Reply #59: This story is nothing but sensationalization... [View All]

If anything, the real conlusion to be drawn from this story is beneficial to Obama.

A couple things: First, Obama's people prevented invalid signatures from being used, and everything they did was legal. In other words, Obama won an election in one of America's dirtiest political cities without breaking the law. He should be praised for this.

Second, this invalidates any Clinton charge that he isn't a fighter. He unseated an incumbent without resorting to smears or negativity. Though some may see what Obama did as a technicality, it's really not: If your petition isn't up to snuff, you don't deserve to lead a general election campaign. CNN quotes the Tribune columnist as saying that Obama is not about bringing people together, but just muscling into office. If anything, it was Palmer trying to get into office with phony signatures. Palmer may not have been aware that these signatures were bad, but a good campaign should be able to verify their signatures before proceeding. They bumblefucked their campaign, and the Obama people were smart in not allowing themselves to be defeated by such a move. They had doubts about whether Palmer's signatures were valid, they challenged them, and it turned out their hunches were right.

What happened in Chicago in 1996 is the precise opposite of what this story implies. Saying Obama played hardball is accurate and even laudable, but to suggest that the kind of hardball he played was unethical is wholly untrue. CNN should be ashamed for raising this. It's nothing but gotcha politics. It's a ratings game.