Ever since Barack Obama entered the presidential race, critics have tried to take the gloss off his reputation as a reformer, arguing that the former state senator should have done more to take on the Daley machine while in Springfield. Just last week, David Freddoso laid out that claim in the pages of the National Review:

But Friday’s story also serves as a reminder of what sort of governance Obama has willingly and knowingly backed with his good name. Despite his personal popularity, and the resulting capacity he had for political independence — despite having many opportunities to change Chicago in a positive way — Obama always chose to back a corrupt status quo. This amazingly unexplored part of Obama’s career falsifies the media image he has paid millions of dollars to project, as an agent of positive change.

So is a vote for Barack a vote for Daley and machine politics? Not according to the Reader's Ben Joravksy, who penned a must-read rebuttal published today. Here's the nut graph:

This year’s presidential election is about a lot of things, but it’s most certainly not a referendum on Daley. He’d consolidated his power long before Obama came on the scene, and he’ll hold on to it no matter who wins.

Exactly right. What's made the humble rise of the Independent Caucus so encouraging is that it's the first real kink in Daley's armor since he took office. As political scientist and former Alderman Dick Simpson has documented (PDF), Daley consolidated power early in his tenure -- when Obama was just finishing law school -- and hasn't relinquished much of it since. No matter how charismatic or intelligent Obama was, there's no way he's taking down the New Daley machine on his own.

Also important to remember is that Daley hasn't even been a big Obama supporter historically -- the mayor issued no endorsement of the South Side Democrat during first state senate run, his failed 2000 congressional race, or his 2004 Senate primary. That makes it difficult to characterize Obama has a machine disciple. It's better to look at him in the context of other Illinois liberals that moved on to national office:

Like every other liberal Democrat in this state, Obama had to make a monumental decision when he started his career. He could fight the machine, join it, or pretend it didn’t exist. He chose the third option, which put him in the company of most of the other liberals around here.

But I’ve cut Obama some slack, just as I did Dick Durbin, Paul Simon, Sidney Yates, Paul Douglas, and all the other liberals we’ve sent to Washington. Agreeing to look the other way while the machine does its dirty deeds is part of the deal they make to win a seat in Congress and start working on important national issues. Lots of Democratic superstars—like Harry Truman and John Kennedy—got their start with the backing of local political machines and went on to bigger and better things.

Joravsky's conclusion:

You want to vote Republican, go ahead. But don’t justify your vote for McCain as a vote against Daley. You’ll be fooling yourself. 

Critiques about Obama's reluctance to buck Daley are legitimate when they come from progressive reformers like Toni Preckwinkle, who have stayed focused at the local level, rather than seeking higher office. From Republican operatives and the National Review? Not so much.