Chambers on Obama and corruption:
The same goes in Illinois. Public corruption is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It’s an Illinois problem. A huge problem.
Obama will have a unique opportunity to press his home state to clean up its act. The Chicagoan will have the nation’s attention.
He will have what Teddy Roosevelt coined the bully pulpit — the power to move public opinion and compel change with his own voice — over the next year or two.
If he wins the White House, he will have the power to appoint the ranking federal prosecutors in Illinois. As a Democrat in the U.S. Senate, a body run by Democrats, he has some influence over whether these appointees are confirmed.
“We don’t seem to be as mindful as we need to be about appearances of impropriety,” Obama told me.
Then, positioning himself above the fray, he added: “I can’t judge where there have been improprieties and where there haven’t been because I haven’t been intimately involved in what’s been happening in state and local politics over the past couple years.”
Anybody following Illinois politics, even tangentially, knows what’s up in Illinois: Pols and their pals are gorging themselves at the public trough, and those pals are in turn helping the pols.
Illinois put Obama into the national spotlight. He could show his appreciation by putting its people before the gang.
For all of the whining about how he endorsed Daley, this is a far more practical way he can address the issue.
And after some really horrible site designs in the past, the Rockford-Register Star’s current incarnation is quite nice.
Good column.
Aaron Chambers has pinned cleaning up Illinois on Obama’s presidential campaign, and it’s an interesting angle. It’s also a lot to ask of any one person, assuming Barack really is mortal.
Fair questions though, and Chambers calls him on his own statements about corruption. Good column, and worth some follow-up too.
On site is nice but, the paper itself still sucks.
Unloading Stroger might be a good start,
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/boos_but_not_fo.html
The warm-up show leading up to Obama’s appearance in Chicago just ended, and there were some strong boos — but not for the presidential candidate.
As U.S. Rep Jan Schakowsky introduced local and statewide office holders in attendance, the UIC Pavillion echoed with boos as the name of newly elected Cook County Board President Todd Stroeger was announced. It took Schakowsky several seconds to get the crowd back on the positive track.
I was there Sunday, it was pretty organized booing. People settled down pretty quick. A lot of Cook County employees were there. The lady in front of me was quite upset with him (Stroger).
Its weird, cut backs at County are needed, but he is going about it in such a horrible way. He’s acting like he is king, when he’s on probation as a first termer. He’s slashing the people on the ground, rather than the patronage army, and the mindboggling layers of bureaucrats.
Toddler ain’t gonna last. 4 years and he’s out. Forrest Claypool shouldn’t have much trouble bouncing Toddler if he runs again.
===Fair questions though, and Chambers calls him on his own statements about corruption. Good column, and worth some follow-up too.
I think Chambers has a realistic view of it. If he wins or if he stays in the Senate, will he push for keeping Fitzgerald or appointing a similar type or will he revert back to poodles like Lassar. The hysterical thing about complaining about the Daley announcement is that Bush sucks up to Daley.
Arch –
Don’t you find it at all disconcerting that Obama was being – at best – misleading (I personally would go so far as to call it “dishonest”) when he said “I can’t judge where there have been improprieties and where there haven’t been because I haven’t been intimately involved in what’s been happening in state and local politics over the past couple years.”
After all, doesn’t endorsing a candidate for State Treasurer or County Board President count as involvement in state and local politics? He did both wihtin “the past couple of years.”
And why would Obama endorse Daley for re-election if he’s so detatched from local politics that he doesn’t feel comfortable judging whether or not the Mayor (or anyone connected to him) has been involved in any improprieties?
GOP–yes. And when I find a politician who doesn’t do this sort of thing I’ll vote for them and they’ll lose as they usually do when they say things like that. Even Simon went to the elder Daley when he wanted to run statewide.
It’s baloney. I don’t excuse it necessarily, but I don’t get to uptight about it.
I think he could easily say something to the effect, “there are significant problems and that the prosecutor will determine the facts and proceed–I pledge to maintain tough independent prosecutors like Fitzgerald.
However, as of now the Mayor is not under indictment and as he has said, he needs to more carefully monitor city practices. With that in mind, I believe the Mayor has done a great job with the City of Chicago and look forward with working with him to continue that progress.”
Arch – fair enough, and I must say that I respect your honesty there. That being said, there’s a great line from the West Wing that I quote over at my own blog just a few weeks ago:
“I think Lincoln did what he thought was right, even though it meant losing half the country. I think you don’t do what you think is right if it means losing Michigan’s electoral votes.”
What is Obama willing to do, even if it means losing the election, to turn his idealistic rhetoric into reality? If the answer is nothing, then why is everyone getting so excited about this self-declared second-coming of Lincoln?
A fella who calls himself GOP quoting a Hollywood/Aaron Sorkin/Thomas Schlamme vehicle to make a point.
That’s rich.
his idealistic rhetoric has a 0% chance of becoming reality if he loses. Obama has no chance of winning anything if the machine turns against him.
And Obama endorsed Stroger because Stroger was the Democrat in the race. He was never going to endorse that corrupt Republican-American Peraica.
By the way, Archpundit, The Chicago Reader has made its Obama archives available. The first article is on his 1994 State Senate race.
Buck – Perhaps it’s a bit ironic…..but I’m not sure what you are implying with the “that’s rich” comment. That wouldn’t be an attempt to avoid acknowledging with a perfectly valid point, would it?
jerry – “Obama endorsed Stroger because Stroger was the Democrat in the race.” – I don’t recall Obama appearing at the campaign rallies of “the Democrat” in the Governor’s race that appeared on the same ballot.
===What is Obama willing to do, even if it means losing the election, to turn his idealistic rhetoric into reality? If the answer is nothing, then why is everyone getting so excited about this self-declared second-coming of Lincoln?
I’m not sure he’s Lincoln and I don’t think its so bad to draw on Lincoln as an example–I’m pretty sure Stevenson did it too.
But what did Lincoln run on in 1860? He wasn’t calling on the nation to eliminate slavery or even prevent secession since it wasn’t clear until after he was elected that secession was likely. He was, like most American Presidents, an incrementalist who compromised a lot. Then after the election things went south and he rose to the occasion.
Does that mean Obama would be that good if such events happened to him? I don’t know. I think so, but I don’t know and I don’t think any of us knows about candidates. I do think he has the judgment and qualities that a leader needs, but we don’t know until they are tested–and no one else in the field can really answer that. Even in McCain’s case where he underwent years of torture, does that translate into good judgment as the leader of the free world? I don’t know. I think he’d do okay.
Grand Old —
You point out that Obama endorsed Gianoulis, citing that as evidence of being intimately involved in state politics.
…False conclusion.
Recall that the head of the Illinois Democratic Party is one Michael Madigan. Party Chair Madigan had another candidate chosen to run for the Treasurer’s seat.
You may also like to know that while he certainly is more involved than his quote suggests (it’s a good quote for national media, not us Prairie State pragmatists) … he’s not deeply connected. In fact his Hope Fund is a state PAC specifically set up to counter Madigan’s Dem Party funds. Obama made verbal commitments to state-based candidates (local and state lege) but they were in the form of IOUs so that Madigan wouldn’t withdraw funds he had promised when Obama money showed up. The Obama IOUs came after Madigan money went into campaign funds. (The following is pure speculation: this may be part of the reason Madigan wasn’t very involved in running a statewide IL-House binge for Dems like Jones’ campaigns for the IL-Senate.)
I agree that Obama’s comments are a bit off just on the face of things, but some of the conclusions you draw don’t jibe with facts on the ground.
GOP – at what point was the outcome of the Governor’s race in question? JBT peaked the day she won the primary. Downhill from there. Toddler started in the crater and had to fight into competitiveness. How many events did Obama do with Duckworth? How many did he do with Jesse Jackson Jr?
Endorsing Stroger may not have been the brightest move he ever made, he could have sat it out, but as a Party Leader, he was needed to ensure the Cook County Prez seat didn’t flip.
I didn’t imply anything. I wrote what I wrote.
Don’t like “rich?” Stick with Ironic. Or unusual. Or different.
No need to read anything into every comment.
And for what it’s worth, it might just be a little disengenuous for those of us that regularly read and comment here to delve too deeply into goo-goo credentials and ideological purity and how many Todd Strogers can dance on the head of a pin.
Whether we skew left, right or center, we tend to be process people. And process people understand why a normally center-right Giuliani suddenly veers right on guns and gays. And we know why maverick McCain suddenly plays footsie with the people who shat upon his head. And we know why Kucinich is now pro-choice. And we know why Obama is engaged in a little party-building.
Doesn’t mean they’re bad. Doesn’t mean they’re not virtuous or good or special. Just means they’re running for president in 2008.
Jerry, Buck –
Okay, so your defense is that Obama is just playing partisan politics as usual? Great!! That’s my whole point. There is nothing “fresh” about Obama, other than his rhetoric (and even that isn’t as fresh as many claim). He says we should “turn the page,” but apparently not until AFTER he gets elected.
You are right, it doesn’t mean that he’s “bad.” But you are wrong about him being special. He’s not.
Although I don’t know if the conservative point of view requires thinking in absolutes, I do know it has been a useful rhetorical tool.
But the real world is chock full of nuance — a lot less black and white and a lot more gray.
Qualities like “specialness” or “greatness” or whatever you want to call it are subjective and intangible — and your declarative, Thus Spake Zarathrustra certitude is a little absurd, and a lot presumptuous, because it’s really up to the collective -and history- to decide.
Buck – fair enough. Where can I get myself an “Obama: He’s not as bad as other politicians” bumper sticker?
wow, reading this post I now realize why this approach is essential mankinds wellness, thanks! Thanks