No ‘Obama High’ anytime soon, at least not one within Chicago proper

It seems there won’t be a high school any time soon in Chicago named for President Barack Obama.

 

For months, Mayor Rahm Emanuel had made such a suggestion, saying that a new school building to be constructed near the site of the former Cabrini-Green public housing complex would get the president’s name.\

 

OF COURSE, THAT aroused the anger of those individuals who don’t want anything that could be perceived as a tribute to the current president. But it also outraged the majority African-American population of the city’s South Side; who believe that any school bearing the current president’s name ought to be located somewhere south of Roosevelt Road.

 

It certainly shouldn’t be located in an area so close to the Gold Coast where the perception was that the demolition of Cabrini-Green was done more to chase black people away from the wealthy part of Chicago, rather than any concern for the area’s future development.

 

It probably would result in a majority white enrollment at such a school named for the nation’s first president of African-American racial origins.

 

The perception was that Emanuel was offering up the idea of an Obama school as a gesture of sorts to African-American voters, many of whom are still disgusted at the notion that many of the school facilities that were closed in recent years were in their neighborhoods.

 

AS THOUGH THE problems with Chicago schools exist because of the high black enrollments, rather than neglect of such schools by past and present administrations.

 

Black voters seem to have saw through the tactic. At least one alderman wondered why the mayor didn’t try to focus on getting a decent supermarket into some of the more impoverished neighborhoods of the city – ones that such chains often avoid like the plague.

 

Others wonder why city officials couldn’t build a new high school with college preparatory programs somewhere on the South Side, rather than the near north where some think there already are enough quality schools – this one would be just a few blocks from the Walter Payton College Preparatory School in the River North neighborhood.

 

Although it should be noted that while Emanuel is backing off his talk of naming a school for Obama, he’s not giving up on building a school near north in Chicago – a facility that supposedly will accommodate about 1,200 students and will be built by 2017.

 

NOT THAT THERE won’t be school facilities in the Chicago area bearing the Obama monicker. Officials with Park Forest-Chicago Heights School District 163 in the south suburbs announced recently their plans to rename a couple of existing schools.

 

One will be called the Barack Obama School of Leadership and Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, while the other will now be the Michelle Obama School of Technology and the Arts.

 

Perhaps Emanuel’s real mistake was in not including the first lady in his plans to pay tribute to his former boss (the mayor is the former White House chief of staff).

 

Maybe South Side Chicago would have been more receptive to paying tribute to the South Shore neighborhood native than to the guy who came to us following a childhood in Honolulu?

 

PERSONALLY, I’M WARY of naming buildings or streets for people. It can result in too many trivial types getting honors. How many Carol Moseley-Braun schools are there in existence that wish they could “take back” their choice of a name that a couple of decades ago seemed like a natural tribute?

 

Then again, I went to elementary schools named for World War II generals George S. Patton and Dwight Eisenhower (along with a junior high school named to be a memorial to that war’s soldiers). Perhaps I’m just too engrained to think that the modern-day politicos whom I have written about can’t possibly be old enough to be worthy of such a designation.

 

Just as I can already envision the political fight of the future when somebody proposes naming a school for Emanuel himself!

 

  -30-

Carol Moseley Braun: A cautionary tale

From the old days

There are times I wonder what the conservative ideologues have in mind for Barack Obama when it comes to a legacy.

After all, the man had the unmitigated gall (in their mini-minds) to win a term as president. So I’m sure they’re going to do everything they can to spin his life A.P. (that’s “after president”) into some dismal tale of failure.

WHICH MEANS THEY’D probably like to turn him into Carol Moseley Braun, who is back in the news these days because her campaign operation that tried to get her elected mayor didn’t bother to do the final paperwork to close itself out.

Although she lost badly on Feb. 22, her campaign was required to file papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections in mid-April. She did, admitting to raising $323,000 and spending $315,000.

There were no breakdowns of her expenditures, as required by law. Although she was permitted to file those documents (of any expenditures over $150) during the summer months.

We’re now into autumn, and we’re still waiting. Her campaign hasn’t filed, although Moseley Braun is telling certain reporter-type people that the problem is the fault of her former campaign treasurer (and long-time supporter) Billie Paige.

THE FORMER U.S. senator from Illinois used the words “elderly” and “overwhelmed” to describe Paige, although there are those who say the 75-year-old Paige is anything but when it comes to her physical and mental condition.

I haven’t seen Paige in years, so I can’t say first-hand what shape she’s in. But considering that Paige quit her post after filing the disclosure in mid-April, I’d say the Moseley Braun people had quite a bit of time to figure out that they needed to get someone in to finish up the paperwork.

For those who want to say that it’s just paperwork and shouldn’t matter, I’d argue that it’s these kinds of nit-picking details that have all the potential in the world to blow up into a major catastrophe.

Then again, such inattention to detail seems to be part of the Moseley Braun makeup. I recall her ’92 campaign for U.S. Senate when it became public knowledge that there were questions about the way she handled her mother’s finances, particularly some rural property she owned, at a time when her mother was getting into Medicaid.

SUCH FINANCIAL HELP with medical expenses is for the indigent and the federal government really does like a person to show they have no assets whatsoever before they start picking up the bills for medications and doctor visits.

I recall Moseley Braun sounding astounded that anyone would think her mother would have to sell off assets before being able to qualify. So I have no problem believing that she’s probably equally astounded today at the idea that she should have to file more documentation of a campaign that has been over and done with for seven months – and never went anywhere of significance while it existed.

I did get my chuckle from the Chicago Tribune, which on Friday used its website to do a cheap, quickie rewrite of the reporting on this issue done by Carol Marin for WMAQ-TV and the Chicago Sun-Times.

They threw in a line saying that failure to fully disclose details related to campaign finance can result in fines, and even a potential ban on being able to run for government office in the future.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS that Moseley-Braun’s “income” in recent years has been minimal, largely from some attempts to create her own business that haven’t really gone anywhere. When was the last time you saw any products manufactured by “Ambassador Organics?”

This was a woman who was running for mayor of Chicago because she needed a regular paycheck.

I can’t envision that they’d get much of anything from her in the way of fines. Perhaps they’d ensure that she will spend the rest of her life in debt. But there reaches a point when we have to ask, “What’s the Point?”

And as for the idea of a ban on being able to run for office, I’d argue that was already given to her when she came in dead last among the “so-called” major candidates for mayor, and where even the fringe candidates such as Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins showed more class while campaigning.

SHE’S NOT ABOUT to get elected to anything. And she probably can’t get the finances to run even a long-shot campaign for the most-minor of political posts.

It has been 19 years since the night she managed to beat her various Democratic primary opponents, then go on to actually win that seat in the U.S. Senate – where she will forevermore have that historic designation as the “first black woman” to serve in that legislative chamber.

But there are too many ideologues who were offended by her presence back then, and who are now all too gleeful as to her current circumstances. Whether you believe she brought much of this on herself or not, she ought to be a cautionary tale for many politicians – not just Obama – as to how NOT to behave.

Although I remain convinced there are those who will go out of their way in future years to try to make his A.P. life nothing more than a Moseley Braun sequel.

  -30-

Is it over?

EMANUEL: Mayor Daley 2 1/2?

We have 11 more days until we’ll know the answer to that question, with regards to the mayoral elections for Chicago.

Nobody is disputing that Rahm Emanuel is going to get significantly more votes on Feb. 22 than any other individual mayoral candidate. The only real question is whether he will get more votes than all of them put together – which would result in a majority that would negate the need for a run-off election.

CONSIDERING THE CAMPAIGN strategies of all the other candidates for mayor has been to finish in second place so they could then go head-to-head against Emanuel in an April 5 run-off, the election to be held a week from Tuesday could well turn out to be a swift kick in the pants for Gery Chico, Carol Moseley-Braun, Miguel del Valle and Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins.

As for William “Dock” Walls, he has run so many token campaigns for so many different political posts that I can’t help but think the “swift kick” in the pants is completely expected on his part.

Some observers were getting all worked up over a recent poll commissioned by WLS-TV. The good people at “Eyewitness News” told us earlier this week that Emanuel already has 54 percent, while the newest Chicago Tribune poll puts him at 49 percent with upward momentum. He’s kicking butt, even if this were a two-way race.

In a six-way fight for political supremacy, this election has become a sick joke.

OF COURSE, THE observers also were getting their giggles from the showing of Moseley-Braun, who had all of 6 percent support to show for herself.

Six percent?!??!?

That was even worse than del Valle’s 8 percent, putting her in fourth place (although I’m sure the most hard-core Moseley-Braun partisans will argue that 6 percent and 8 percent are close enough that they fall within a statistical tie. All of that “margin of error” funny business.

Which could very well mean that the whole idea of an African-American backlash to the idea of a run-off between Emanuel and Chico (with no African-American candidate) may not pan out.

VARIOUS POLLS INDICATE Emanuel is taking significant portions of the African-American vote, which could very well mean that many black people don’t want to be left out in the cold should it occur that Rahm is the one who winds up taking the oath of office to be Chicago mayor come early May.

Which may also be another reason to ask, “Is it over?”

Are we at the point where enough people have accepted the concept of “Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel” (even if, deep down, the thought makes them want to wretch) that they may well cast their ballots like good little political sheep?



CLAYPOOL: Returning the favor?

Because the words of wisdom of one-time alderman Paddy Bauler (Chicago ain’t ready for reform) may well still be true today.



I WRITE THAT after learning (from the website of the Capitol Fax newsletter out of Springfield) that Forrest Claypool is now supporting Emanuel, which shouldn't be a shock because Emanuel offered up vague support for Claypool's bid last year for Cook County assessor.

Claypool, the guy who was supposedly the darling of the “goo goo” (as in good government) set whose independent campaign for was to give us a noble alternative to the political “hack” campaign of Joe Berrios, is winding up backing the guy who is preferred by the city’s business establishment to be the new mayor.

Now one can argue that the very fact that Claypool can support Emanuel is probably the ultimate bit of evidence that Forrest is really an establishment political person, and not some wild-eyed idealist who would have done much good for us. There probably wouldn’t have been significant differences in daily operation had Claypool won last year, compared to Berrios – who actually won.

But I’d also argue the fact that Claypool is feeling the need to let people know he’s an Emanuel-backer is evidence that Rahm’s mayorality is becoming something that can no longer be resisted. Few people want to be left out of the picture should he assume control of city government.

EVEN THE NEWSPAPER editorial boards that are more than willing to preach for causes they know the powers-that-be will do nothing about are feeling the need to endorse Emanuel – who got both of the major metro newspapers, along with several smaller ones (I don’t know of any publication that has endorsed anybody but Rahm).

So as much as I would have liked this campaign cycle to be a feisty spectacle that would give the people a chance to decide what their vision of the city’s future should be, it seems more like a coronation for the man who will, more or less, keep things going with the status quo. Daley 2 ½ -- just waiting for the day when a legitimate blood relative member of the Daley clan runs for office to give us Daley 3.

Aside from that, this election cycle may be memorable for only one other thing – Moseley-Braun’s attempt to become the new version of Harold Washington, the city’s first black mayor.



WASHINGTON: Will Moseley-Braun match him?

I’d argue she succeeded, only in a way she never would have desired.

INSTEAD OF BECOMING the Harold Washington of 1983, who combined a dominant African-American vote with enough of the Latino and “lakefront liberal” voter blocs to win a three-way Democratic primary, she has become the Harold Washington of 1977.

Then-state Sen. Washington of the Hyde Park neighborhood ran in the special election to pick Richard J. Daley’s successor, and got his political butt whupped by the Machine's preferred pick, Michael Bilandic.

  -30-

Dirty tricks on campaign not unusual, but candidates telling drug tales are odd

MOSELEY-BRAUN: Telling stories

Every campaign cycle includes tales of dirty tricks meant to screw up a campaign’s momentum. Invariably, somebody even goes and tells an ugly story about one of the candidates, meant to muddy them up to the benefit of the opposition.

Yet I can’t help but think there is something unusual going on with the way that former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun in recent days has made mention of the fact that one of her five opponents, Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins, once used certain drugs that – had she been caught – would have gotten her a criminal record.

SPECIFICALLY, WE’RE TALKING about cocaine, although on at least one occasion, Moseley-Braun made a comment saying that Watkins used the stronger (and more deadly) version known as “crack” cocaine.

Watkins admits that in her late teens, she used certain drugs, but says she gave them up decades ago. The Chicago Tribune on Tuesday reported that Watkins said she hasn’t touched any such illegal narcotic in 32 years (she’s now 53).

I think this reaches a new high (or should I say, low) point for campaign activity in Chicago.

Because when these stories usually come out, what happens is that some murky and anonymous source is the one who spews the tale. Or in cases where we do find out who it is that is resorting to telling drug or sex stories about a candidate, it turns out to be some fringe character whose credibility is questionable.

THAT THEN ALLOWS the candidate to put some distance between themselves and the story. In some cases, the candidate issues a non-apology, saying they wish the election cycle had not sunk to such a sordid level. Of course, they allow the story to remain out there – because on a certain level they enjoy the fact that their opposition has to squirm in addressing a story that is ugly and ultimately cannot be absolutely denied.

Somebody is always going to fail to hear the denial or the apology and will take the details into account when casting a ballot on Election Day. The damage is done.

WATKINS: She's clean

Yet that is not what has happened here.

We have the candidate herself, Carol Moseley-Braun, the former U.S. senator from Illinois who also has been an ambassador, the county’s recorder of deeds and one of our city’s legislators at the Statehouse in Springfield, spreading the rhetoric for which she felt compelled Tuesday to issue a formal apology.

THE PART OF this that I find particularly odd (and based on what I’m reading at various places around the Internet, I’m not alone) is why Moseley-Braun would feel the need at all to take a ding at Watkins – who has never held electoral office in her life. She is a political neophyte, albeit one with some original ideas. Moseley-Braun says she feared looking like a "wimp" if she didn't attack Watkins. Instead, she looks like a bully whose "I'm sorry" feels forced.

Various polls that show Moseley-Braun having a serious chance at finishing second on Feb. 22 (thereby qualifying for a potential runoff election to be held April 5) also usually show that Watkins is stumbling about at about 1 or 2 percent of the vote, usually just barely ahead of perennial candidate William “Dock” Walls.

Now I realize Watkins, in an attempt to gain some attention for her campaign, took a cheap shot at the former senator, saying she had been so low-profile in recent years that Watkins didn’t even realize Moseley-Braun still lived in Chicago.

But this overkill, and bringing crack cocaine into the mix, is a gross over-reaction. All it does is ensure that Watkins’ campaign gets elevated to the level of Moseley-Braun. Or perhaps it means her campaign that is supposed to be the “consensus candidate” of Chicago’s African-American population took a dive.

BECAUSE MOSELEY-BRAUN IS now tied in to the dirt; there’s no separating her from it. She’s going to be smeared by it just as much as Watkins will be. It may well be a first for Chicago politics.

The “Machine hacks” of old always had that skill of deniability when it came to the dirty tricks they would pull to discourage people from casting votes for the opposition.

I guess this means Carol Moseley-Braun is NOT a “Chicago Machine” political hack. She’s not competent enough to be one.

But on a certain level, Rahm Emanuel is showing himself capable of being part of the political breed.

EMANUEL: I didn't call nobody



IN RECENT DAYS, mayoral hopeful Gery Chico held a press conference at a neighborhood gym, which he wanted to be the background setting for an event where he would attack the “Rahm Tax.” His campaign rhetoric claims that tax increases Emanuel says he wants the General Assembly to consider would harm small businesses – including those neighborhood gyms.

It seems that Chico had to search long and hard for a willing gym. Because at least one gym changed its mind about letting him have an event there, after receiving telephone calls from people who are supportive of the Emanuel campaign. Those calls let the gym owner know of the potential problems his business could incur in the future, if a “Mayor Emanuel” chooses to remember the people who wanted Chico instead.

Such a tactic, which Emanuel can now officially claim he NEVER would have approved of (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is classic Chicago campaign strategy when it comes to dirty tricks. If anything, such an attitude is also evidence of the classic “Rahm-bo,” that political operative who isn’t afraid to use some muscle and tough talk to accomplish things, rearing its head.

So for all those people who have been getting all worked up in recent months, claiming that Emanuel isn’t a real Chicagoan and doesn’t comprehend the feel of the city and its politics, I’d respond by saying he may comprehend it all too well.

  -30-

Somebody didn’t learn from own history

I couldn’t help but reminisce back to 1992 after seeing the formal debate between the mayoral candidates that took place just hours after Rahm Emanuel got the Illinois Supreme Court seal of approval to be on the ballot for the Feb. 22 municipal elections.

MOSELEY-BRAUN: Where has the old Carol gone?



Thursday night was the time when Carol Moseley-Braun chose to go on the attack against Rahm Emanuel, doing what she could to try to take him down in the eyes of would-be voters. She also took her share of pot-shots at Gery Chico, the guy who has headed the public schools, the city colleges and the park district – along with being an early chief of staff to Mayor Richard M. Daley.

SO WHAT IS memorable about that? Aren’t political people invariably going to take pot shots at each other during an election season debate?

That is true. Yet I couldn’t help but remember when Moseley-Braun was a fresh-faced former legislator and county office holder (recorder of deeds) who was running in the ’92 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Then-Sen. Alan Dixon had managed to tick off women’s activists by joining in the efforts to denounce Anita Hill when she testified about her past contact with then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

But those women weren’t particularly organized behind any candidate. Certainly not Moseley-Braun. If anything, the Carol Moseley-Braun of 1992 was reminiscent of the Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins of today – a candidate on the ballot with some interesting ideas, but not enough campaign cash to run a credible effort.

UNTIL, THAT IS, the debates came along. For there were three major candidates wishing to run for U.S. Senate from Illinois as a Democrat. Besides Dixon and Moseley-Braun, there was also Al Hofeld, an attorney of some personal financial means who had never held elective office.

EMANUEL: As though he needed a boost



I still remember the debates that resulted between the three. Hofeld had run a negative campaign, trying to make Dixon appear to be someone old and out-of-touch. Dixon tried responding by making the political neophyte appear to be politically clueless.

Dixon and Hofeld beat up on each other. They largely ignored Moseley-Braun, who when she did speak came across as the one concerned about issues. In fact, she came across as the only logical person among the three candidates.

This time, Moseley-Braun went on the attack to the point where she appeared to be the one who was clueless. She managed to make Rahm Emanuel, the Mighty Rahm-bo with the foul mouth and crass temperament, appear to be the calm, collected, intelligent candidate.

MOSELEY-BRAUN SEEMS TO have lost touch with her inner-self, or at least the things she had going for her 19 years ago. She almost seemed to be the equivalent of a female version of Hofeld from all those years ago.

Considering that Emanuel was able to follow up his debate appearance with campaign advertisements on Friday touting the fact that he once worked for Barack Obama (and comes as close to a presidential endorsement as Obama can give Rahm), he winds up looking like the august, imperial official who will raise the level of Chicago government to new heights – compared to the other candidates who come across as local rubes who may have strong backing in their home neighborhoods, but have never ventured beyond their home block in their lives.

It’s not like Emanuel needed any more advantages than he already has – the largest campaign fund and solid backing from the corporate types who can easily help him come up with more cash if needed! But Moseley-Braun gave it to him.

Now I understand why Moseley-Braun feels the need to get aggressive.

HER CAMPAIGN IS lagging. Financially, she isn’t attracting much money. Watkins actually raised just slightly more than she did.

She also has minimal appeal to anyone outside of those activists who are so determined to have an African-American person elected as mayor that they’ll settle for Moseley-Braun.

I noticed in mid-week a poll conducted by We Ask America (and paid for by the Chicago Retail Merchants Association) that showed Carol running third with 11.04 percent IF Rahm remained on the mayoral ballot. When asked who they would support if he had been knocked off, her support only went up to 17.32 percent.

By comparison, Chico’s backing went from 14.41 percent with Emanuel on the ballot way up to 32.99 percent and the new front-runner – had the Supreme Court given Rahm the boot.

THAT SAME POLL claimed 71.53 percent of people questioned wanted Emanuel to remain on the ballot.

WATKINS: Give her Carol's slot?



All of which means that Moseley-Braun, the darling of the Democratic set who brought pride to Chicago back in ’92 with her sudden rise to national politics, is feeling the pressure brought on by the anonymity she has experienced in recent years. On a side note, I got my chuckle from a Watkins quip that she didn’t even realize until the campaign season that Moseley-Braun still lived in Chicago.

I’m sure the idea of falling back into anonymity come Feb. 23 (or April 6, if she manages to turn this into a run-off election) is enough to make her try desperation measures – which is how she came across in that first debate.

Perhaps future debates will give us glimpses of the “old Carol.” Either that, or perhaps we ought to give her slot come Valentine's Day on WTTW-TV to Watkins – who might just come up with some real ideas for the opposition candidates to ponder.

  -30-

Are we really moving past racial factors?

EMANUEL: The front-runner?

On the surface, the Chicago Tribune gave us positive news this weekend. The newspaper commissioned yet another poll related to the upcoming municipal elections, this time trying to get a sense of how much racial and ethnic factors will play in terms of how local voters pick whom they will vote for.

That poll gave numbers that are being interpreted as saying that people are not as hung up on racial factors as we were some three decades ago. The number of people who will vote for anybody but Carol Moseley-Braun would appear to be on the decline.

MOSELEY-BRAUN: The consensus?

YET I’M SKEPTICAL, and not just because of the reality of political polls that some people will say what they think they’re supposed to, but will act very differently.

In short, I wonder how many people who said they won’t take race into account when they cast their ballots will react very differently, either at an early voting center beginning next week, or at a polling place on Feb. 22.

Anybody who has read my other commentary published at this weblog knows I believe these Election Day results are going to tell us how much we truly have advanced when it comes to matters of race and electoral politics.

CHICO: The multi-ethnic candidate?

We may have elected a couple of African-American senators, a state attorney general and secretary of state, and sent one of our own African-American politicos to Washington to be president since the days of Harold Washington.

YET I STILL wonder how many local voters view those offices as being less important than those of city government, particularly that of mayor?

The reality of our city government in recent decades is that while there have been African-American and Latino people who have held citywide office, it has always been on a slate of candidates with a white guy, Richard M. Daley, at the top.



DEL VALLE: ¿El candidato tranquillo?

I wonder how many people are going to let this be an issue because it gets at their gut feelings about what they think our society should stand for. Some people have their hang-ups that no amount of rhetoric will overcome.

Which is why I plan to look at the voter breakdown from the Feb. 22 elections (and the April 5 run-offs, if they become necessary) to see how people have actually voted.

AS MUCH AS I want to believe the theme that we’re not as hung up on race in electoral politics as we were back in 1983 (I was a high school senior back when Washington got elected mayor, and can still remember the very real, and intense, resentment felt toward the idea that African-American people could comprise a voter bloc large enough to win an election), I’ll believe it when I see it with actual voter turnouts – not the results of a poll commissioned a month before the election!

For the record, 75 percent of people questioned for the poll commissioned by the Tribune said that a candidate’s race will have “little or no influence” on their vote. Another 70 percent said they do not think a mayoral candidate would show favoritism toward people of their racial or ethnic background.



WATKINS: Worthy of more attention?

That sounds nice. But all it may really mean is that racial and ethnic bias in the 21^st Century is more subtle than back in the Days of Reagan. We won’t hear any stupid jokes about Moseley-Braun resembling “Weezie Jefferson” or many attempts to make us think Rahm Emanuel was once in the Israeli army – and therefore not a “real American.”

Part of the reason I am skeptical is that I acknowledge that our city is still significantly divided when it comes to race – with the downtown area often being the only place where one can find anything resembling co-existence on a regular basis.

WE ALL GO to work together during the day, 9-5, Monday through Friday. Afterward, we go back to our home neighborhoods, which may well be shifting in terms of ethnic and racial breakdowns in recent years, but still remain heavily separated.

WALLS: The perennial dreamer



That same Tribune-commissioned poll said that 57 percent of white people surveyed thought their neighborhoods were safer than the rest of the city, compared to only 42 percent of Latinos who thought that or 26 percent of African-American people – who by the way also had 70 percent say the neighborhoods they live in are NOT very diverse.

Which means that even in the new century, we have certain people living in certain sections, and certain non-Anglo individuals living in places where they’re not all that exposed to other people. It’s like they’re living in an alternate Chicago – one that other people would prefer not to have to think much about.

That is why I think some voters will have that gut feeling come Election Day, no matter what they say now or what they know on an intellectual level is the “proper” thing to do.

WE’RE NOT GOING to get the ugly bluntness of the past. But anybody who thinks we have put this factor behind us for good is being delusional.

Then again, they’re probably the same kind of people who can’t comprehend how the Chicago Cubs have gone so many years without a championship.

  -30-



Bill Clinton comes to Chicago to create cash, backing for Emanuel campaign

A month ago, it was a big political stink that William Jefferson Clinton would deign to set foot in our fair city on behalf of the mayoral aspirations of his one-time senior advisor, Rahm Emanuel.



Bill Clinton picked ...



But now, one of the people who was all bothered by Clinton’s promised presence in Chicago isn’t even in the race anymore. As for Carol Moseley-Braun (who also was a part of the Clinton presidential administration as an ambassador to New Zealand), she can scream “outsider!” all she wants.

THE REALITY IS that I doubt many people care much what she thinks about this particular point. It comes off too much as sour grapes that Clinton picked him over her when it came to support someone for Chicago mayor.

So Clinton is coming to Chicago on Tuesday, appearing mid-day at a public rally (although tickets are being issued to control the size of the crowd) at the Chicago Cultural Center. Later in the day, he will be attending a fundraising event meant to bring in even more money to pay for those expensive television spots that will try to neutralize Emanuel’s reputation as a foul-mouthed, hard-headed politico and a partisan to the extreme.

The latter event is the one that really matters, because it will give the corporate types who have been more than satisfied with Richard M. Daley a chance to reinforce Rahm’s chances of winning, not only on Feb. 22 but also on April 5.

Not that the earlier event hurts. After all, Bill Clinton standing side by side with Emanuel. Maybe the presence of the former president will even get Daley himself to turn out for the event.

IT’S NOT EXACTLY a mayoral endorsement. But it would create an image of heavy-weight politicians in Clinton and Daley, with Emanuel being the one person running for mayor who deserves to be thought of in their league.

In short, the images could make the rest of the mayoral field look like a batch of local lightweights. So no matter how much Moseley-Braun screams “outsider endorsing an outsider,” keep in mind that not everybody will perceive it that way.

... his senior adviser ...



Personally, I thought it was stupid politically when the officials who complained about Clinton did so publicly. It’s not like they were going to change his mind into coming to Chicago. If anything, all they did was put up a bit of a barricade between themselves and the former president, whose help they may wind up asking for in some future campaign.

Also, I don’t think anyone’s opinion is changed seriously by this event.

THE KIND OF people who are inclined to look down on Emanuel and say they’re voting ABR are going to cast that ballot for anybody but Rahm BECAUSE of the fact that he has ties to Bill Clinton.

Back in 2002 when he first ran for that Northwest Side congressional seat, these people were disgusted with Clinton and were determined that anybody who had any ties to him should be forevermore finished in politics.

Emanuel’s victory was a stake through their vampiric hearts.

Now, many of these same people are disgusted because Emanuel also has ties to Barack Obama. They want to believe that is a kiss of political death – even though anyone looking at various polls in recent weeks can’t help but notice that Obama’s favorability ratings are slowly starting to go up.

THESE PEOPLE AREN’T so much about electing anyone as mayor as much as they are about dumping on Emanuel.

Which is why I can actually respect the Somos Republicanos group. Based out of Arizona, they exist to try to get Latinos to take the Republican Party seriously.

Their leaders are taking an interest in Chicago’s mayoral campaign, and they are honest enough to admit they just don’t want Rahm to win. They cite the failure of Obama to do anything with immigration reform during his first two years of office, which is an issue they could use to stir up Latino voters at large.

But they also admit they’re not pushing for any specific candidate. They’re not for Gery Chico or for Miguel del Valle. They don’t mind Carol Moseley-Braun (mostly because I suspect they already have their file folders out and ready to start using tidbits from the past to trash her rep, should she get elected mayor). They will take any of them.

... over his ambassador.



IT’S ALL ABOUT Emanuel, whose failure they would try to spin into a sign that even Chicago rejects Clinton/Obama.

I must confess. All of this is why I can’t quite write off Rahm in my own mind. A part of me keeps in mind that people whose best interests aren’t with Chicago at all are the ones who most want us to be outraged by Emanuel, or by the fact that Clinton will make his first visit to our city since just before the November elections – back then, he was just trying to convince Democrats in Chicago to turn out to vote.

Which they did! There was a respectable vote in Chicago proper, which was the reason why we still have a Democrat as governor and in most of the state constitutional offices, and Democrats running the Illinois General Assembly.

If the Clinton influence continues, maybe we will get “Mayor Emanuel” – no matter how much some people want to engage in ridiculous rhetoric.

  -30-

A WEEK IN REVIEW: Why we could still have Ill. death penalty on Wednesday

Considering the reality of partisan politics, I won’t be the least bit surprised if one week from now, we in Illinois still have a capital crimes statute on our state law books.

I make that statement at a time when Illinois has come closer than ever before to abolishing the penalty of death as legitimate for certain violent crimes.

REGARDLESS, WE’LL ACTUALLY know by Tuesday night what will happen on this issue. For we are in the “lame duck” portion of the General Assembly session. Wednesday at Noon is when the new Legislature elected back on Nov. 2 will take control.

So if it isn’t done by then, the whole process has to start over.

So that’s why I don’t get excited at the sight of headlines in the Friday newspapers that say the Illinois House of Representatives voted to abolish capital punishment. We still have to see what the Illinois Senate does. Then, on to Gov. Pat Quinn – who has been reluctant to say he supports any of this legislative effort on the issue.

For while it seems that state Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, wouldn’t mind seeing the death penalty wither away in Illinois, not all of his legislative chamber’s members feel the same way.

CONSIDERING THAT HE is now trying to twist arms to get them to vote for a proposed increase in the state share of the income tax (from 3 percent to 5.25 percent – raising 75 percent more money for the state), it is questionable whether Cullerton will have the desire to do an equally intense arm twisting for capital punishment, particularly since the tax hike is related to resolving the state's severe financial problems. That issue MUST be addressed. Capitol punishment would be a luxury if there is time.

VERSCHOORE: Wise counseling

While the old Legislature (the one that ceases to exist as of Tuesday) is going to be doing business throughout the weekend and all the way up until their final day, somehow I won’t be surprised if this somehow gets lost in the shuffle (although I’d truly enjoy being wrong on this point).

The Illinois House vote did, however, give us a bright moment – learning that state Rep. Pat Verschoore, D-Milan, was the legislator credited with changing his mind to support abolishment, thereby creating the 60^th vote needed for passage. Verschoore says his wife’s opposition to capital punishment was a factor in his decision. So should we wind up doing away with a death penalty in Illinois, perhaps we owe a debt of gratitude to Charlene, the representative’s wife of 46 years.

So what else was notable about the first full week of 2011?



Moseley-Braun: Bigger than it had to be

BIPARTISAN TAX TWITS:  Future political people who experience personal indignation about making their income tax returns public ought to keep the names of “Jason Plummer” and “Carol Moseley-Braun” in mind before getting all snitty.

The whole concept of releasing one’s returns was meant to be a token gesture by political people that gives some superficial information about one’s finances. But Plummer, the GOP lieutenant governor candidate last year, and Moseley-Braun, who is running for mayor this year, both tried to claim they had a right to privacy.

Plummer remained stubborn all the way through his failed campaign, while Moseley-Braun ultimately backed down. But the returns she has released have been so closely scrutinized that we now fully appreciate how unsuccessful she has been in business since leaving the federal government’s employ back in 2000.

The lesson here is that if Moseley-Braun had just turned over the returns without having to be prodded, chances are good they would have received a superficial review and we already would have filed them away – never to be seriously looked at again.

WHO’S KIDDING WHOM:  President Barack Obama went ahead this week and picked mayoral brother (and son) William Daley to be his new chief of staff. Considering that he spent recent years working for JP Morgan, it has certain progressive types convinced that the president is pandering to the right by picking a Wall Street type.

That concept has me laughing hysterically. The idea that the way to pander to conservatives and to business interests is to pick the Son of Hizzoner, Richard J. Daley, who comes from the land that doesn’t succumb to rural conservative ideologues, is so blatantly absurd – just as much as those people who honestly want to believe that Obama is literally a socialist.

What this does is mean that Obama will be bashed by the right for picking a “Chicago Machine hack” to run the federal government just as much as the left for picking a guy whose income in recent years has been around $5 million annually.

Does this mean that by ticking off all the ideologues, Obama may very well have found the proper person to run the White House staff for him for the next two years? Most likely.



RYAN: Free for a day?

WHAT MORE DOES HE WANT?:  Former Gov. George Ryan has applications to both the U.S. District Court and to the warden at the federal correctional center at Terre Haute, Ind., seeking to be released from prison for awhile so he can be with his wife – who is dying at a hospital in the Ryans’ hometown of Kankakee.



Yet federal prosecutors who would rather see nothing that shows anything resembling leniency toward Ryan (fearing that it taints their record of a conviction against him) point out that he WAS released on Wednesday, and got to spend two hours with former first lady Lura Lynn.

During that time, he was escorted by U.S. marshals, and Ryan’s attorney, (also) former Gov. James R. Thompson, said it was federal officials who insisted that no word be given out about the fact that Ryan got a one-day break from his prison time.

Federal prosecutors say the fact that he got the one-day release means that action can be taken without a more wide-ranging court order. Yet if Lura Lynn’s period of illness extends into any length of time, it would only make sense that a court order would be the responsible way to go – rather than having a warden continually approving one-day visits between Terre Haute and Kankakee (roughly a four-hour drive each way).

  -30-