Barack Obama is often considered as a clean cut, polished, eloquent and charismatic politician. He is viewed as one of the few politicians in America that has managed to campaign and get elected to office without a major scandal. In his few years in office with the Senate, he has managed to become one of the bi partisan leaders garnering prominence in the Democratic party and respect from the Republican party. Due to his reputation as a fair and balanced politician, he is considered to be the most likely Democratic candidate for the presidency. With this prestige comes an equal level of scrutiny. Due to his “squeaky clean” image, things that normally would not garner any media attention are. For instance, questions are being raised about a real estate deal Obama was involved in.

What is the story? Here is what happened according to Slate Magazine (a magazine that I consider to be credible, fair and balanced)

“The Chicago Tribune broke the story back in November. It begins in 2004 with Obama’s $1.9 million book advance for The Audacity of Hope. In June 2005, Obama used the money to purchase a $1.65 million Georgian revival home on Chicago’s South Side—$300,000 less than the asking price. On the very same day, Rezko, a Democratic Party fund-raiser and developer, bought the adjacent empty lot at the asking price from the same owner (the house and the lot were previously owned by the same person). Rezko, who had raised money for Obama and known him since the senator attended Harvard Law School, did not develop the empty lot. In January 2006, he sold a 1,500-square-foot slice of it to Obama for $104,000, a fair sum in that market.”

What is the big deal? People are questioning whether Obama got the property at the reduced price because of Rezko’s purchase of the adjacent lot on the same day. The second question being raised is the second purchase of land back from Rezko in early 2006. Should politicians negotiate deals with members of their campaigns? Probably not. The “scandal” centers around Obama’s level of knowledge of Rezko’s same day purchase. Rezko is being investigated for allegedly trying to obtain “kick backs” from companies seeking state business in Illinois.

What is the real story? This story would not have made it to any front pages if it had not been for Rezko’s shaky history. This is not a story about Obama’s integrity, it is a story about trying to connect the politician to his associate’s integrity. Obama has openly stated that, if anything, it was a “bad judgement call.” I believe Obama for two reasons. He has been open and honest with disclosing all information surrounding the deal, and he has not changed his story at all since the story broke. Consistency and honesty go a long way.

In the future, I think Obama should do what he has vowed in response to this “scandal” and be extra careful about doing deals with campaign fundraisers in the Democratic party. The legality of the deal is not in question because nothing about the deal was illegal. Rezko is the one under investigation, not Obama, however I do think Obama needs to distance himself from this guy. This is a another case of the news media trying to create a story about a politician through association. Should Obama be scrutinized for doing deals with Rezko? Yes, to an extent for his involvement with Rezko to determine the nature of thier relationship, but Rezko is the one in question right now.

Obama has just learned one of the first lessons in political battle, it is not who you know, it is who you are known to be around that can get you in trouble in Washington. At the end of the day, this is “much ado about nothing” and it is being blown out of proportion because there isn’t any other newsworthy scrutiny of Obama’s character. If this would have been Tom Delay, it would have never made the papers.