What about Obama and his 2006 support of Stroger? Why have we not heard about this in the press and media? With all the in-depth coverage of the election and thorough scrutiny of candidates and their records, it seems this should have become a front and center issue in the campaign.
This is a part of Obama's record that fully contradicts the image and persona cultivated by his campaign. I only learned of it about six weeks ago. For want of any better label, I call it Stroger-gate.
To begin with, I, like many, was initially impressed by Barak Obama. He seemed to be a fresh personality, well-spoken, a reformer, and a progressive-perhaps just what we as a country needed. I continued to have hope as I followed his progress, suspending judgment on the Jeremiah Wright, Rezko, and Ayers connections in hopes of more convincing and positive perspectives from fair and objective sources, which I haven't seen . Then, about a month ago, I learned of the Stroger business, which strikes at the heart of the Obama image--contradicting head-on the strong, clean leader persona he has cultivated throughout his current campaign.
Here are a few details:
Obama had the chance of a lifetime--throughout most of 2006--to be the strong, clean leader he professes to be. He had the chance to favor the reform candidate and oppose the flagrantly corrupt use and control of county contracts and cash flow, of jobs and personnel.
Preceding primary elections for president of the Cook County (Chicago) Board of Commissioners, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg framed the choice this way: "Isn't it enough that Stroger has turned Cook County government into a bog of waste, cronyism and incompetence? Isn't it enough that a solid, respectable, smart alternative exists? Claypool is a longtime reformer who has fought heroically to make Cook County better and more effective - if you are voting to try to improve the vital Cook County services, the vote is for Claypool.
Obama ignored that opportunity. Nor did he join the liberal-conservative coalition supporting another clear reform candidate in the general election. Rather, he chose to personally support (with Bill Clinton) the "bog of waste, cronyism and incompetence" that, much thanks to them, continues still today in Cook County.
Why did Obama say and do nothing to help solve Chicago's problems? Why did he actively support corruption rather than show independence or leadership? The answer had to do with the power of the Cook County political machine-Obama's corrupt allies, campaign donors, and network of influence, He chose personal and political security. He chose his pals. As creature of the political machine, he chose against the people.
Which then should we now believe, when the two clash head-on? His image or his record?
Another question: Why have you and I not heard of this before? It seems that we knew more about Sarah Palin in three days, both true and false, than we have come to know about Obama in several years. Why have the press and media largely ignored this matter, generally giving Obama a free pass? If you would like to know more, search the internet for "Obama and Stroger" and see, in particular, the 9/1/08 National Review, p. 41.
As for McCain, I recognize that much is not perfect. He admits great mistakes in his treatment of his first wife. However, he has shown some genuine independence and political courage in several crucial matters. (1) He chose to face severe torture and worse when he said no to his POW captors' offer of privileged treatment and early release. (2) He withstood the wave of harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric and proposals of a year or two ago, both within and outside his party . (3) He came very close to committing political suicide by urging a stronger and more effective approach in Iraq.
At this point I feel that I can trust him more than Obama, whether in domestic matters, foreign relations, or in the appointment of judges who respect the constitution. He is not the creature of a crooked political machine, which Obama apparently and unfortunately is.
