Two Democrats ran for the Democratic nomination of state Treasurer of Illinois, but 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 or 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 who authorized loans to "Jaws" Giorango.  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.

Obama had to support Alexi, 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 on the values and the judgment of Barack Obama.  Indeed, one only endorses those whose judgment reflects one's values.  Moreover, one would only accept donations from those whose judgment one respects.  Alexi Giannoulias, by the way, is one of the most prolific bundlers for Obama's Presidential campaign.  Hope, it seems, is the product of the mob loans made by the Broadway Bank.

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 Alderwoman.  But Obama sees no conflict in endorsing a candidate whose flagrant nepotism 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, exonerates the corrupt Chicago politicians he endorses still remains a mystery.  Does he seriously beleive a mere statement will clear these individuals of their venality and nepotism?  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 iteration?  Is this an example of Obama's "new politics?"  And is this "new politics" a product of his judgment?   Are loyal Obama supporters always beyond reproach?  Loyal "Bushies," anyone?

Stroger's election to the Board was viewed with incredulity by Chicago reform Democrats who are finally coming to terms with that city's corrupt politics.  Ward bosses appointed Stroger to succeed his father after his dying father cleared a competitive primary against reform Democrat Forrest Claypool. It was a classic instance of Chicago machine politics with its valorization of incompetence and nepotism.  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 he ultimately succumbed to the Chicago machine he aids and abets.  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, Jr., has actually been a disaster, and his Democratic opponent in the primary, Forrest Claypool, has been very critical of Stroger's policy decisions.   Obama probably understood this, which may explain why Obama remained strategically "present" and silent during the primary. And yet, he endorsed Stroger, Jr., in the general, even though the viable reform Democrat who challenged the Stroger machine, 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 this nepotism and incompetence follow Obama to the White House?

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 your response with the Senator you just badgered; force the Senator to retract his statements; then tell the newspaper that the Senator who had the temerity to criticize you was cornered by the media.  The Daley machine always has its bases covered, and the obsequious Obama is always ready to oblige.

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 nepotism, 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 more years of scandal?  Can we risk a general election wherein Obama's poor judgment will be relentlessly exposed by the Republican nominee?