Many here tout the endorsements the candidates for the Presidency receive. Ignored in all this chatter, however, are the endorsements the candidates have made. The latter provides a rare view into the priorities and values of the candidates. Because each diary can only accomodate one candidate's endorsements, I will limit my discussion to those made by Barack Obama.
Alexi Giannoulias for Illinois state Treasurer
Two Democrats ran for the Democratic nomination of state Treasurer of Illinois. Obama chose Alexi Giannoulias. This choice was controversial for many reasons. According to one news report,
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.
It may not have been legal, but it was certainly not ethical. In fact, it reeks of dirty machine politics. But Obama still supported this questionable candidate. Here is Obama after it was discovered that the Giannoulias family bank bankrolled mobsters:
"I continue to believe Alexi is a person of good character and his experience will serve him in good stead as treasurer," Obama said.
And he certainly would, for the Giannoulias family invested $10,000 into Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. $10,000, I guess, can buy an endorsement, even if the mob and prostitutes are involved. But I still wonder how this endorsement reflects the values of the candidate. For one only endorses those who reflect one's values.
Dorothy Tillman for Alderman
This endorsement, which Obama made before the 2007 municipal elections, is also problematic, for Tillman is widely known for engaging in cronyism when it comes to competitive City contracts. According to the Chicago Tribune article cited above,
Obama endorsed former Ald. Dorothy Tillman (3rd), calling her "a very early supporter of my campaign." Tillman was then under fire for her stewardship of the scandal-plagued Harold Washington Cultural Center, where contracts benefited members of her family.
There is a reason Dorothy Tillman is a former Alderman. But Obama sees no conflict in endorsing a candidate whose cronyism led her constitutents to reject her candidacy, even though she was an incumbent with key endorsements. I quote Obama from the same article:
"I have been very proud of my track record as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator in terms of maintaining highly ethical behavior throughout my public life," he said in a recent interview. "Dorothy Tillman and Alexi Giannoulias were strong supporters of mine. There were no allegations that they had done anything illegal. And it was not a conflict for me to show my support for them."
How his behavior in Washington, DC, affects the behavior of the corrupt Chicago politicians he endorses still remains a mystery. Does he seriously beleive his mere statement will clear these individuals of their venality and cronyism? Does the fact that they supported his candidacy make what they did any more palatable? Does he seriously think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would take that quotation seriously? Or is this just machine politics in a new form? Is that what he means by "new politics?" And is this "new politics" a reflection of his valorization of cronyism? Do loyal "Obammies" always get a free pass? Loyal "Bushies," anyone?
Todd Stroger for Cook County Board President
Stroger's appointment to the Board was viewed with incredulity by Chicagoans who are finally coming to terms with that city's corrupt politics. Ward bosses appointed Stroger to succeed his father, a classic example of cronyism and, in the case of Stroger, the machine valorization of incompetence. Obama, according to one news report, was not terribly pleased with this state of affairs. I quote:
Obama admitted that he did not like how Stroger was voted in by the city's ward bosses.
But again, he will succumb to the machine. I quote from the same news story:
"He is a good man," Obama said. "He cares about people, and I think he's in politics for the right reasons."
"I would have preferred a more conventional way of getting a nominee," Obama said. "I think at this point, when I compare the two candidates, I think Todd's going to do a better job."
Todd has actually been a disaster, and his Democratic opponent in the primary, Forrest Claypool, has been very critical of Stroger's policy decisions. But Obama still endorsed the machine candidate. Obama could have remained silent, as he did during the Big Box Ordinance, which would have forced WAL-MART to pay a living wage. After all, the Big Box Ordinance was a huge topic during the municipal elections. But he decided to throw in with the machine, even though a fellow Democrat, Forrest Claypool, referred to the practices of Stroger's father before Junior's appointment as "nepotism at its worst." The Strogers have a history of staffing positions with incompetent relatives, and Junior was no exception. Obama, it seems, endorses this incompetence and nepotism. Would he bring this nepotism with him to the White House?
Richard Daley for Mayor of Chicago
Here is Obama in August 2005:
In August 2005, Obama nearly ran into trouble with Daley when he hedged on whether he'd support the mayor for re-election in light of the corruption investigations at City Hall.
Asked then if he planned to support the mayor or if the corruption probes might have given him pause, the senator replied, "What's happened -- some of the reports I've seen ... give me huge pause."
But the Senator received a call from City Hall just after those comments were made, and he switched his position. Here is Obama one hour after those statements were made as reported by the same article:
An hour later, he called the Sun-Times saying he wanted to clarify his remarks. Obama said the mayor was "obviously going through a rough patch," but he also said Chicago has "never looked better" and that "significant progress has been made on a variety of fronts." The senator said then it was "way premature" to talk about endorsements because the mayor had not yet announced his candidacy.
Daley didn't hold a grudge against Obama. He reportedly concluded that the freshman senator had been trapped by a loaded question.
Machine politics at its best: badger the Senator who made a negative statement; coordinate message with the Senator you just badgered; have Senator retract statements; then tell newspaper that the Senator who had the temerity to criticize you was cornered by the media. The Daley machine always has it covered.
And what was Obama criticizing? He was voicing concerns over the Hired Truck Scandal, which was well documented in the Chicago Sun-Times. Just look at the dossier the Sun-Times compiled at this website. There is plenty of reading here if you wish to read about the underbelly of Chicago politics, an underbelly Obama endorsed in late 2006.
Giannoulias, Stroger, Tillman, Daley: again and again Senator Obama has endorsed cronyism, incompetence, corruption and scandal, but always with the qualification that it is all legal. Given these precedents, what will Obama allow in the White House? Can we risk four years of scandal? Can we risk a general election where all of this will be exposed by the Republican nominee? And what does this say about Obama's "new politics?"
|
|
|
Permalink :: 43 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
