I’ve never been especially moved by Barack Obama’s Rezko controversy. As far as I can tell, there was some quid, but nothing in the way of quo. After quite a bit of scrutiny, over a long period of time, there still didn’t appear to be much in the way of evidence pointing to any specific wrongdoing on Obama’s part at all.
That said, there were still some questions that needed answering, and some ambiguities that needed resolution. I’ve seen several observers suggest that Obama simply sit down with some journalists, let them ask anything they want about the controversy, and lay it all on the line in a completely transparent way.
Yesterday, it appears Obama did just that, sitting down with the editorial boards of both of Chicago’s major dailies — the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. (Why Chicago media? Presumably because they know the details of the story, and Rezko’s history, better than media in DC or NY.)
It appears that the Tribune, which has spilled a lot of ink on the Rezko-Obama connection, came away from the discussion satisfied.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.
The most remarkable facet of Obama’s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.
Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko’s wife subtly subsidized the Obamas’ purchase of their home on Chicago’s South Side. “This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true . . . simply, factually, incorrect,” Obama said Friday, adding that he didn’t need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house. Having said that, Obama also admitted, “You can back up and say the red light should have gone off.”
The Trib concluded, “When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.”
I’m curious, though, why on Earth Obama didn’t consider doing this sooner. Sure, he’s been busy, but c’mon. Clinton has been hitting the Rezko story pretty hard, and some people have been led to believe there must be something untoward about Obama’s conduct, even if they don’t know what it might be. So why not take this sit-down approach sooner?
The Tribune asked him.
Obama should have had Friday’s discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn’t, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it’s like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information — too eager to “control the narrative.”
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
Good for Obama. Better late than never.
For those unfamiliar with Chicago media, the Tribune’s editorial board is pretty solidly Republican, so if any paper was going to express skepticism about Obama’s Rezko story, it’s the Trib. And yet, the paper came away apparently impressed.
As for the campaign, I hope Obama has learned a bit about waiting to offer detailed explanations. Next time, do it sooner.