsement that required Obama to meet with Daley for 2.5 hours before the endorsement? Is this another quid pro quo? It certainly is, for Bill Daley, Richard’s brother, who was former U.S. Commerce Secretary and Al Gore’s campaign chairman in 2000, is now a chairman of Obama’s campaign. And Daley’s other brothers will also hop onto the bandwagon: quid pro quo.
And local Chicago machine politicians agree. Here are some of the more damaging quotes from the Washington Post article:
Attorney Gery Chico, the Daley former chief of staff who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, said Obama has been under increasing pressure to play a role in local races and it’s smart for him to get in the mix.
“You don’t want to go the route of Al Gore,” Chico said. Gore famously didn’t win his home state of Tennessee in his failed bid for president in 2000.
“He understands … about politics and how you make friends in politics,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, who Obama unsuccessfully challenged in 2000 for his seat in Congress.
Rush said Daley, for one, can be helpful to Obama because of his national reputation. Daley’s brother, William, who headed Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, has already signed on as an Obama adviser.
Rush is also backing Obama’s bid for the White House.
Nothing about Obama’s endorsement of Daley is sincere. Obama was first concerned about Daley’s corruption to only ignore it when Obama realized Daley and his machine connections could be a benefit to his camapaign. And Obama also does not mind the support of candidates such as Bobby Rush, who is a bought and bossed opponent of net neutrality. If Obama was truly committed to a “new tone” in politics and to his status as an ostensible “outsider” who wants to change how government works, why would he collude with those he and his supporters claim he challenged during the early years of his political life? Why would he claim current politics have made Americans cynical, only to embrace it when it comes to his Presidential ambitions?
And why would he endorse an incumbent Mayor who has two challengers in his reelection bid, especially when the corrupt incumbent Mayor vetoed an ordinance that would force merchants such as Wal-Mart to pay workers a living wage? Labor supports a living wage, and community organizers and progressive organizations support a living wage for Chicago workers. Why would someone who was, as it were, a community organizer support a Mayor whose policies hurt community development? Is this also set aside when the power of a political machine can be mobilized for an ambitious Presidential campaign?
But Obama’s willful ignorance when it comes to machine politics does not end here. Witness Alexi Giannoulias, a thirty year old political novice whose only qualification for State Treasurer was his inheritance of his father’s bank, for which he serves as Vice-President. The Giannoulias family was an early supporter of Obama during his 2004 Senate campaign, and Obama had to reciprocate the favor. But the reciprocation was far from innocent, and Obama’s rationalization of Giannoulias’s questionable ethics are eerily similar to the equivocations he provides when confronted with Daley’s unsavory politics. Read the following:
Alexi Giannoulias won a hotly contested Democratic primary for state treasurer last month by campaigning, in part, on the financial expertise he said he gained as a top banking executive.
Both before and after the election, Giannoulias claimed to know little or nothing about $15.4 million in loans his family’s privately owned Broadway Bank granted to Michael Giorango, who’s been convicted of running gambling and prostitution rings.
Of those mob-connected enterprises, Giannoulias said in a prepared statement::
“What they did was wrong…inexcusable. If I had known…I do not believe…we would have approved those loans. (But) there was nothing illegal. I admit…I mishandled some questions.”His most prominent supporter, Sen. Barack Obama, wants answers, but is still on board.
“I continue to believe Alexi is a person of good character and his experience will serve him in good stead as treasurer,” Obama said.
Sen. Obama told CBS 2’s Mike Flannery that he’s advised Giannoulias that he needs to be sure the public statements he makes are accurate.
So an underqualified candidate who calls himself an outsider but runs a bank that bankrolled mobsters can be accepted only because Obama believes he is someone of good character. But how can he be someone of good character, especially when his explanations fail to cut the mustard? For Giannoulias avoided making public statements on the issue for weeks after its revelation, which to me is a sign that Giannoulias could not answer the questions pertaining to this egregious breach of ethics. Can it be that the Giannoulias family, besides contributing to the national GOP, also contributed heavily to Obama’s campaign in 2004? Just review the following and judge for yourself:
Contributions to Political Committees
GIANNOULIAS, ALEX
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/PRESIDENTSCHAKOWSKY, JANICE D
VIA SCHAKOWSKY FOR CONGRESS
03/25/2003 250.00 23990699018GIANNOULIAS, ALEXANDER
CHICAGO, IL 60611
BROADWAY BANKBAYH, EVAN
VIA EVAN BAYH COMMITTEE
05/18/2005 1000.00 25020241969GIANNOULIAS, ALEXANDER A
CHICAGO, IL 60611
BROADWAY BANKOBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
09/10/2003 300.00 23020380619
09/18/2003 300.00 23020380620GIANNOULIAS, ALEXANDER A
CHICAGO, IL 60611
BROADWAY BANK/SENIOR LOAN OFFICERASCOT, JAMES
VIA ASCOT FOR CONGRESS
06/23/2005 250.00 25970592787GIANNOULIAS, ALEXANDER A
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/SENIOR VPKERRY, JOHN F
VIA JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT, INC
04/14/2004 1000.00 24961465324GIANNOULIAS, ALEXI
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANKOBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
12/19/2003 5000.00 24020030099GIANNOULIAS, ALEXIS
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANKOBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
07/23/2004 1000.00 24020792046
08/09/2004 1000.00 24020792046GIANNOULIAS, ALEXIS
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/PRESIDENTJACKSON, JESSE LOUIS JR
VIA JESSE JACKSON JR. FOR CONGRESS
03/19/2006 1000.00 26960033067NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
01/23/2003 500.00 23990422591GIANNOULIAS, ALEXIS A MR.
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/CHAIRMAN OF THE BOANATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
09/19/2003 5000.00 23992172190
02/05/2004 1500.00 24990810761GIANNOULIAS, ALEXIS A MR.
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/PRESIDENTNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
12/17/2004 5000.00 25980410289
01/19/2005 5000.00 25990087518GIANNOULIAS, DEMETRIS
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANKOBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
07/09/2003 2000.00 23020380620GIANNOULIAS, DEMETRIS
CHICAGO, IL 60660
BROADWAY BANK/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFSCHAKOWSKY, JANICE D
VIA SCHAKOWSKY FOR CONGRESS
12/14/2005 225.00 26990124188GIANNOULIAS, GEORGE
CHICAGO, IL 60611
BROADWAY BANKOBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
07/23/2004 1000.00 24020792047GIANNOULIAS, GEORGE
CHICAGO, IL 60611
UNITED INVESTORS INC./INVESTMENTJACKSON, JESSE LOUIS JR
VIA JESSE JACKSON JR. FOR CONGRESS
08/31/2006 1000.00 26950526702Total Contributions: 32325.00
Obama states he met Giannoulias on the basketball court, where he was immediately impressed, which in itself begs questions about Obama’s political judgment. But what was this basketball court, and what types of dealings occurred there? And why did Obama fail to mention Giannoulias’s support? Why not state that his endorsement of an ethically challenged banker with no political experience whatsoever was just another quid pro quo? And why does Obama continue to ignore the ethical lapses of his sleazy supporters? Why all this machine politics? And why is Giannoulias, himself a Democratic candidate for State Treasurer in 2006, donating to the GOP in the same cycle? Is he trying to convince a rival party to not investigate his family’s corrupt bank? Obama really knows how to choose his friends on the basketball court. And no, my friends, this basketball court is not the local court on the south side with young African-American boys; this is an indoor court in a private club on the north side where one literally has to pay to play.
But Giannoulias was not the only canidate Obama endorsed during the 2006 primary season; he also endorsed Tammy Duckworth, a machine candidate who carpetbagged into Illinois District 6 just weeks before the election at the behest of Rahm Emanuel and Dick Durbin. Obama attached his photograph to Duckworth’s mailers, and he appeared in her campaign commercials during the primary. This lack of respect for grassroots organization and community activism, which Obama ostensibly supports, did raise the ire of Democracy for America and Cegelis supporters. Here is a quote from one article that illustrates my point:
“There’s no respect now for grassroots support,” the source close to Cegelis’s campaign said, adding that Dean was the only national Democratic leader to call her after the race ended.
In the absence of a strong local party, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), handpicked Duckworth as the establishment choice. Illinois’s U.S. senators, Democrats Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, as well as Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), aided Duckworth’s campaign by recording phone calls to voters, endorsing her in direct mailings and raising money.
Illinois Democrats say that they are not worried about Cegelis’s decision not to endorse Duckworth because most Democrats, even if upset by the outcome, will choose Duckworth over Roskam.
Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, told The Hill, “We’ve seen plenty of reaction in the past when Washington Democrats involved themselves in a race. I’m seeing a different reaction here. It’s not reversed itself into a Kumbaya moment.”
“I don’t sense a recrimination mode. The tenor of rhetoric from the DCCC is one of ‘well, that’s politics,’” he added.
So Obama joined hands with Clinton, Kerry, Emanuel and Durbin in order to lock out a community activist and grassroots candidate from the political process. Machine politics at its worst, this is yet another example of how Obama is a machine politician through and through. And this has not been lost on Illinois voters. To quote from the article with which I broached my diary:
Obama’s decision to support Daley turned off voter Alan Dobry, who’s part of a Chicago independent-voters group.
“He’s trying to play with the machine,” Dobry said. “I’m very unhappy about it.”
There is no “new tone” to Obama’s politics, as Obama has become yet another cog in the Democratic machine that has made party activists such as myself somewhat cycnical about beltway politics. If Obama truly wants to “change the tone” of politics, he must change his political affiliations. But he will not. Instead, he will publicly disavow while simultaneously embracing his friends’ ethical lapses in order to continue to benefit from their shady dealings. I do not want this type of politics, and I will not sit idly by and watch others endorse a candidate whose rhetoric in no way corresponds with their political practices. Is it too much to demand integrity from Presidential candidates, especially when they present themselves as outsiders who want to disrupt the establishment? Is it too much to ask someone to truly mean what they say? Obama is a machine candidate, and I cannot trust him as he cynically takes advantage of the American public’s willingness to embrace his campaign’s vapid rhetoric and false hope for a different future. For all Obama offers is just more of the same.
I am not finished yet. More to come.
Oh my!. But you know about Daley…voters don’t care – there’s lots of corruption to go around…it’s an equal opportunity thing.
Look at the GOP, the Pioneers in this decade. So I suppose, next it’ll be suggested Obama belongs with the GOPs.
Ooooh, I don’t think you will like this video
Please WATCH IT!
or this Zogby Poll
My man Al has declared not to run, Again. So among the current contenders I look for a Edwards-Obama ticket or Obama-Edwards ticket.
Hillary, her numbers are 49% favorable and 48% unfavorable with 3% undecided. And that’s before the full throttle resurrection of the Clinton years. Her campaign is on target to collapse.
Zogby polls are generally unreliable.
Abe Lincoln (also from Illinois) was supported by, and made deals with, most of the machine pols of his day. This was just practical poltics. We have to cut Obama a little slack. But not too much.
Nothing in this diary or the comments thread has convinced me that Obama has gone too far in making deals with the machine. There may be a smoking gun someplace, but I haven’t seen it here.
I mean give me a break, this is complete chicken feed compared to what Bush and Cheney have done. We’re electing a president, not a saint.
You have obviously set a very low standard for your candidate.
Well, you’re as entitled to your opinion as I am mine, but I think Abe Lincoln did a pretty good job overall. And even old Abe had to make deals with machine pols. For example, Lincoln’s first Secretary of War, Cameron, was the utterly corrupt former governor of PA. That was the price Lincoln had to pay for getting PA’s votes at the Republican Convention.
So I don’t think I’ve “set a very low standard.”
Past mistakes do not justify future errors.
Just as Obama tries to rationalize the corruption of the candidates he supports in Illinois, some of Obama’s more fanatical supporters will invoke any anology or comparison in order to justify their candidate’s shortcomings. I am beginning to sense a pattern.
That may be. I wouldn’t know. But I’m not an “Obama supporter” at this time (“maybe a Hilary opposer”). I’m waiting to see how things unfold. Edwards at this point appeals to me more than Obama.
But I think politics involves compromises and if even Abe Lincoln made deals with machine pols we have to be a little flexible. We’re electing a president after all, not a saint.
I can excuse one lapse or maybe two. But here we have three examples, and there are many more about which I did not write. Because he is campaigning on something he calls a new politics, all this is relevant when assessing the integrity of his candidacy.
I am done, and I will crosspost this essay at MLW.
From the “tone” of things, looks like we still have a long way to go.
First it was Obama’s middle name, Hussein = Saddam Hussein. Then he was Muslim not Christian and that got debunked.
Now it’s “ethical lapses”, consorting with others involved in and or with ‘prostitution’, ‘gamblers’ and ‘mobsters’
Be careful…bordering on defamation and libel…. Hint, hint; here and there, it may be wise to insert the word “alleged”
Your caution about the word alleged may be in line, but I disagree that the issues lousianagirl are akin to the issue of Barak’s middle name.
Like any candidate, Barak has baggage. It is not inappropriate to exam it and to make decisions based on the whole picture of the candidate.
I fear that many voters, and I’m not implying that you are one of them, are basing their opinions about Obama on his speech at the Democratic Convention, his photo on the cover of Vogue and his appearance on Oprah.
There is far more to Obama than meets the eye — and not all of it is pretty.
That said, he still may be the most desirable candidate the Democrats are currently fielding. Sad, but true.
The intensity to tear down Obama began with right-wingnuts once it was anticipated he would announce his candidacy. First off it was with his middle name equating it with Saddam Hussein.
But Sorry beyond that I hold to my comment re “ethical lapses, gamblers and mobsters.” (As an aside I know a professional that’s knighted by the Pope..but who would’ve thought he led a different life). SO, when will Obama be charged for the alleged crimes of others – perhaps 5x removed from his inner circle of influence.
And to be clear, I missed Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention. I do not watch Oprah nor do I read Vogue.
I’ve however listened to and or watch videos, read interviews with Obama, like the one cited upthread…how he’s responded to questions that goes to his mindset. I’m impressed.
For all of those looking for puritan, “unblemished” politicians,- (and I’m not implying you are one of those) – – well, that’s hard to find.
We’re too fixated on finding a candidate without baggage. Look at Bill Cinton. My goodness. Let’s see Bill and Hillary was said to have murdered Vince Foster to silence him, involved in drug running, investigated for Whitewater (what was that about?), sexual harassment and treason for having given our technology to the Chinese, then impeached for lying. Maybe that’s why we got W.
We’re all human. The next crop can’t be any worse than the Culture of Corruption we’ve endured throughout the history of America.
Why is it expected Obama should be without blemish or mis-steps? All accusations from sources unknown, perhaps having an agenda. Who knows.
Missteps are one thing. A deliberate take down of a grassroots candidate is another, in my opionion.
As you say no candidate is perfect. But we need to look at what missteps are acceptable to us and which cross a line that we won’t tolerate.
I don’t expect Obama to be without blemish or missteps, I do expect him to be a man of high integrity. Having observed him closely in Illinois and in Washington, I have some reservations.
“high integrity.” Those are fine phrases.. How high does the integrity have to be …what are the parameters, principles and by whose standards?
For my vote, it has to meet my standards. It is up to everyone to make his or her own decisions.
I in no way implied he was involved in prostitution; I suggested he has willfully ignored the ethical lapses of those who either support him or have bankrolled his campaign. Discussing his machine politics and his connection to the Chicago machine merely illuminates aspects of Obama people such as yourself refuse to recognize. And for you to suggest legitimate criticism of Obama is somehow racist or xenophobic bespeaks a troubled relation you and not the diarist have to the politics of difference. Imputing such sentiments to the diarist is not only immature; it is very cynical, as you assume all writers are racist.
George Bush calls Richard Daley, Obama’s machine supporter, the best Mayor in the United States. Why is Obama affiliated with so many corrupt individuals?
in America.
Wrong. Bush said this when he decided to celebrate his birthday with Daley last summer. And Daley hosted the birthday party. Two corrupt men celebrating Bush’s birthday, and Obama endorses one of them. Poor judgment that is bad for America and bad for Chicago.
Link
And notice how Bush, similar to Obama, brushed Daley’s ethical problems aside when asked to comment on them by reporters. VERY INTERESTING.
bill daley was great in the bob newhart show.
Howard Borden nee Major Roger Healey.
No relation to the Daley family. And he’s old enough to be Daley’s uncle.
On another plane, thank you LouisianaGirl, for this article. I’m getting effing sick and tired of seeing the bent-up halo around Obama’s head, and of true believers wanting to nail people against a wall for referring to it. They know what they see.
Black America’s Real Issue With Barack Obama
What is unspeakably sad about all this is that, although a canny politician while in Springfield, he was not not the machine’s choice when he ran in his Senatorial primary. His oppostion to the war incited passionate grassroots support and that, coupled with the large field, led to his primary victory.
The Republicans bungled their choice of candidate badly and the result was an Obama landslide.
Last year, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear to me, Obama also endorsed the brain-dead (literally) John Stroger for County Board where he (Stroger) had served as president. The machine apparently feared his more progressive opponent than they feared looking stupid and venal endorsing a comatose candidate.
for control of Chicago politics and by extenstion the state and country?
Thanks for this diary, while Obama has been my strong second choice, (I’m a Edwards leaner, but haven’t quite made up my mind yet) I’ve had a nagging feeling that Obama’s a facade for something.
This helps a lot. What I think we’re seeing is two democratic machines jockeying for control of the country. Dean be dammned.
Can we break the paradigm? What do you think LG?
We break the paradigm, but it will take time. And the bastards will fight no holds barred.
On a bright note, a long-time ultra machine alderman, Burt Natarus, lost to a democratic primary challenger last night.
Chicago and Illinois politics are all pretty much identical. Daley and Rahm are playing for the same team.
I do not know. Daley just wants power, and he will do anything to get it. Obama is the same, and Daley’s support is necessary for fundraising. Rahm is too connected to the Clintons and national politics to be engaged in Chicago politics, but to see where he falls will be interesting. I am also interested in Gutierrez and Jackson, Jr., for they have been mum, and both wanted to challenge Daley before Demcrats won Congress in 2006.
Discussions I had with a couple of Chicago Alderman about a year ago led me to believe that Rahm is involved in local politics and Daley in national ones.
They keep on scratching each others backs.
I’m really distressed to see Schakowsky and Jesse Jr. are also associated with Giannoulias. They are some of the most progressive legislators from Illinois.
Their bank is in Schakowsky’s district, and they probably did not want Jackson, Jr., to shut their bank down if he were to become Mayor. Jackson did not run, of course, and Schakowsky has her own ethical problems.
Is this one of those sites where all candidate face the baby and the bathwater litmus test?
You can rag on Daley and Obama all you want. Jan is probably one of the best congresspersons in Illinois.
Shakowsky is an excellent Congresswoman, but she does have her problems. That Gianoullas is connected with her and her corrupt husband is of no surprise to me.
this is an interesting and informative diary.
I think you could do equally damning pieces on all the candidates. I personally am not particularly alarmed at Obama’s relationship with the Daleys. It would be startling if a Illinois democrat didn’t have close relations with them. It’s also unsurprising that he has a close relationship with Rahm Emanuel, for the same reasons. But these relationships are definitely worth noting.
It isn’t very appetizing. But then, let’s compare these relationships with others:
Gore- DLC, Lieberman as a running mate, Daley as campaign manager.
Hillary- DLC, great friends with Emanuel, husband made Daley a cabinet member
Edwards- speaker at the DLC.
Bill Richardson- DLC Man of the Week.
It’s just a fact of life that the DLC dominates the Presidential campaign. From that standpoint, Obama seems at least a step removed from the others.
This diary does not refer to the DLC; it refers to machine politics in Illinois. And it is damaging, as Chicago just held municipal elections that could have brought needed change to that city. Obama’s endorsement, however, militated against such change, as he endorsed machine candidates. And he did it last year with his endorsement of incompetent machine candidate Stroger. Giannoulias is not DLC, but his family’s bank and Obama’s willingness to ignore the bank’s problems as a result of the Giannoulias’s generous support of his campaign reflects very poorly on Obama’s ethics, as does Obama’s failed attempt to sweep Daley’s corruption aside. And no, not every Chicago Democrat has to align himself or herself with Daley: Gutierrez and Jackson, Jr., considered running against Daley, and they are both very popular. That Obama endorsed Daley when there were two other candidates, one of whom was very qualified for the office of Mayor, reveals Obama desires to uphold the status quo and not enact the change he constantly evokes in his campaign speeches.
And regarding the DLC, I still do not understand why everyone ignores his use of their founding rhetorical strategy: triangulation.
I come from Philly which has the closest thing to Chicago when it comes to machine politics. And so I definitely sympathize with what you are saying.
That’s why I complimented you on producing an informative diary.
It’s valuable information.
And I don’t mean to sweep it under the rug by bringing up the DLC.
Here in Philly we have all kinds of weird associations. Patrick Murphy is an anti-war Blue Dog. Allyson Shwartz is a straight up New Democrat. Bob Brady is an old-school machine candidate (but also a member of the progressive caucus). Chakah Fattah is a member of the CBC and the progressive caucus.
I could do a hit piece on any of them by showing who they endorsed or took money from. So, I guess what I am saying is that I don’t see this information about Obama as particularly attractive, but it isn’t all that damning either. At least, it doesn’t surprise me and when you match him up against the other candidates it doesn’t look all the bad.
But ignoring ethics and nepotism three times in a row is a bit excessive, especially for someone who is campaigning on change in Washington. Brady, Schwartz and others are not campaigning for President. This is why this is relevant. Obama could have joined or supported one of the opposition coalitions in the city, but instead he chose to become a machine candidate.
Jackson, Jr., by the way, helped his wife oust a Daley crony in one of the aldermanic races on the south side. Jackson, Jr., certainly knows how to fight Daley and hold onto his seat and popularity. Why is Obama incapable of doing the same?
I can’t answer for Obama’s decisions on who to endorse or not endorse in Illinois elections.
I agree with you that his endorsements appear to have been made with deference to Rahm Emanuel, the Daley machine, and whatever brainfart led him to support Lieberman.
But I don’t think that kind of inside baseball and influence trading is all that relevant to what kind of President he would be. He’s no progressive champion, that’s understood. He’s also not a run of the mill Clintonite.
He’s the only major candidate to actively disassociate himself from the DLC. I’m not sure where Edwards comes down on that score, but I haven’t noticed him disassociating himself.
So, I guess my question is: what candidate doesn’t have some taint?
None, but these antics do not impress this voter. And notice Clinton was also involved in the strangling of Cegelis. Rahm’s relation to all this is a bit more complex, as I do not beleive he endorsed Obama. In fact, I wonder if the Clintons will allow him to endorse Obama. But I do know that Edwards was not so involved in primaries as was Obama.
I agree that it isn’t very impressive.
But I also don’t think you should take it so personally. I think Obama is an interesting candidate that compares favorably with the alternatives. That might be a sad commentary on the field, but I actually think this is a strong field. What I don’t like is that we don’t have a real progressive in the field. But Obama and Dodd have some progressive tendencies and Edwards is positioning himself as somewhat of an economic populist. All three of them are interesting to me.
I also think Bill Richardson is an attractive candidate. So, that’s four candidates that have my attention.
I am undecided about Dodd, Edwards and Richardson. As I said before, I await more debates.
Me too.
One thing I don’t intend to do is base my vote on who I consider to be electable. The only candidate that I consider unelectable is Kucinich. I just don’t think he could ever win because of a variety of factors. I like many of his positions, but that is just how I see it.
Every one of the other candidates could beat any of the Republicans. Although I think Biden could be trusted to make some spectacular gaffes and wouldn’t be worth the risk.
But I do take your point. The unsavory nature of these dealings in Chicago does cause me real concern, however. I guess I will have to see the candidate’s in action in order to determine who really is the agent of meaningful change. We will all have to wait and see, I guess, but Obama’s record is not very good as I see it.
I think he is shady but I also think he is a pretty decent mayor and gets a lot done – Compare Chicago to all other cities in the Midwest and you get the idea.
The fact that Obama NEEDS to work with the machine in Chicago says two things about Obama:
Obama is smart and not all things about a machine are bad.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. And thank you for failing to note ethical lapses and Obama’s acceptance of them. I also want to thank you for voting for a candidate who opposes a living wage for Chicago workers. Perhaps I should also thank you for voting against those who cannot afford to live in their neighborhoods as a result of gentrification. And thank you most of all for revealing how machines are sustained by low information voters. : )
Ethical lapses? Do you have any proof?
I’m all for the living wage but I am also for a mayor who can bring business to Chicago. Ask Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and any other rust belt cities if they have legislation on livable wages and they’ll definitely tell you no because there is no business in those cities.
Sometimes louisianagirl, you have to pick your battles and weigh ALL the options when selecting a candidate. I sense that you haven’t spent too much time in Chicago or you would understand that nothing gets done without working with the people that you don’t really like or respect. See, I support Alderman who are for a living wage and vote for a mayor who is pro-business and I ususally get the best of both worlds.
Your black and white attitude sounds a lot like “you’re either with us or your against us”. Funny that a leftist can sound a lot like a right winger.
The corruption of Daley was well documented in the Sun-Times with the hiring scandal last summer. And there were also questions involving contracts for Millenium Park, and there were also fears of an investigation to be headed by Fitzgerald, and I cite an interview where that is mentioned above. So yes, I offer proof; you choose not to accept it, disavowing the existence of problems so as to uphold the unfounded fantasy you have of your candidate. I am not offering a dichotomous proposition as you state; I am instead highlighting problems everyone needs to know when assessing Barack Obama’s candidacy. And regarding the living wage, I do not know how you can claim you can have it both ways when the Mayor will veto such legislation. By voting for the Mayor, you have made your choice.
The corruption of Daley was well documented in the Sun-Times with the hiring scandal last summer. And there were also questions involving contracts for Millenium Park, and there were also fears of an investigation to be headed by Fitzgerald, and I cite an interview where that is mentioned above. So yes, I offer proof;
Corruption? Maybe but I’ll withhold judgement until Daley is dragged into court by Fitzgerald. As for the Living Wage Ordinance, Walmart is not building in Chicago and I think that is great.
I think it is also great that a few alderman lost this last election thus making the mayor more accountable.
What do you think about green initiatives? What do you think that Mayor Daley is probably the greenest mayor in the country. What would you say if Al Gore personally congratulated the mayor and wants to work with him in setting benchmarks for all cities in the country? But Mayor Daley is evil and so it has to be a bad program. 😉
You obviously missed the point of the diary.