Why Barack Obama is so popular in Greensboro, Part II

Several weeks ago, I posted an item that explored Barack Obama's connections with the corrupt machine politics in Chicago.  I cited an article written by Fred Siegel.

A columnist from the Chicago Tribune named John Kass is exploring the same questions ("Obama magically unstained by grime of Chicago Way", May 11, 2008):

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate's politics were born in Chicago. Yet he is presented to the nation as not truly being of this place, as if he floats just above the political corruption here, uninfected, untouched by the stain of it or by any sin of commission or omission. It is all so very mystical.

Perhaps viewing Obama as a Chicago political creature would conflict with the established national media narrative of Obama as a reformer. Actually, there's no "perhaps" about it...

Except for his dalliance with his indicted real estate fairy, Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama considers a mistake, the  senator has not played the fly to Mayor Richard Daley's spider. Almost, but not quite...

Mobbed-up white guys party at the old Como Inn with Daley, and they get $100 million in city affirmative action contracts and Daley doesn't know how it happened and Obama endorses the mayor in the name of reform.

Obama had nothing to do with the Duff deal. But he kept mum. He has endorsed Daley, endorsed Daley's hapless stooge Todd Stroger for president of the Cook County Board. These are not the acts of a reformer, but of a guy who, as we say in Chicago, won't make no waves and won't back no losers.

Obama the reformer is backed by Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley boys. He is spoken for by Daley's own spokesman, David Axelrod. He was launched into his U.S. Senate by machine power broker and state Senate President Emil Jones (D-ComEd)...

As a candidate, Obama will do what he has to do to win. My argument is not with him—but with the national political media pack that refuses to look closely at what Chicago is. They're fixated on what it was, and they think it's clean now.

And they've spent years crafting, then cleaving to their eager and trembling Obama narrative, a tale of great yearning, almost mythic and ardently adolescent, a tale in which Obama is portrayed as a reformer, a dynamic change agent about to do away with the old thuggish politics.

It's as if Axelrod channeled it, wearing a peaked Merlin hat. Obama is a South Sider and does not hail from Camelot or Mt. Olympus or the lush forests of mythical Narnia...

So why the disconnect? Why is Obama allowed to campaign as a reformer, virtually unchallenged by the media, though he's a product of Chicago politics and has never condemned the wholesale political corruption in his home town the way he condemns those darn Washington lobbyists.

For an answer as to when pundits will ever put Illinois corruption in context, I called on Tom Bevan, executive director of the popular political Web site Real Clear Politics (which directs readers to my column on occasion) and a Chicagoan.

"To a large degree, the media has accepted much of the Obama narrative thus far," Bevan told me. "He's risen so quickly, but his history hasn't been bogged down with an association of Chicago politics and I can't tell you why exactly, except perhaps that some may have bought into the established narrative and can't separate themselves from it."

"And I don't know if the country understands just how corrupt the system is in Illinois. People don't see it. They're flying over us, cruising at 30,000 feet," Bevan said.

Of course, many political observers from Chicago like Kass know precisely what the score is.  They know that politicians do not emerge from a machine politics environment in places like Chicago or Greensboro "magically unstained".

The upcoming election is going to be very interesting.  If we presume that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, there are many issues to be sorted out:

1. His relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the likelihood of his having had full knowledge of Wright's politics

2. His complicity with Chicago's dirty machine politics

3. His friendship and dealings with Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, and Tony Rezko

4. The reality of his divisive, far-left policy positions-- contrary to the illusion he has created about moving beyond partisanship and division.  Over the last several days, I have focused on his statements regarding abortion and gay marriage, although there will be many others, including universal health care, negotiating with Iranians, etc.  Sean Hannity had a segment this week on his support of needle exchange programs. 

5. Bubba had an interesting post this week regarding how he will be regarded as an "apostate" by certain radical Muslims, because he was registered as Muslim when he attended an Islamic school in Indonesia, and had a Muslim father.

6. The equivocal nature of his support for Israel, his endorsement by Hamas, and reports that he is pro-Palestinian.

The excitement is going to die down over his candidacy, and the reality is gradually going to come into focus regarding what the Democrats are nominating.  I am not predicting the outcome; and this remains a potentially disastrous year for Republicans.  It would, however, also be very bad for the country if Obama wins. 

I hope that a concentrated effort will be made to disclose fully what Obama has been all about.

Comments

[Roch101]

It's great that you've taken such an interest in Obama, but when are you going to tell us why the adulterous divorce is a better choice?

[Joe Guari no]

Roch, of course, adultery is never a good choice. And we can never make the mistake of placing our faith in any single person, because he or she is inevitably imperfect, and will ultimately fail us.

We are choosing between candidates hopefully based on the principles and positions they espouse.

[Roch101]

Really? Isn't your point that actions speak louder than what candidates espouse? Just what kind of principles do you think McCain holds when he had affairs while married and got divorced only to marry his new wealthy wife a month later? Come on, Joe, the values you espouse are well known. As a social conservative, tell us why we should judge Obama by his actions and associations, but judge McCain by his words? You are very much a traditional guy when it comes to family, does the guy who slept around on his wife, then divorced her to marry another woman really prevail over the guy who remains faithfully married? Isn't that what they call situational ethics?

[Stormy]

I do not think very many conservative voters find Mr. McCain to be highly palatable. Roch is correct that in McCain's early days, he was not a good example of what conservatives desire in a candidate.

Having said that, our choice for President will be between John McCain and Barack Obama, so we conservatives will have to choose between the lesser of things that repel us, whereas liberals have a delightful candidate for their political views.

But, when it comes to push, I have to pull the lever, or more correctly push the button in NC) for McCain. I just can not fathom life for four years of Obama style liberalism. There is very little that he will do that is attractive to me as a voter.

And, in truth, there may be a lot more to learn about Mr. Obama than we presently know. We've learned a lot in just a few short months. The MSM should have been vetting Obama over the past year, rather than fawning over his slogans of hope and change. Obama better hope that the election is safely packed away before everything is known about him.

[Everest]

Roch - man, I thought you guys always argued that a politician's personal life had no impact on his day-to-day job....???? I mean, if the President can bed a 21-year old intern while in the Oval Office, certainly we can't fault McCain for indiscretions over a decade old...can we?

I have no problem with Obama personally - he seems like a solid family guy, with two great little girls and an accomplished wife. I don't really care about Bill Ayers either (nor should Clinton, since her husband pardoned a couple of Ayers' associates for cash.) I'm not even that particularly distraught over his relationship with Rev. Wright - I wish Obama had the backbone to say either (1) he agrees with Wright, and that's why he was such a devoted follower, or (2) going to that church was politically the best thing to do (let's face it, probably a bit of both.)

What scares the hell out of me are his policy prescriptions for this country. Higher taxes, more government intervention, activist judicial nominees, much weaker foreign policy, etc....With a platform like that, Obama can be beaten without using his middle name....

[Just Saying]

I agree with Everest -- on a personal level, Obama seems like a good guy. He probably trumps McCain in the personal ethics & morality department. And McCain has been around politics long enough to have his share of shady associates - it's hard to play this game without getting some dirt on your hands.

But Obama's policies are what bother me. Like Everest says, his platform appears to be a frightening combination of higher taxes, bigger government and a weaker national defense.

I don't care how nice a guy he is -- that is a recipe for disaster!

[Roch101]

Okay, folks. You want to make a case against Obama's proposed policies or in favor of McCain's -- fair enough. I think that kind of discussion would be really good for America. If only that were what Joe's original post was about.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, Everest, Just Saying, I agree for the most part. Thanks for the comments.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, the post actually was about issues, in the latter part. But it is also a legitimate exercise to explore the circumstances of Obama's political ascendancy. There are many unanswered questions and angles that require much more explanation, because it goes to the heart of the type of politician he is, and could impact how he would govern.

Do we want Chicago-style machine politics at the federal level? Various federal rules would make that fairly difficult. But there is a definite need to know more about his South-Side-of-Chicago political background, all that he was a part of, and the political relationships he had there. It is important because the impression being created is precisely contrary to what his political background is.

[Everest]

Gosh Roch, what could I have been thinking..?!!? I re-read Joe's post, and he talked a lot about Obama's marital fidelity....

Of course, if I had to defend Obama's record (or lack thereof) and his policy solutions, I would change the subject too....

[Stormy]

Today, Obama said that Americans need to park their SUV's and not to keep their home temperature set at a comfortable level so that we can gain global approval. I guess that he is pulling-out John Kerry's global test again. I hope that Obama keeps talking, we are getting educated in his vision of change for the USA. Oh, and let-up on Michelle, even though she has injected her political views on the Bush Administration freely in the campaign. Why is it that when Democrat presidential candidates' spouses choose to participate in the campaign, that they should be off-limits to answer for their comments?

[Stormy]

Everest,

Bill Clinton's sexual escapades are the stuff of legend. And, you are right, liberals everywhere said that it was just about sex. It was more than just about sex, but the sex stuff was overwhelming for a President. Bill Clinton played in the Sexual Escapades Major Leagues. John McCain, in comparison, is a career minor leaguer. But, Bill Clinton set a low bar height for Presidents in the sexual category. Look at the rash of sexual craziness that we have seen since then.

[Roch101]

Mmmmmm. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[Everest]

Classic Roch....hammer the questioners, never address the issue....

[Just Saying]

Both parties have had their share of scandals in recent years, related to both sex and corruption. I honestly can't say that one side has been better behaved than the other in this regard -- and neither party has much room to point fingers when it comes to personal ethics.

However, that leaves us with Mr. Obama's platform, which I believe can be described as "creeping socialism." It's the approach that believes government can be the solution to all problems.

[Stormy]

Just Saying,

You are correct, neither party has a lock on ethical behavior. However, Bill Clinton lowered the bar height to zero. His supporters have since declared that it was personal and just about sex. But, what we have seen in the way of political sleaze since 1998 is staggering. Everyone knows so no need to list them.

The difference here is that Democrats make no pretense of personal ethical behavior. Republicans are expected to be so by their core supporters, and are deeply disappointed when they fail.

I sense some hypocrisy from Roch alright. McCain definitely had his failures of personal behavior by Republican standards, but he passes with flying colors on Bill Clinton's.

Now that we have cleared that one up, let's focus upon Mr. Obama's socialistic agenda for America. As his agenda seems to lean heavily upon an economy planned and controlled by the government, it seems reasonable to define it as socialistic.

[Just Saying]

I can't speak for what Democrats expect, but I know I believe our political leaders should do a lot better than this.

I also think that until we clean up our own house, we can't cast stones at the Democrats. Both sides are equally to blame for the decline in political ethics, in my opinion.

Just today, Congressman Vito Fossella (R-New York) is in the news after he was discovered having fathered a child in an extramarital affair. And the affair was discovered when Fossella was arrested for drunk driving!