During the heated South Carolina debates, Sen. Hillary Clinton outed Sen. Barack Obama for his involvement with Chicago "slumlord" Antoin Rezko. Rezko, who serves as a landlord for a government-subsidized apartment on Chicago's Southside, has donated thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, while his apartments suffer from dilapidated facilities and sub-par living conditions.
After the media discovered Obama's involvement with Rezko, Obama defended himself by saying that he did not know about Rezko's "slumlord" reputation, although the two had been friends for 17 years. Recently, in an attempt to distance himself from Rezko, Obama donated $85,000 of Rezko's donations to charity.
Some may argue that the use of the money is more important than the source of the money. Ethical soundness won't necessarily help the people benefited from the charities, as money does. Thus, the money was used properly. Others believe that the moral integrity of the source should be in question, and Obama should take responsibility for his actions. By donating the money, he was trying to rectify the situation by transferring the attention toward something more positive.
However, is Obama's transference of attention just a ploy to keep his name clear? Of course it is, which only adds to the shadiness of the situation. Obama only donated the money after he was publicly criticized for his involvement with Rezko. It is not probable that Obama had no idea of Rezko's reputation, especially since Rezko's apartments are only a mile from Obama's home.
This incident doesn't mean that Obama will be a bad president, but his affiliation with Rezko makes him seem dishonest to the common people to whom Obama is campaigning. The fact that they have been friends and that he accepted money from Rezko suggests that Obama was willing to look past Rezko's indiscretions in exchange for money.
Either way, Obama should have stuck with his original decision. Accepting the money and then giving it away shows inconsistency and may even suggest a lack of judgment on Obama's part. A politician who wavers under media scrutiny suggests that he goes back on his word.
If Obama decided he made a mistake, he should have just said that he made a mistake and had a lapse in judgment with regards to the people he associated with. American citizens would have been receptive to an apology from an already beloved Obama.
But by making a public donation in the amount he was given, the gesture seemed like it was "for show" and perhaps even insincere, and that's just bad politics.
