Obama and Illinois: An Ordinary Chicago Politician in a Culture of Corruption

Is Obama a "new" kind of politician, or merely a corrupt Chicago politician who rose to power because he is black and articulate--thereby escaping normal scrutiny?

It is now clear, of course, that the case can be made that Obama is nothing more than a corrupt Chicago politician who rose to power as a willing part of the "culture of corruption" in Chicago.

Even the despicable Associated Press has a story today about the "questionable associates" of Obama.

Now Obama was the prospective buyer in the present scandal involving the selling of Obama's Senate seat by the present Illinois Governor. But Tony Rezko was a fund raiser for both the governor and Obama. Obama supported the governor, and vice versa (whatever the governor thought of Obama in private). Obama may not have committed any crime in the present scandal, but he has clearly moved in the same corrupt circles all of the other corrupt Chicago/Illinois politicians.

At the very least, Obama is exposed as the normal Chicago politican he is. What is the source of this present scandal? The Illinois governor saw a chance to trade on the power he had to appoint a new Senator. Why did the governor think this power was so valuable? Easy. Obama wanted his own choice to succeed him--Obama's own choice apparently being connected to Obama's campaign. The tapes show that the governor clearly knew who "Obama's choice" was to succeed him.

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign guru, said that Obama had talked to the Illinois governor about the Senate choice. On November 5, the day after the election, a CBS TV station in Illinois, reported that Obama had a scheduled meeting with the Illinois governor that afternoon to discuss the Senate choice (a "priority" for Obama). Obama is saying he had no contact with the Illinois governor, and no knowledge of what was going on. Obama--based on the preponderance of the evidence--is a liar.

There is just no doubt that Obama is nothing more than an ordinary Chicago politican, whether he did antything wrong in this particular scandal or not. His associates were the same as the Illinois governor, and other Chicago politicians. He comes from that culture of corruption.

If the media had given Obama the same scrutiny as, say, they gave Sarah Palin, would he now be President? I don't think so. The whole career of Obama is one of questionable associates, with no real accomplishments, and he clearly came out of that culture of corruption in Chicago. Who knows what there was there to find in Obama's past? We know only the tip of the iceberg, because the media was uninterested in trying to find out.

Some aides of Richard Daley (the mayor of corrupt Chicago forever, after his father was the corrupt mayor forever) were charged previously with corruption by Patrick Fitzgerald (same prosecutor involved in present charges against the Illinois governor). Daivd Axelrod--that same Obama guru--wrote an op-ed saying that exhcangin jobs for political favors was the "grease" that made politics possible, and criticizing Fitzgerald for suggesting that trading jobs for political favors was illegal.. Axelrod (I believe this is 20005) did admit that "shredding documents" and otherwise covering up what really happened could not be defended.

Again, the conclusion is obvious: Whether Obama is involved directly in any crime, these people are all Chicago politicians of the ordinary kind. That was covered up by the mainstream media is the recent campaign, in favor of accepting the mere words of Obama, to their eternal shame. The despicable AP, by the way, is reporting that Obama is not "out of the woods" on this scandal yet.

Whether Obama is involved in the most questionable parts of this scandal or not (again, he could not be involed as a "seller", since he was a "buyer"), this scandal is disastrous for him--showing the emperor has no clothes. In other words, Obama is exposed as an ordinary Chicago politician--not an "agent of change".