Suburban Guerrilla

Mar 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am by Susie

A look at Obama’s Chicago political roots. (h/t somegirl)

Posted in Politics As Usual

15 Responses to “The Man and the Machine”

on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:31 am1steveeboy

but come on, did he have to face sniper fire in chicago?

did he have to deal with a hungry Sinbad?

On the other hand, if you want to have a discussion about who is more of a machine politician, HRC or Obama, that would seem to be an interesting question…
on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:55 am2Susie

Wow, even an informative, neutral story is construed as a threat? Cut back on the crack, Jack.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 12:25 pm3votermom

Unbelievers may not speak His name, Susie. *snerk*
on 25 Mar 2008 at 12:41 pm4Bob

Susie: Maybe Steveeboy and I have missed the boat. You’re actually a master satirist. Thus, when you say with a straight face “Wow, even an informative, neutral story is construed as a threat?” you realize what a whopper that statement is and that’s the point. It’s satire!
At least that puts logic in your court.
The “informative, neutral” story you link to establishes nothing about Obama other than he made a laudatory speech on Daley’s behalf. Oh, there’s a lot implied – all of it sinister and dark - and I used that word advisedly – kinda like the way the article refers to the “servitude” of black politicians in Chicago. I guess in your view any statement about HRC that can be construed as sexist is proof of a whole host of sins while drawing a direct line from Obama to the “servitude” of blacks in the 60’s (and remember – he was born in 1961) is “informative” and “neutral” - not to mention the subtle racism inherent in the use of the word “servitude”.
Please, anyone who has read your site knows you are a hard-core Clinton supporter with no use for Obama, at least not now. And you know what: that’s fine – nothing wrong with that. Defend your candidate and attack the other. That’s what elections are about. But please spare us the “golly gosh gee willikers, I was just passing along information” routine. NO ONE familiar with your site could fail to understand posting to that article was an attempt to take Obama down a notch.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 12:50 pm5votermom

Afaik, Susie’s an Edward’s supporter.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 12:58 pm6Bob

Saying she’s an Edwards supporter is like saying she’s a Kerry supporter. There are only two candidates left in the Democratic primary. Read the last month’s worth of posts and tell me if you don’t see a slight slant in favor of Clinton.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:07 pm7steveeboy

yeah, drop the pretense susie.

you freak when people use the word “periodically” and “clinton” in the same sentence.

really.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:11 pm8brendancalling

Well, that’s 20 minutes of my life I’m never going to get back.

I already knew that Obama’s a politician, and I already knew that Chicago politics are dirty and hardball. I also already knew that Obama’s not Eugene Debs come back to life. So what exactly was I meant to take away from that article, other than a repetition of stuff I already knew?
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:25 pm9Susie

Someone should explain to me how comparing him to Harry Truman is an attack. I’m quite intrigued by the reaction. To me, this is just a run of the mill political story, no big thing, no axe to grind. Plain old vanilla context, I thought.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:43 pm10Bob

Wow. Ok – I’ll bite. Here’s a paragraph by paragraph breakdown of the “vanilla” article.
The first 5 paragraphs set the scene. Obama is compared to Truman in that both have roots in corrupt political machines. I can’t believe Team Obama hasn’t thought to put that on the bumper stickers yet.
Paragraphs 6 – 13 set out to prove the wholesale corruption at the heart of the Daley, Sr. machine.
Paragraph 14 claims Obama looks the other way and pretends the corruption doesn’t exist or isn’t important.
Paragraph 15 lumps all black Chicago politicians in the “see no evil” camp.
16 is about Mayor Washington.
Paragraph 17 drops Obama in the lap of the ever-corrupt Daley and – with no sourcing of course – discusses an Obama “…speech so reverential it made some of the senator’s fans cringe in embarrassment.”
The concluding paragraphs 18 and 19 – are at best weasel words – “his backers tell me…” “what everyone is hoping…”
You know, now that I’ve looked at it afresh, you’re right, plain old vanilla, informative, neutral writing. I’m gonna forward it to Obama HQ – I’m sure they’ll want to distribute it to the press.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm11Susie

Maybe I just read a lot more than you do. To me, this is nothing - you could even argue it as an effective innoculation piece against his affiliation with machine politics, as in, “See how well Harry Truman rose to the occasion.”

It’s not even a little shocking, and it puts young Richie in perspective.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 3:52 pm12steveeboy

oh,

never mind!

it was just an FYI!

thanks for that, really, I feel much more informed now.

Obama is Truman, got it.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 8:59 am13Bob

Amelia: Politics is about either grabbing opportunities when they exist or being such a strong leader you create the opportunity. A brief window opened when the American people were firmly behind universal health care (compare polling data for the 90’s/2000’s and you will see a big spike in support in the early 90’s) When that window opened it was absolutely necessary to grab the opportunity and make it happen. The opportunity was given to Hilary Clinton. For all the reasons I listed (and I actually did list very specific reasons) she failed. Let’s reverse it for a second. Image her Health Care Task Force had succeeded. Would that today be her major selling point in her campaign? Of course it would – and rightly so. So she gets the credit if she succeeds but no blame if she fails.
And please, actually address the substantive issues I raised. Here’s what you wrote in response to a detailed comment by me: I don’t know anything about what happened but I know I don’t like Tim Russert and he said the same thing so you are just like Tim Russert and just another Hilary hating man.
Christ I’m sick of this clichéd charge of sexism anytime a man isn’t a whole-hearted Clinton supporter. Tell me Amelia, seeing as you don’t support Obama why should anyone listen to you? You’re obviously a racist; why do hate black people so much? Did that strike you as a particularly stupid statement? If so, how is it any different than the sexism charge you casually fling at any man who prefers Obama?
on 26 Mar 2008 at 10:09 am14Bob

Regarding my comment #13 above: my apologies. It belongs on the post entitled “More Character Gap”. I had multiple windows open, do all my writing in Word then cut-n-paste and, I dont’ know, I guess I just screwed that one badly.
on 27 Mar 2008 at 4:31 am15barb

The ironic thing about Chicago, where I grew up, is that the city and the majority of its workers positively flourish economically and in many other ways despite, or in some ways, because of the hard-core political realities. There have never been any serious downturns in employment compared to other cities in the region. Pay levels are high. Workers are feisty. The arts and music and restaurants are top notch. The city works far better than many with more goody two shoes reputations. That’s why Daley keeps getting elected. He spreads the graft and jobs around quite generously and to a wide range of people and economic strata.

I’m not saying there aren’t losers, unfairness, injustice, etc. I’m just saying that given a choice, I’d pick Chicago’s rough and tumble climate over many other cities that are more ethically run in the conventional sense but where workers and ordinary people fare much worse.

Comments RSS

The Man and the Machine

15 Responses to “The Man and the Machine”

Leave a Reply

My Liberal Identity:

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags

Pages