Streetwise Professor

December 10, 2008

Two Questions For Obama

Filed under: Politics,Uncategorized — The Professor @ 11:16 pm

“In your years in Chicago and Illinois politics, have you ever witnessed any corrupt acts?   If you have, what did you do about it?”

I hope some journalist has the guts and the independence (i.e., not scuba diving in the Obama tank) to ask these questions.   I am not holding my breath.

Given what is known–and has been known long before I was born–it would be completely incredible for Obama to answer “No” to the first question.   Corruption is endemic in Chicago, and in Illinois state government.   It is almost certain that the answer to the second question is: “Nothing.”   If he had done something, no doubt we would have heard about it.

So, here are the possibilities:

1. “No” to Q1=he’s a liar. No need to proceed to Q2.   (But, then again, he claims he never heard “Reverend” Wright make racist or anti-American statements, so apparently he can make incredible statements with no adverse consequence.)

2. “Yes” to Q1, “Nothing” to Q2=he’s honest (I guess), but complicit in corruption.

3. “Yes” to Q1, “Something.”   Seems like a set of measure zero.

Hardly seems like the qualifications for Savior.

And we should remember: Blagojevich was elected as a reformer offering change to clean up the corrupt (Republican) government of Illinois.   I kid you not.   The moral of that story: Beware of Illinois Democrats bearing the gift of honest government.     Unfortunately, I fear that just as the Trojans didn’t learn the lesson about Greeks bearing gifts until it was too late, so have we.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Clearly the answer to your Question #1 is NO. My reasoning:

    1. Obama is the Savior
    2. The Savior can walk on water.
    3. Therefore the Savior can walk on the cesspool of Illinois politics, without sullying His robes.
    4. As a result, the Savior has never been in the cesspool of Illinois politics and thus has never witnessed any corrupt acts in Illinois.

    All kidding aside, your questions for Obama are excellent ones, but ones that will never be asked by any journalist. Throughout the campaign and the post-election period, Obama has never been subjected to the tough, aggressive, and often disrespectful kind of questioning Bush has received during his term.

    Comment by FigJam — December 11, 2008 @ 3:24 am

  2. I think the SWP is missing the point here 😉 The question is what alternatives do we have. We should ever remember that we are constrained by the sample space of events that can happen. Obama might have witnessed corruption and chosen to remain silent. In hindsight that is really a wise move. You cant clean Chicago’s shit by being in Chicago. You need to climb a level up.
    On the other hand, we have a known corrupt politician, Mc Cain. He palled around with corrupt local businessmen like Keating way back in the 80’s. When the scandal came to light , he threw Keating under the bus(what else do you expect from someone who cheated on his sick wife who stood by him while he was rotting in Vietnam), came out clean (oh what a surprise!) and got back to normal politics because the Reagans still loved him so much.
    Given to choose between the scylla and the charybdis, the people were decisive in choosing the scylla. May be because the charybdis was from prehistoric times despite wearing a lipstick :-D.

    Comment by Surya — December 20, 2008 @ 11:25 am

  3. What is disconcerning about politics in our country is that it seems that many candidates have to either work with people of questionable character to rise to higher levels in their parties or work with people who are affiliated with questionable groups. This is not a party issue, but it appears that the mainstream media really goes after one party versus the other.
    While our country is not as corrupt as many other countries in the world, it does seem that there are many in the US that believe we have to accept the baggage of some sort of inappropriate activity by our leaders.

    With regards to the IL state government, the rumor is that the Feds kept former Governor Ryan in place as long as they did because once he found out about the investigation by the Feds, he transitioned to a clean operation. The Feds supposedly realized this and decided that this was one way to keep IL state politics above board in the Governor’s office for a period of time. If this is true, this does not speak well of IL politics.

    On the topic of our president elect, I am still trying to figure out how he was not tainted by his Rezco dealings, let alone the Blago investigation that has been going on for three years. Interesting that the Rezco sentencing/deal and Blago are both coming to a head after the election?
    I may have been born at night, but not last night.

    Comment by Kathy M — December 29, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress