Are we really at a point where we don’t care if Lightfoot is lesbian? Fat chance!

A recent discussion I overheard – it doesn’t matter that mayoral hopeful Lori Lightfoot is a lesbian who actually is married to another woman.

LIGHTFOOT: Is her marriage an issue?

Because we in Chicago are supposedly so sophisticated that no one would openly admit to voting against her because of sexual orientation. It won’t be an issue. Particularly since the kind of people determined to dump Toni Preckwinkle from office can rant about that pop tax she touted while leading Cook County government.

I’LL HAVE TO admit I was kind of hoping there’d be a touch of truth to such thoughts. I would have liked it if I could have made it through the month of the election run-off without having to get into anyone’s marital status.

But that didn’t happen. The issue has sprung up. And the part that bothers me – it seems that it’s Lightfoot herself who seems determined to make an issue of it.

Or maybe she just seems determined to think of herself as the victimized one and wants to be able to claim she’s the one being picked upon. Which makes me wonder how a “Mayor Lightfoot” is going to handle herself against all the interests who will not be inclined to support her on oh so many issues.

But seriously, this election cycle took an ugly turn that would have been so nice if we could have avoided it.

THE ISSUE CAME up when the two candidates faced off in debate last week, and the question was put forth for the two candidates being asked to say something nice about their opponent – as in what did they most respect about their challenger.

That led Preckwinkle to offer up some public praise about the way Lightfoot is public about her sexual orientation.

Or as she put it, “that (Lightfoot is) open and honest about her LGBTQ orientation. You know, I think it’s really important in this country that we be respectful of differences and that we understand that all of us matter and that there is dignity in each and every one of us. And there has been so much discrimination and prejudice and homophobia in our country, it’s very important that particularly prominent people declare their sexual orientation and do it with pride.”

PRECKWINKLE: Sympathetic? Or cruel?

She insists her praise was sincere.

YET LIGHTFOOT LET it be known she took offense. As in she thinks the sole purpose of Preckwinkle saying anything at all was to put a reminder in the minds of voters that “Lori’s gay.”

Which might create just enough doubt in the minds of people with a homophobic streak to let it become an issue in the way they cast their ballot for mayor come April 2.

What’s sort of interesting is that just over a week ago, there were gay rights activists who were saying this was a unique election cycle because Preckwinkle has a record as a government official of being supportive of gay rights issues and causes.

Could it be that Lightfoot absolutely feels the need to have people vote for her because of her orientation? And that Preckwinkle has to be demonized in order to fit her niche in Lightfoot’s world?

OR DID LIGHTFOOT have a point in trying to get the support of those voters, particularly those of African-American descent whose religious attitudes make them hostile to the very concept of homosexuality, whom Lightfoot is counting on Willie Wilson’s endorsement to win over?

WILSON: Will his endorsement make a difference?

Anything’s possible. In fact, I’m inclined to believe there’s an element of truth in what both of them are spewing these days.

It would have been so nice if we could have made it through this election cycle without making an issue of this issue. What if we could seriously consider the qualifications of the individual candidates without getting into the personal nonsense?

Then again, that’s probably an attitude we’ll have to wait a few more decades to achieve. As in the day will come when we realize just how ridiculous we all truly are!

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: For those who care, Lightfoot is married to Amy Eshleman, and they live together with a 10-year-old daughter. Preckwinkle was married to Zeus Preckwinkle for 44 years, until their divorce in 2013. They have two grown children.

Race always manages to bring out the ‘stupid’ in our political people

There’s one great truth we can observe about our various levels of government – whenever racial issues come up in discussion, somebody is bound to talk stupid.

RAUNER; Diversity through dairy products

Either they get blatantly stupid and offensive in their remarks, or else they try to channel the old Bea Arthur character of Maude – who if you ever watched that show was the grand liberal and admirer of FDR who in her dealings with black people usually managed to come off condescending and show that in some ways, she wasn’t any better than her cousin, Edith’s, husband, Archie Bunker.

IT WAS A pair of stories in the news last week that put such a thought into my mind.

Or have we already forgotten Gov. Bruce Rauner’s great observations about the concept of milk mixed with chocolate syrup.

During an appearance at the Thompson Center state government building, Rauner was with a Hyatt Hotels executive – which was ironic enough considering that Hyatt is the company founded by the Pritzker family, of whom member J.B. is a potential challenger to Rauner in the Nov. 6 general election.

They were trying to emphasize the benefits of diversity amongst our populace by suggesting that a glass of plain white milk gets improved with chocolate syrup, and that when it’s stirred and thoroughly mixed it is superior.

HAROLD: GOPers wish she wasn't one of them?

“IT’S REALLY, REALLY good, diversity,” said Rauner. Which aside from being a trite observation may wind up being the ultimate quote of The Rauner Years of state government.

Then again, “I’m not in charge, Speaker Madigan is” likely can’t be topped by Rauner, or anyone else, when it comes to a vacuous comment. Particularly if one really thinks racial diversity can be reduced to a dairy product.

Although if one thinks Rauner had a vapid Wednesday last week, the very next day the Illinois attorney general’s race gave us a racial whopper likely to live on throughout the campaign season.

Republican attorney general hopeful Erika Harold allegedly was slurred with an ignorant racial label and also had her sexual orientation brought into question.

PRITZKER: His slurs relatively minor

A TOWNSHIP CHAIRMAN from DuPage County initially claimed that Harold had asked him to make the comments so that she could publicly refute them. He since has said he really didn’t say the things he’s alleged to – at least not that bluntly.

But Harold told the Chicago Tribune, “I was just shocked by it and I was thinking how inappropriate it is for this kind of questioning and comments to be part of what should be a professional conversation.”

Now the reason this comes up is that Harold is a black woman, and I don’t doubt there are many amongst the Republican following who resent that one of their party’s candidates for a statewide office is anything other than a white male.

I’m also sure they’re upset that a one-time Miss America (2003) would remain more than a decade later an unmarried woman. Even though on many social issues (such as abortion) Harold is completely in line with the modern-day Republican Party, they probably think she’s a closet Democrat – and someone who doesn’t fall in line their goal of “Making America Great Again.”

IT’S PART OF the reason I can’t take it too seriously when some people try to claim that Democrat Pritzker’s gubernatorial campaign is spewing racial taunts about black people. His private comments are downright trivial compared to what comes from others.

Normar Lear's string of 1970s TV hits remain relevant even today

Note I didn’t feel compelled to identify by name the DuPage County official who spewed trash (supposedly) about Harold. Mainly because I don’t want to give him too much recognition. I’m sure some voters will go out of their way to support him come Nov. 6, when his name appears on the ballot for an Illinois Senate seat.

Maybe they think that spewing racial slurs is somehow speaking the truth. Just as how some of them are criticizing Rauner’s milk stunt because they would have preferred him to speak out against racial diversity in our society.

While some people want to believe we in the 21^st Century have moved beyond racism, the fear on my part is that those people are the ones who don’t want to discuss the issue because they don’t want to be called out on their negativity.

  -30-