If "Chicago Politics" is to be an accusation, or some sort of crime, then it would be appropriate to define it to make it distinguishable from "Republican Dirty Tricks" or "Communist Pinko Plots" or "Red Baiting" or "racism" or other generally ill-defined memes. Otherwise, the accusation is interchangeable with the other ill-defined accusations, such as "fascist stooge" or "running dog of Capitalism." The last is one I have never understood, by the way. "Revanchist" is another that puzzles me.
Is "Chicago Politics" the same as "Wisconsin Politics" or, these days, "Michigan Politics" or "Mississippi Politics?" Or is there some clear moral distinction that needs to be made here that escapes me between "Chicago Politics" and politics that openly longs for the days of pro-segregation policies and the Confederacy?
Exactly what is "Chicago Politics," how do you define it, exactly, so I can know if I'm for it or against it, and so I might know if I agree with your assessment of whether President Obama is a good example of "Chicago politics?"
So in a Thread called "Chicago Politics," maybe the originator of the thread could distinguish that concept from other similar concepts in such a way as to make it singularly identifiable. Otherwise, it simply seems a way of calling somebody semantically null names, or defending somebody against generic smears that have value only to partisans.
It would be more useful for me personally if the discussion was about something I could learn from and be lured out of my entrenched thinking by, a novel insight, a point of view that catches my by surprise. About this material, I'm afraid I already have a good idea what each of us will probably say, and I want to get the discussion onto new ground, where I'm surprised not only by the thinking of others, but by my own thinking.
Of course, if this discussion seems novel to you, and seems like it covers ground that you haven't been over before, I'll give it a shot. Other people may find it novel or fascinating, and I might be able to find something in it anyway. I simply find people too complex to simplify this way on the whole. You must know by now that President Obama is not my favorite person, for example; and you have some sense, I think, of what I think his flaws are.
You must know that if I see something wrong with the man, I'm not averse to saying so. I'm not even that adverse about saying stuff that's wrong with me, when I agree with it; and when I don't, I'm generally willing to listen and learn. The notion of "Chicago Politics" as far as I'm concerned, means nothing without a definition that most people can agree on, and one that successfully differentiates it from everything else, like the definition of "clay" or "iron." If you're going to make the phrase an insult, it should be distinct from other insults. Only then do we know what we're talking about.