POLITICS MAY 19, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that last summer, Illinois Senator
Barack Obama told officials in the Teamsters union that he favored ending the
Independent Review Board (IRB) that was created in 1989 by the federal
government to rid the union of organized crime. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for
Obama, confirmed the story, saying that the candidate believed that the IRB had
“run its course” because “organized crime influence in the union has
drastically declined.” The Teamsters subsequently endorsed Obama for president, in late
February.
Obama and the Teamsters bristled at suggestions that any deal was
made. The Obama campaign also circulated a tape of a speech that Senator
Hillary Clinton made last March to the Teamsters saying “at some point the past
has to be opened,” but Clinton’s
statement, like those made by Senator John Kerry in 2004, stopped well short of
committing her to end oversight of the Teamsters. Based on the statements the
newspaper quoted, it is fair to assume that The
Wall Street Journal got the details right.
There are two reasons to be
concerned about Obama's actions here. The first is procedural. Obama’s promise
to close down the IRB suggests a Bush-like contempt for the customary
relationship between government and the judicial process. The president himself
can’t shut down the IRB. He can only recommend to his attorney general that he
recommend to the U.S. Attorney in New
York that it be shut down. But in these kind of
touchy matters, presidents usually defer to the judgment of their attorney
generals. By coming close to promising a shutdown, Obama was putting politics
above judicial procedure--which is just the kind of “Washington” behavior that he likes to
criticize his opponents for doing.
The second reason for concern
is more substantive. Labor leaders have made plausible arguments for shutting
down the IRB, but a Chicago
politician should be extremely wary of acceding to them. If there is continuing
mob influence in the Teamsters, it is probably centered in the Chicago area. And in the last decade, the
Teamsters in Chicago
have shown little enthusiasm for rooting out corruption in their ranks. As a
veteran Chicago
politician surrounded by a veteran Chicago campaign staff, Obama had to have
known this--and that makes his warm words to the Teamsters all the more
disturbing.
The IRB achieved some success in policing the Teamsters. In its first decade, it
suspended or ousted more than 500 individual Teamsters and recommended that the
union place 27 locals under “trusteeship,” which consists of replacing the local’s
leadership with outsiders appointed by the international. It also instituted
democratic elections of the top officers in the union, and ordered the ouster
of former Teamster president Ron Carey for accepting illegal campaign donations
in his 1996 election defeat of James P. Hoffa, who succeeded Carey three years
later, and continues to lead the union today.
But Hoffa and the Teamster
leadership have chafed under government supervision. To build an argument for
getting rid of the IRB, Hoffa set up his own internal oversight group. It was
called RISE (or Respect, Integrity, Strength, and Ethics) and was run by a
former federal prosecutor and organized crime expert Ed Stier. In August 2001, Hoffa
said,
“It’s time for the government to move out. We’ve created programs where the
union is clean, and it’s time for us to get from under government supervision.”
And Hoffa, President Bush and Representative Peter Hoekstra, a conservative
Republican who chaired a key House subcommittee, began an elaborate courtship
aimed on Hoffa’s part at disbanding the IRB.
But Hoffa’s efforts were
derailed by a sensational IRB report that appeared late that year detailing the
efforts of Chicago Teamsters, working with a Chicago labor broker, Richard
Simon, whom Stier would later describe as “having ties to organized crime,” to
undermine a Teamster local in Las Vegas by negotiating non-union, low-wage
agreements to service the city’s numerous business conventions. (I wrote an article, “Dirty Deal,” about this investigation in The New Republic on April 1, 2002.) The
arrangement was a clear breach of the union’s commitment under the National
Labor Relations Act to offer “fair representation” to its members. Yet Hoffa
and his top leadership initially aided the scheme by firing Las Vegas Teamster
officials who objected. Finally, the IRB expelled William Hogan, the President
of local 714, the most powerful Teamster in Chicago,
and forced the Teamsters to put a stop to the collusion between the Chicago officials and Simon in Las Vegas.
Meanwhile, Stier did feel
that he was making progress in his first years on the job, and it was not out
of the question to imagine that RISE could not merely supplement, but supplant
the IRB. In 2002, Teamster Spokesman Bret Caldwell told me that once the IRB was
shut down, RISE will "ensure that corruption is fully eliminated from the
union." For Stier, however, those
hopes were dashed the next year when he began investigating Chicago-area
Teamster locals for corruption. As he later detailed in a report, Stier
discovered “multiple issues related to organized crime [and] corruption” in
Local 714, and similar issues in five other area locals. The report concluded,
“Issues related to organized crime infiltration and associated corruption in
the Chicago
area are numerous and cut across jurisdictional lines.” But in the fall of
2003, as Stier was still in the midst of his investigation, the Teamster
leadership began objecting vociferously to it, and in February 2004, Hoffa shut
it down.
That April, Stier and 20
other investigators and lawyers involved with RISE resigned in protest. In the
report that Stier subsequently issued, he put the blame for his departure on
Hoffa’s Executive Assistant and on the president of Chicago Joint Council 25 of
the Teamsters. He accused them of bowing to present from “the Chicago organized crime family--known as the
Chicago ‘Outfit’--[which] concluded that its interests in Teamster matters were
threatened by IBT investigative activities and had ordered those activities
shut down.”
Hoffa and the Teamsters
released a report of their own in 2005 dismissing Stier’s charges. And that’s
where matters would have stood--except for the IRB. Last October, the IRB
recommended that the Teamsters remove the leadership of the main target of
Stier’s probe, Local 714, and place the union in trusteeship. It detailed numerous abuses by the union’s
leadership. Stier told the
Chicago Tribune, “I’m glad to see that the IRB is pursuing these corruption
issues in Chicago.
I think there is more to do.” The IRB’s actions, taken in the wake of Stier’s
resignation and the end of RISE, made a pretty good case that the IRB was still
needed.
All of this may be new
information for people who don’t live in Chicago,
but it can’t have been unknown to Obama and the Chicagoans who run his
campaign. Stier’s resignation and the IRB investigation, and the charges of
corruption and organized crime have been covered over the years by Chicago Tribune reporter Stephen
Franklin and other local journalists. Yet the taint of corruption and of ties
to organized crime seemed not to ruffle Obama and his campaign. According to the
Journal report, the Obama campaign
brokered the candidate’s promise to end the IRB with John Coli, the
Chicago-area chairman of Joint Council 25, whom Stier identified in his report
as one of the people responsible for shutting down his investigation. (Obama’s
Federal Election Commission records also show a hefty contribution to his
senatorial and presidential races from the same Richard Simon who hatched the
Vegas scheme to undercut local union workers and who, according to Stier, has
mob ties.)
Voters, of course, understand
that in order to get endorsements, politicians often turn a blind eye to
corruption. They employ lobbyists who have worked for nefarious domestic or
foreign clients or whose private activities contradict the politicians’ public
pronouncements. But if Barack Obama wants to run as the candidate of good
government and higher morality, the place to start may not be Washington, but his
home town of Chicago.
John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New
Republic.
52 comments
It's refreshing, at least, to see Judis change his anti-Obama theme--the refrain of Obama as the new McGovern was getting a little repetitive. So now we have Obama as the new Mayor Daley, Sr., the party boss making deals with corrupt unions. Given that in 1972, the McGovern forces made sure that the Daley delegation wasn't seated at the Dem. convention, I'm not sure how Obama can be both the second coming of McGovern and a party hack like Daley, Sr.; perhaps that's a topic for Judis' next essay.
- KC Johnson
May 19, 2008 at 1:54am
There is within the Teamster Union major incentives for mob related activities. Without exception incumbent Teamster officials are secure in their cushy offices. Because of the IBT constitution it is almost impossible to rid local unions of corrupt officials. The rules are prohibitive regarding hopeful candidates aspiring to Union office. Most Teamster officials are very undereducated and once in their expense account based positions will go to extremes to perpetuate their selves. It is possible and often true that a functiionally illiterate person can arrive as head of a large Teamster Local with assetts of a million dollars and a role in multi million health and pension funds. Once there they go to any extreme to maintain their lavish life style.
- TJ
May 19, 2008 at 5:02am
This is a prime example of the kind of change Obama has facilitated in his home state. He has supported the machine politicians of Cook County since his days in the illinois senate and continues to support these individuals now. As a politician professing political rectitude in a state wallowing in corruption, Barack Obama has a proven track record of hypocrisy. Rather then challenge the status quo, he has given unwavering support to criminal-politicians that plague the state and county (even after his election to the US Senate). What changes has Obama conjured in IL? None.
- deanpear
May 19, 2008 at 9:33am
It's absolutely amazing what this primary has done to some people for whom I've had enormous respect. Two immediate example that come to mind are Mr. Judis and Paul Krugman, who've never met a disingenuous hit piece about Obama that they weren't eager to share. This is really depressing, TNR.
- Bill
May 19, 2008 at 9:49am
Oh, don't worry. The Saint can do no wrong, and the mainstream media will help explain that to the voters. The only ones who won't fall in are racist anyway.
- MereMortal
May 19, 2008 at 10:09am
There is of course no smoking gun in this article; however, the vetting of Obama is coming too late. He has cruised to this point as Mr. Clean which is unlikely to withstand serious scrutiny. It is almost incomprehensiable that a politician can come out of the Chicago political machine and not have a few skeletons in their closet. The idea that Obama is some saintly political mover and shaker and not simply a politician is preposterous. There is a quote in the NYT by a family friend Rashid Khalidi, "People think he's a saint. He's not. He's a politician." Now that is what his friend who knows him says so we are probably in for additional revelations as the gloves come off in the general elections. Saints don't go into politics nor would they survive the real world of advancing through the ranks in Chicago. Wake up America. Don't faint at his next rally and vet this guy and see if he is really who you want as President. Of course, this is late in coming and now we may have two bad choices either Obama or McCain.
- rbrown207
May 19, 2008 at 10:18am
Judis, this story was reported in TNR months ago, yet you write breathlessly as though this is all revelation, do you even bother to read your own magazine?
- blackton
May 19, 2008 at 10:23am
You should add perspective that the WSJ avoided; namely the role the Teamsters enjoyed as the GOP's favorite union during the Nixon and Reagan terms.Hoffa has continued the warm up with Democrats started under Ron Carey, but GOP ties are not completely broken and they date from the suspicious friendships Nixon and Reagan had with the likes of Jackie Presser and Roy Williams.The bad feelings between Teamsters and Dems began when Atty. Gen. Bobby Kennedy started investigating Hoffa's father. Obama should be careful,but it's understandable that he, Hillary and other Dems want to keep the Teamsters from jumping back into the welcoming arms of the GOP.
- jnorquist
May 19, 2008 at 10:51am
I see Judis is trying for the "Perfect is the enemy of the good" award. I can just imagine his next article: "Back when Obama visited Dallas, his sneezing and nose blowing, which brought cheers from the crowd, was actually the sign of a man who does not pay attention to experts. Doctors had told Obama that all of the hand shaking and baby holding would cause him to get an infection, but he would not listen. How are we going to trust a man who won't even listen to his own doctors?"
- anonevent
May 19, 2008 at 10:51am
I really can't comment on this, other to say it's absolutely disgusting. Judis, do you really think you'll be assistant secretary of state in a Hillary administration? There's no other explanation for this garbage.
- Dave Blum
May 19, 2008 at 11:04am
(I should have written this in my earlier post, but I was enjoying writing Judis's next article.) Judis, if the best thing you can come up with is "he favored ending the Independent Review Board" you're really hurting for material. I favor never having to punish my kids ever again. I tell them that again and again, but then they keep getting in trouble, and so I have to keep punishing them. I also favor a world where there is no need for a military, but somehow I doubt it will ever happen. "Favoring" is not a promise.
- anonevent
May 19, 2008 at 11:14am
John, have you even bothered to attempt to investigate this issue to any length, or are you simply content with repeating last years rumors and innuendo? Are you actually concerned with the legitimacy of this story, or are you just trying to give people a reason for not voting for the black guy?
- GSpinks
May 19, 2008 at 11:32am
Judas, if you devote 10% of your tireless-up-all-night-foaming-at-the-mouth intellectual dishonesty to covering McCain and the republicans, we've got this one in the bag. We're not asking for much, just that you go Geraldine Ferraro on someone other than Obama at least once or twice before November.
- ralphnelle
May 19, 2008 at 11:37am
John Judis and The New Republic should be commended for bringing the issue of The Chicago Mob and The Teamsters to light.This is an important issue.Obama is a typical Chicago politician that isn't bothered by organized crime.The connections between union movement, Chicago Mob,and The Democratic Party are quite close.You might want to read this. http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/03/chicago-democrats-and-chicago-mob.html
- Steve Bartin
May 19, 2008 at 11:46am
Judis scrapes the bottom of the barrel and comes up with a teamsters endorsement that is based on a pledge less artful than Senator Clinton's (just like Senator Obama's promise to drawdown troops irrespective of circumstances on the ground was more artful than Hillary's, leaving her no room whatsoever to manuever without going back on it). And this is the big deal that's supposed to strike fear into the hearts of voters with the temerity to consider the merits of Obama's candidacy. Brother. Obama Derangement Syndrome has set in amongst some 'Democrats', (though really, Clinton supporters is a more apt modifier), before it has on the right. I never would've guessed it...
- Dan Hunt
May 19, 2008 at 1:42pm
Judis is just doing his job of attacking Obama. His elaboration of Obama unelectability have been exhausted. Now the topic is new but the target is same. At this point its fair to ask who does Judis work for.
- David
May 19, 2008 at 1:55pm
You have to give the Obama army credit for trying. But you take something like this article and add a little Rezko to it and a dash of Wright and sprinkle on some other Chicago hanky panky that is bound to be out there and you've got yourself a President McCain pie. Doesn't matter if McCain has equal baggage. He's got way more experience and has actually crossed party lines in his career (instead of just saying that he has).
- susan k. (NYC)
May 19, 2008 at 3:02pm
This is some mighty weak sauce, Judis. I went into this with an open mind, as the question of continuing federal oversight of the Teamsters is a complicated one. But the article reads like one of those breathless NYT pieces that tried to make something out of Whitewater. A duty-of-fair-representation violation? That's the best you can do? Not that that is even proved, but a union breaching its duty of fair representation is a long way from corruption. And you fail to acknowledge that federal oversight has also made for some partisan tampering with the union. To cite but one example, you tout the disqualification of Carey by the hand-picked-by-Republicans election officer as an accomplishment of the IRB. But that was a particularly ham-fisted and disproportionate punishment. Carey was indeed caught receiving outside money (that is money from outside of the union) for his campaign. People can argue whether that's actually an evil thing in and of itself (I think not) but it did in fact violate the constitution. The remedy should have been a re-run election. But the republican operative running the show decided to go much further by disqualifying Carey from holding office -- for good. That was an insanely disproportionate punishment that had the effect of ending the career of a very progressive, refrom-oriented president, who also happened to show that he had great promise as a tactitician, having won the UPS strike (I can count on one hand the major strikes that have ended in a union victory, with enough fingers left to open a beer). I'd be interested in a real article, backe by some real research, on the question of federal review of the Teamsters. This ooh-scary-Chicago-Vegas-must-be-gangsters shit ain't it.
- Sebastian Dangerfield
May 19, 2008 at 3:33pm
Obama may be setting the perfect trap. Eventually Obama may ask Americans to stop and think about what it really means to be "tough on national security matters." Whether it means going to war sooner rather than later, or going it alone when other countries can't be persuaded to cooperate, or just never, ever talking with certain countries. Obama could then note that we've tried all that, and look where it got us. He could ask: Do we want more of the same? Or do we want to try the possibility that a Nicholas Sarkozy or a Gordon Brown will be more apt to listen to a Barack Obama than a John McCain? Obama's got enough money to actually get that message across. It could be devastating.
- Mike
May 19, 2008 at 3:45pm
Regardless of Obama's ties and Judis' treatment of it - unions should be held to the same reporting and control standards as public companies; make them adhere to Sarbanes-Oxley and keep the IRB, too. Like any other organization, money and power corrupt.
- reb
May 19, 2008 at 3:50pm
To Obamaniacs, why worry, your candidate is already in the bag. This is the change he's been talking about. More corruption and more power....get it????
- DANE
May 19, 2008 at 3:54pm
Perhaps if Judis is really so "concerned" about Barack Obama's electability, he would turn is rumor mongering to John McCain. Before, Judis would write of Obama's "working class problem," by regurgitating inaccurate CW from Fox News and The Village, then call it scholarly because it was on the New Republic cite. I see here he continues his vendetta against Obama by providing innuendo about the Teamsters (could they have mob ties?), and the fact that Obama is in Chicago (which has a mob), and got endorsed by the Teamsters, hence Obama is now in the pocket of Tony Soprano's Chicago cousins. He fails to provide any facts other than he said he would favor shutting down the IRB months ago. Perhaps if Judis were concerned about Obama's working class appeal, he would harp on his attempts to reach out to a union. This type of guilt-by-innuendo has a place. It's on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, the page that used just this kind of innuendo to create a fake scandal in Whitewater, accusing the Clintons of, among other things, murder.
- BCdem
May 19, 2008 at 4:58pm
All I can say is, Chicago politicians get things done. And Obama will be no exception.
- ouchy
May 19, 2008 at 5:55pm
In the first sentence of this article, it states that Obama "favored ending the Independent Review Board (IRB)." It goes on to repeat multiple times that Obama made a "promise to close down the IRB." The WSJ article does not use the word "promise." Where is this coming from? This looks like a hit job to me -- favoring a stance on any issue is a far cry from promising action.
- DaveS
May 19, 2008 at 6:18pm
Obama= dark-suit-shiny-shoes-mafia-owned Chicago style politician, with crooks and criminals as his dearest friends, 20+ year member of racist Trinity Rev. Wright church, willing to meet with hostile leaders within first year without precondition = appeaser.
- The Truth
May 20, 2008 at 1:06am
Great reporting as usual, Mr. Judis. Sometimes I am not very sanguine about the human race when people can not even accept honest reporting but would rather have a publication, from the top on down, be a total partisan operation on behalf of their candidate. You individuals - and you know who I mean - should go to live in Mr. Putin's Russia where your style is much moree in evidence than in a democracy.
- liberal reformer
May 20, 2008 at 1:15am
I'm sorry, there appears to be 0 evidence in this entire article. A smear article based on conjecture coming out on Primary day just smells completely bad. I would hope that there would be actual research put into the allegations of this article, but this is completely bad form and is reckless to say the least.
- Chris
May 20, 2008 at 1:35am
No one can offer any evidence of wrong-doing by Barack Obama because his followers believe him to be the Second Coming, and they cling to their new religion with all the fervor and faith of the early Christians. Obama can do no wrong - period!
- myskylark@gmail.com
May 20, 2008 at 1:37am
BS Obama'08, Obama'12
- Pascuala Brownlee CA
May 20, 2008 at 2:20am
Sen. Obama's leadership is already having an effect. McCain's campaign is coming in line by letting go of insider lobbyists and special interests. McCain will try to end the war by 2012 instead of occupation of 50+ years or more. We'll work on Bush/McCain's tax breaks for the rich.
- ToySoldier
May 20, 2008 at 2:49am
Wow, the Jewish lobby must be really scared of Obama for The New Republic to be so outrageously biased in its campaign coverage!
- Observer
May 20, 2008 at 2:54am
There aren't any other important issues to write about? Who really cares about this issue? In the corruption game, the Clintons are whales (cash for pardons, prez library 'donations'), McCain is a giant squid (Keating 5, EADS) and Obama is just a tiny plankton (Teamsters endorsement, Rezko). This reminds me of the recent Republican attacks against Michelle Obama, which open the door to press scrutiny of McCain's drug-addicted, adultering, pre-nup signing, beer magnate of a wife. I'm glad to see Republicans overtaking Democrats in the art of shooting themselves in the foot.
- Openminded
May 20, 2008 at 3:22am
"Neubie" Obama lives in a house he got cheap from a Chigaco slumlord, Rezno under investigation and at trial for corruption. Perhaps not to be avoided in US politics, but it makes his attacks on Clinton hypocritical. A special procecuter with unlimited powers tried to prove she was corrupt, he failed and all he came up with was a blue dress. After 30 years of service in politics, Hillary is by far the most experienced and she has come into her own. Not like Obama, who is dancing to the pipe of old-senior Dems determined to stop her.
- Sylvia Johnsen
May 20, 2008 at 4:03am
This quid pro quo with the historically mob-infested union - 'you support me in the primary and when I'm President I'll do everything I can do get the independent review board off your back - doesn't matter to supporters of Mr. Obama. Remember, rank-in-file Teamsters are blue collar; and those are Hillary supporters. And besides, even though the MSM have thrown the race to Mr. Obama, if his computer savvy minions cared to learn the horrible truth about their candidate, they could have read the nasty facts, which appear well-documented all over the internet.
- jbjd
May 20, 2008 at 4:59am
Of course Obama is a fake, but a useful one - He is stopping the Clintons from doing an end run around the Constitution, and I feel grateful to him. This doesn't mean I will vote for him.
- redmanrt
May 20, 2008 at 6:06am
This article has a flashy title but no real punch. I clicked on the RCP link because I thought Obama might have been implicated in a real corruption scandal, but this isn't much better than innuendo, another example of the Right's associationist political attacks. Hopefully voters will read past the headline this year and not refuse to put someone in office because of some utterly insubstantial connection with another public figure or institution.
- Levi
May 20, 2008 at 6:14am
this is really overblown if you look for controversy you WILL find it. personally, i'm not all that impressed.
- john
May 20, 2008 at 7:48am
These comments are marvelous! They display all the sagacity of a presumptive president who would squander his negotiating leverage in face-to-face exchanges without preconditions. Senator Obama was a back-bench Cook County Chicago safe-seat Demo in the IL legislature, owned and obedient to the Daley/Stroger machine. He is also handsome, articulate and demogogic ("As soon as I saw him," swooned my sister-in-law, "I knew he was The One"). That's why his handler Dick Durbin got him the keynote speech at the 2004 Demo Convention. Now he is supposed to be an "agent of change" (chortle, chortle). And these people not only believe that, they have been so converted that they are blind even to the obvious. God Bless America - and God help her, too.
- PADDYSPIG
May 20, 2008 at 8:17am
I love the Obamiacs who trash the reporter here. No news reporting on Obama is justified to them. It's trash. If it was Bush, it would be gospel. You guys are great!
- gladRocks
May 20, 2008 at 8:29am
Congratulations. You just became a RACIST. Just ask Howard Dean.
- Timothy L. Pennell
May 20, 2008 at 8:34am
As I scan the message boards on the internet this morning, I'm convinced the report was accurate the other day that said the Obama camp had hired 400 bloggers to attack anyone who dares to state an opinion in opposition to the Obamamania take on life.
- itnr1
May 20, 2008 at 8:36am
My father was a lifelong Teamster who retired with an excellent pension while corporations are using pension funds as treasure chests. My older brother is a life long Teamster who was able to retire just this month at 56 with a comfortable pension and medical benefits. I went to college and got multiple degrees to supposedly have a better life. I lost all my 402K when I was hospitalized for two months. I became disabled after working for corporations for 22 years and have a tiny disability income from an insurance company. I lost my medical insurance. If I had worked for a union I would have health insurance, disability and pension benefits. This columnist is truly a bitter Hillary supporter who is not looking into the practices of corrupt heath insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that are supporting her campaign. This is completely a disingenuous hatchet job. Bashing trade unions who are one of the backbones of the Democratic Party. What's next bashing NARAL because they endorsed Obama?
- KQuark
May 20, 2008 at 9:06am
John Judis continues his concern-trolling of Barack Obama. Nowhere in this article is there a shred of evidence amounting to anything more than innuendo.
- Dave
May 20, 2008 at 11:03am
i believe you mean the clintons for power and money and the dirty money they receive from communist china there friends which is stuff away in the family clinton foundation
- ken 173rd abn
May 20, 2008 at 12:12pm
-
May 20, 2008 at 3:08pm
Thanks for the article. I read the WSJ article when it was originally published. The thought of a trade off between the Democratic candidate and a union with a history of organized crime connections made me very uncomfortable.
- Sarah
May 20, 2008 at 3:19pm
Unbelievable, blame the GOP, you can't stand when your savior is questioned. Stop drinking the kool aid. Yikes...
- Dek
May 20, 2008 at 4:32pm
- Beverly Danenis
May 20, 2008 at 9:09pm
Obama will tell you what he thinks you want to hear but will he do what he says, check out his record. He is all talk and no do.
- B. Danenis
May 20, 2008 at 9:10pm
Obamistas are fascists, at least on TNR.
- sleepyavl
May 20, 2008 at 9:18pm
Well, gentlepersons, Obama is all about change. But there is not even an implied promise the change will be good. The only promise is that we will see some change. Remember that.
- JD
May 21, 2008 at 7:53am
Obama is a well-spoken example of the typical Chicago politician (corrupt to the core), and his followers are sheep. Neither is really a new revelation at this point.
- Mark
July 2, 2008 at 9:04am