Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama avoids stain of Chicago's political scandals
By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer
2 hrs 58 mins ago
CHICAGO On the campaign trail, Barack Obama liked to boast that he was a tough survivor of the bare-knuckled world of Chicago politics. But the president-elect also has steered clear of most of its scandals, navigating a careful middle ground that has left him relatively unscathed in a city synonymous with corruption.
Obama's awkward link to the seamier side of Chicago politics was thrust into the spotlight Tuesday when federal prosecutors charged Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich with trying to auction off the president-elect's vacant Senate seat.
There was nothing in the 76-page FBI affidavit to suggest Obama had done anything wrong, and on Wednesday, he called on Blagojevich to resign. But this latest in a series of Illinois political scandals also raised questions about whether it's possible to avoid completely the taint of patronage and payoffs that are so common here.
Obama has managed to remain mostly but not entirely untarnished by local political corruption. Some analysts and former legislative colleagues cite various reasons: his skill, brains and character, his reform-minded base and his path to power, which did not involve climbing through the ranks of the Chicago Democratic Machine.
"Rather than being above the fray, I think he has sidestepped the fray," said Don Rose, a longtime political strategist. "It's a tightrope-walking skill."...
The Article Posted: "There was nothing in the 76-page FBI affidavit to suggest Obama had done anything wrong, and on Wednesday, he called on Blagojevich to resign.
Obama has managed to remain mostly but not entirely untarnished by local political corruption. Some analysts and former legislative colleagues cite various reasons: his skill, brains and character, his reform-minded base and his path to power, which did not involve climbing through the ranks of the Chicago Democratic Machine."
Annie: They are of another world, a world that has now been opened to not only the US, but indeed, 'the world.'
I'm starting to think your respect for the rule of law, is far down the ladder of priorities compared to your loyalty to partisan party politics.
Why are you saying "they" are of another world; an obvious attempt to link Obama and Blagovich together, when your own article says the exact opposite. That there is no linkage.
And Obama called him and asked him to resign. Did Sara Palin call Ted Stevens and ask him to resign? Did George Bush tell Liddy to resign when he was indicted? No, they didn't.
You appear to have profound "respect" for Fitzgerald, when he arrests Democrats. But you appear to backpedal and downplay cases where Fitzgerald prosecuted republicans, like Libby.
How does the world look through partisan glasses?
Obama has managed to remain mostly but not entirely untarnished by local political corruption.
That tightwalk can't last forever.
I disagree about Obama being slick (see my previous post).Clinton walked that tight rope and is now worth $100 million. Obama is even slicker than Bill and has Hillary Clinton on his team. He'll not only walk that tight rope, but he will have unchecked power for at least 2 years and will likely become the wealthiest President in history.
Here, read these lists and then tell me he deserves a chance:The question is and I have to ask this of myself, why are we so determined to bring down Obama? Why were the Democrats so determined to bring down Bush, why were the Republicans so determined to bring down Clinton? I don't get it... the guy was elected by the widest margin number of votes for any non-incumbant with the same level of voting we had in 2000 and 2004 and we want to find as much dirt on him as possible AFTER the election and bring him down.
Why?
Why can't we all just accept the will of the voters, let Obama make his decisions, and if he screws up we'll yank him out of office in 4 years and put in Hillary or a Republican. But it's not about waiting 4 years for him to screw up... it's not about his economic policies or his social policies.. there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
And then read this list and see how he will destry the economy:The question is and I have to ask this of myself, why are we so determined to bring down Obama? Why were the Democrats so determined to bring down Bush, why were the Republicans so determined to bring down Clinton? I don't get it... the guy was elected by the widest margin number of votes for any non-incumbant with the same level of voting we had in 2000 and 2004 and we want to find as much dirt on him as possible AFTER the election and bring him down.
Why?
Why can't we all just accept the will of the voters, let Obama make his decisions, and if he screws up we'll yank him out of office in 4 years and put in Hillary or a Republican. But it's not about waiting 4 years for him to screw up... it's not about his economic policies or his social policies.. there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
It's not hatred. It's a lack of trust and a lack of agreement.
This is going to more fun than Bill Clinton's presidency. Willy was slick, whether delivering a speech, providing an interview or defending himself in court. Only Slick could come up with, "It depends on what the meaning of is is."
But Obama is only slick with a teleprompter - without one he is bumbling idiot. He simply cannot think on his feet.
Only a complete moron would deny he talked with a corrupt governor of his own state about the main issue of the corruption, when his number one advisor was just on the tele blabbing about him having talked with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption. And now we learn that the media actually reported about the meeting with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption.
We have an adminstration of bumbling clowns. Every day there will be new incredible revelations of hilarity. This is going to be the funniest four years in politics...
Clinton walked that tight rope and is now worth $100 million. Obama is even slicker than Bill and has Hillary Clinton on his team. He'll not only walk that tight rope, but he will have unchecked power for at least 2 years and will likely become the wealthiest President in history.
Bush graduated from Harvard Business SchoolThis kind of crap cracks me up.
Obama graduated from Harvard Law, but chose to do community work instead of corporate law where he could have easily made millions.
Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. They couldn't be more different.
Bush graduated from Harvard Business School
i just think it is so hypocritical that lefty morons call Bush a moron and stupid and then turn around and claim Obama is so brilliant because he graduated from Harvard when Bush got his MBA from HarvardL O L .... so true. A persons diploma and degree don't mean as much as people want them to. Plenty of morons graduated from very 'good' schools.
