Obama campaign these days has the “aura” of a winner, or so says the poll

When it comes to the polls, likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has a slight lead in support – if Election Day were held Monday instead of five months from now.

The Gallup Organization’s daily tracking poll shows Obama with a 46 percent to 42 percent lead over Republican opponent John McCain, which is not insurmountable since 12 percent remain undecided and could easily put McCain over the top. It’s not like Obama is taking a majority of the country by storm.

OR IS HE?

What intrigued me was the “other” poll done by Gallup. They did a survey of potential voters (822 people from across the country represent the views of all of the United States of America) asking them not who they would vote for, but who they think will win.

In short, who do you think everybody else is going to vote for?

To that question, Obama whomped on McCain – by a 52 percent to 41 percent tally. Seven percent of the “American people” remain like me – confused, and unsure how this election cycle is going to pan out.

GALLUP NOTES THAT 76 percent of all people who identify themselves as Democrats think Obama is a winner come Nov. 4, compared to only 67 percent of self-identified Republicans who will say they think McCain can win in November.

What helps Obama, Gallup notes, is that half of people who use the political label of “independent” say they think Barack is a winner, compared to only 41 percent who think McCain can succeed.

So what does all this mean?

It is early in the campaign season. Despite all the political rhetoric being passed about these days, serious campaign activity doesn’t really get underway until after the presidential nominating conventions in Denver and St. Paul, Minn. The Labor Day holiday weekend is the time when hard-core activity will commence.

MY POINT IS that it is still early. There is still plenty of time for both candidates to “say something stupid” that changes the public perception.

But the people who are trying to pass the rhetoric that Obama is a “terrible” nominee who has nothing in common with the “American people” need to quit spewing the political equivalent of flatulence. The “people” aren’t buying it.

There is a good chunk of the populace that can accept the idea of a “President Obama.” Either that, or they are accepting the inevitability of a concept they detest – this same Gallup survey shows more than one-quarter of the Republican portion of the electorate saying an Obama presidency is possible.

We shouldn’t underestimate the latter idea – people accepting that something “horrible” such as an Obama victory can occur. They are the ones whose activity needs to be watched during the campaign season, because they are the ones who are most likely to try the extreme activity out of some belief that they need to “take down” an Obama candidacy on Nov. 4.

I’M SURE IT also helps Obama that President George W. Bush is seeing his presidency sink. A separate Gallup poll released Monday showed him with only a 30 percent “favorable” rating, and the Republican-controlled Supreme Court with only a 48 percent “favorable” rating. Even Jimmy Carter of 1980 never sank that low in the disgust with which the “American people” regarded him.

It also is why the Obama campaign ought to be using this “down time” between now and the nominating conventions to try to shore up their base of support. Trying to appease some of the women who legitimately wanted Hillary Clinton to get the presidential nomination ought to be (and appears to be) a priority.

I personally got a kick out of learning that Patty Solis Doyle, the sister of a Chicago alderman who once was Clinton’s campaign manager, is now working for Obama.

She was given the title of chief of staff to the vice president, which I find amusing since there technically is no vice president yet – Obama has not named anyone to run with him on a Democratic Party ticket, and in fact is still looking for a replacement for Jim Johnson, the Fannie Mae executive who was going to help find a running mate but had to resign his campaign post after it became public knowledge that he received favorable rates on his personal mortgage.

BUT HAVING SOLIS achieves three goals – it shows that Obama is willing to accept a high-placed Clinton ally in his inner circle, is willing to have women in significant positions of his campaign and is a Latina.

Her connections with Hispanic pols in Chicago will carry over into trying to persuade a number of skeptical Latinos that they are better off voting for Obama on Nov. 4, instead of staying at home and voting for nobody as a form of political protest.

Heck, Obama could have exploited Solis’ dismissal from the Clinton campaign earlier this year to try to gain Latino voter support – if he hadn’t had a campaign that at times appeared to be so timid in trying to gain the support of Hispanic people.

That timidity is the exact opposite of the gregarious nature that has inspired the youth of this country to think Obama is a candidate for political sainthood (no government official, in my opinion, deserves to be regarded that highly).

BUT THERE IS time for Obama to overcome this flaw. He has the advantage of coming out of his primary fight with Clinton somewhat bruised, but more experienced in the ways of a rough-and-tumble campaign.

And he didn’t muddy himself up so much in defeating Clinton that he is permanently stained, which likely would have been the case if he had run the crushing campaign that would have knocked her out of the box two months sooner.

So for the time being, Obama gets the aura of being a “winner.” People are starting to accept the notion that perhaps, a bi-racial man whose life would have been the ultimate in fairy tales a generation ago could someday be the Leader of the Free World.

IN FACT, THERE is one bit of evidence that Obama has a chance to win the Nov. 4 election, and it goes beyond the latest Gallup poll. Obama now has all the political geeks of the Democratic Party who were hesitant to say anything before now crawling out of the woodwork to give the impression that they were always captivated by the spirit of Obama-mania.

How else to explain the fact that former Vice President Al Gore on Monday came out in support of Obama? He only waited until about two weeks after the rest of the country accepted that Obama would be the Democratic nominee before saying he, too, would Back Barack.

Trust me when I say that if Obama had the stink of a loser clinging to him, there’s no way Gore would have come out and said a word. Not now, not ever. Instead of sharing his aura (largely from his recent Nobel Prize) with Obama, he’d be keeping it all to himself.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: East, Midwest, South and West. Women and men. Old and young. They all seem to think (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx) Obama can win Nov. 4. In fact, the young are among the most skeptical (only 48 percent think Obama will win, compared to 45 percent for McCain).

Did Patty Solis Doyle, by accepting a high-ranking post within the Obama campaign (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/16/clinton_insiders_take_umbrage.html?hpid=topnews), ensure she won’t be on the Clinton Christmas card list in the future?

Gee. Even Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., committed to Obama long before former Vice President (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/gore-to-appear-with-obama/) Al Gore did.

Obama helps define self this weekend

I’m curious to see how the social conservatives who want “Anybody But Obama” for president try to spin the events of this weekend.

Likely Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pulled off a pair of campaign appearances that will be difficult to combat. Of course, anything can have a negative spin put on it, if you try hard enough.

BUT OBAMA SPENT a couple of hours Saturday in Quincy, Ill., where he offered a hand with flood-relief efforts. Then on Sunday, he and his family attended their first service at their new church, and Obama gave a speech worthy of the most self-righteously moral of conservatives.

Obama’s appearance in the western Illinois city is the one that most catches my attention. It is not at all unusual for a political person to show up at a disaster site and go through the motions of pretending to be in charge or of studying the scene so as to figure out in the future what could have been done now to help people.

The typical campaign event would have utilized the relief efforts along the Mississippi River by having Obama step in, shake a few hands, perhaps offer an encouraging word to the person who was coordinating the effort, then get out of town – all before the cuffs of his pants became wet or soiled.

Obama went a step further. I can’t think of any political candidate who ever did anything comparable to actually grabbing a shovel and helping to fill the sandbags that were then put in place to try to erect a barrier to the floodwater that threatened the homes of many Quincy residents.

AT A TIME when floodwaters are expected to reach a level of 32 feet by mid-week, any physical labor has to be appreciated. The notion that Obama would be willing to risk dirtying himself can only help bolster his image.

Admittedly, the effort was not comparable to the hours of backbreaking work being done by the local residents who are trying to keep their homes from being destroyed. Obama had help in putting together sandbags, and he quit shoveling after about a half-hour. In fact, his whole time in the western Illinois city only lasted about 1.5 hours – squeezed in between campaign appearances in Pennsylvania and Chicago.

But Obama is still (at least for five more months, if not longer) Illinois’ junior senator – one who has a $60 billion reinvestment bill pending that could help Midwestern communities rebuild from the floods and tornadoes that have struck the region this spring.

He is in a position to fight for Illinois in Congress and ensure that federal disaster authorities do not neglect the state as they have to cope with providing assistance to disaster sites all across the Great Lakes and Plains states – particularly the severe flooding that has left all of downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa and much of the surrounding area under water.

OBAMA USED HIS presidential campaign to bolster the awareness of his home state’s problem, and he helped boost the morale of the relief workers – some of whom will now remember the Flood of ’08 as the occasion when they met a potential president of the U.S., and not just the time they nearly lost their home.

It also can’t help but strengthen the campaign’s hand in Adams County, which like much of rural Illinois is solid Republican territory where many locals can’t understand why Illinois is considered a “blue” state – since many of the people who live there don’t know any Democrats personally.

One day later, Obama went to church.

Normally, that wouldn’t be such a big deal, as many presidential candidates like to celebrate their faith as publicly as possible to try to appeal for votes.

BUT FOR THE Obama family, this Sunday would have been a big deal regardless. The Obamas have joined the Apostolic Church of God, which is a few blocks from their Hyde Park neighborhood home, and this was their first time as a family at their new church.

Now I could envision how the “right” would go after Obama for this event – they would emphasize the reason he had to find a new church to attend in the first place. The Trinity United Church of Christ where he had attended for nearly 20 years had become too much of a political hotbed, due to its retired (and outspoken) pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and its guest speaker of a few weeks ago – Rev. Michael Pfleger.

They would want to denounce the move as opportunistic and one meant to cover up the viewpoints expressed by the pastors who they do not agree with.

But Obama undermined such rhetoric by speaking to the congregation at Sunday’s service. Newcomer Obama caught the attention of the congregation, giving a speech that lambasted men who father children, then pay little to no attention to their offspring.

“TOO MANY FATHERS are M.I.A., too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Obama told the inner city Chicago congregation. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

This is the message that the social conservatives would like to think they own. Video of Obama giving this speech could literally be trotted out any time the conservatives start on their “schpiel” that Obama is some liberal freak who is grossly out of touch with their moral values.

That doesn’t mean they won’t try to twist the message.

THESE ARE, AFTER all, the same people who took 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s military service record during the Vietnam War and twisted it into something that appeared to be less than that of Republican opponent George W. Bush, who may (or may not) have served a full stint in the Texas National Guard.

But the images created this weekend (filling sandbags and speaking about family values in church) are the kind that go a long way toward Obama defining his own image for the American people – before Republican opponent John McCain can do it for him.

He may have had his staff schedule them as part of a campaign effort, but they will help him keep the slight lead that various polls (the Gallup Organization on Sunday showed him leading 44 percent to 42 percent) show him with, if Election Day were today instead of five months from now.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Most political people would have grabbed the shovel for a couple of seconds (http://www.whig.com/story/Obama-at-OLC-SUN), allowed a photograph to be taken, then would have moved on.

Could a white presidential candidate have gotten away with speaking as bluntly as Barack Obama did (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=2bc9b40e6e36087e&ei=5087%0A) to a mostly-black churchgoing audience about the problems facing African-American families?

Illinois' answer to C-SPAN, the Illinois Channel (http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!3465.entry) gives us a text of what Obama told his new church's congregation.

Flag Day is Argus of old’s Glory Day

I have never claimed this weblog to be in any way affiliated with the old Chicago Argus newspaper. But if ever there was a day to recall that newssheet of the 19th Century, it is this day, for it is Flag Day.

Depending on whose account of the holiday you happen to read, it was the Argus that inspired creation of the day to which we pay tribute to the “Stars and Stripes” and all that it represents about the United States.

SPECIFICALLY, THE CHICAGO Argus of old achieved its part of the Flag Day saga when its editors published a commentary on June 14, 1886. Entitled, “The Fourteenth of June,” the essay proposed creation of a national holiday to celebrate the creation of the flag design of 13 red and white stripes with white stars on a blue field that has come to represent liberty and democracy all across the world.

Specifically, the mid-June day was chosen to commemorate the date in 1777 when the Continental Congress officially chose the “Stars and Stripes” design as that of the U.S. flag.

Bernard J. Cigrand, a Wisconsin school teacher, had already begun holding local Flag Day observances a few years earlier. But his essay in the Argus, and a speech before the Chicago-based “Sons of America” group two years later resulted in Cigrand becoming editor of the group’s journal “American Standard,” where he continued to promote respect for the symbols of the United States of America.

He also helped organize what must have been one heck of a spectacle for Chicago in 1894 and 1895, when more than 300,000 students of the Chicago public schools took part each year in a Flag Day celebration scattered across Douglas, Garfield, Humboldt, Lincoln and Washington parks.

CIGRAND, WHO WAS actually a dentist by trade in Chicago, Batavia and Aurora, later went on to become dean of the Columbian Dental College, which over the years has evolved into a part of the college of dentistry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Insofar as that old Argus newspaper is concerned, I don’t know much else about it, other than that it appears to be a creation of the 1880s and was defunct before 1900. Back then, there were up to a dozen daily newspapers in Chicago (both morning and evening editions), and while the Chicago Tribune survives from that era, many publications came and went.

The Argus itself was obscure enough that an official listing of all Chicago newspapers compiled by the Chicago Public Library does not even include it, although a listing of Second City rags put together by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign does include it – although the university cannot provide exact dates of its existence, other than to say it was a 19th Century publication.

SO WHY BRING this up, if there’s no direct correlation between the Argus of old and this website?

I find it interesting that on this Flag Day that clearly is a national holiday, it is a creation of Chicago (even though to read the accounts of the holiday’s origins written by the Daughters of the American Revolution, Cigrand and the Argus are only minor players behind their own work to celebrate Old Glory).

I also find it intriguing that a newspaper that named itself for the giant from Greek mythology who had 100 eyes and could see in all directions at once used its clout to put muscle behind a Chicago dentist’s dream that we celebrate the symbol of the U.S. flag as a way of showing our love of the concept of democracy that we’d like to think our country stands for.

IT IS A noble concept, one that we all ought to believe in. All too often, people in politics and in our society are too quick to give lip service to the concepts of Truth, Justice and the American Way without really thinking about what they really mean.

Some even get so obsessed with the piece of cloth (although the U.S. flag I own is a nylon job that flew over the U.S. Capitol for a few seconds on Aug. 1, 1997) that they forget the ideals of which the flag stands for. It is the ideals that matter, not the piece of cloth itself. It is the reason I personally consider the issue of flag burning to be a trivial one, with people who insist on a constitutional amendment outlawing it to be wasting their time.

This holiday (which is one of the lesser ones that some of us likely didn’t even realize was occurring Saturday until they happened to stumble onto this commentary) is not so much about a piece of cloth/nylon. It is about the ideals that make this country a unique place on the surface of Planet Earth, and in the history of mankind.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: David Letterman includes a mention of Bernard J. Cigrand on the website (http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/wahoo/index/php/20070614.phtml) for his late night television show. He’s also remembered for (http://www.luxamculturalsociety.org/CigrandDentalOfficeMuseum.htm) his dentistry.

Cigrand did not live long enough to see his life’s “crusade” become an official federal holiday (http://www.nationalflagday.com/bjc.asp), which was signed into law by then-President Harry Truman in 1949.

Obama “attacks” may bolster campaign

Wouldn’t it be ironic if social conservatives, in their attempts to bash on likely Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, wound up strengthening his campaign by revealing just how ridiculous many of their own positions are?

I’m starting to wonder if that is a very real possibility. The campaign season isn’t officially under way yet, and the hard-core campaigning won’t begin until after Labor Day (when the good people of DuPage County, Ill., will hold their annual “Back to School Parade” so they won’t have to honor the concepts of labor and workers).

YET WE’RE ALREADY getting nonsense of a level unlike anything ever seen before. Of course, we’ve never had a major political party nominate an African-American person for president, which creates a set of circumstances never before seen.

Perhaps that is why the Obama campaign has taken the unique step of putting together a new website by which he will refute the tales swirling around the rumor mill – in some cases, before they officially become stories.

First and foremost, he’s going after the notion that his wife, Michelle, was caught on videotape being a bigot, using the word “whitey” while speaking at an event sponsored by the PUSH/Rainbow Coalition. Or was it an event at the Trinity United Church of Christ with the now-retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright at her side? Or perhaps it was at a Nation of Islam event sponsored by Louis Farrakhan?

Seriously, I have had people in recent weeks try to peddle all three versions of the tale. None of them can agree on facts, perhaps because there is little in the way of fact behind this story (that’s what Obama says, at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/notape). Or maybe these Obama critics just think all black leaders look alike, and will accuse me of being “too politically correct” for calling them out on their nonsense.

I DON’T REALLY want to rehash this issue, beyond summarizing what I wrote a week ago – if there really is such a tape, it is probably some comment so innocuous that it has to be taken grossly out of context for anyone to believe that something bigoted was said.

More than likely, it will be a bigger statement about the racial attitudes of the people peddling the garbage about Michelle Obama than it would be about the views of the potential first lady.

That’s definitely the case behind people who are trying to defend Fox News for their recent broadcast that incorporated a graphic element using the words “Obama’s baby mama” to describe Michelle.

Columnist Michelle Malkin told the (ugh) Associated Press that Fox News shouldn’t really be blamed because the words “Obama’s baby mama” were never spoken on the air – they merely existed for a few seconds on a graphic that floated under the news anchor’s face.

THE SMART ALECK in me wants to say she’s absolutely right. One would have to read the graphic, and maybe she’s implying that Fox News viewers can’t (or don’t) read.

Of course, we all have to admit that the official explanation that the “baby mama” word choice was “poor judgment” is lame.

But using this bit of rap music slang to describe a woman who actually married her man before having his two daughters (isn’t that what the social conservatives are always claiming people are supposed to do?) actually sets the tone for the type of nonsense we’re going to hear for the next few months.

I also predict that a “President Obama” is going to have to put up with four (or eight) years of similar stuff. Some people in our society have a hang-up about the whole racial thing; many are more than willing to accept black people so long as they “act white.”

MANY OF THOSE people try to divert the issue into one of “acting American,” but a close study of their words usually shows they equate “white” and “American” as being synonymous – which may have been true in the 18th Century United States, but is so ridiculous in the reality of the 21st Century.

It’s in the same context that I have to wonder about the so-called “terrorist fist jab,” the playful little fist bump that Michelle gave her husband just before he gave the speech on the day when it became apparent that any chance Hillary R. Clinton had of defeating him was gone.

That was how one Fox News commentator described the moment. I have to wonder what substances she was using, and why won’t she share?

I also wonder if conservatives are now going to make an issue out of every single cutesy moment when a presidential candidate gets a physical congratulation from his spouse. Remember in 2004 when Democrat John Kerry gave his wife Teresa a big embrace and kiss on the stage at the Democratic National Convention – only to get blasted for being too emotional in public.

NOW, MICHELLE GIVES up a little fist bump, and gets labeled a “terrorist.”

It is going to be a seriously ugly primary. I fully expect that by the time Nov. 5 rolls around, we’re going to be able to look back on Election ’08 as one of the nastiest political brawls ever in this country. I also expect the incidents I have mentioned in this commentary will barely play in the overall picture – someone out there is determined enough to say or do something worse.

I have to wonder how much the “American” people will take before they say “enough.” I do believe we are beyond the days when blatant bigotry sells, and that there will be a point where the more ridiculous charges will come to be seen as evidence of how desperate some people are to cling to an antique way of thought.

I don’t expect Republican John McCain to spew much of this personally. In fact, I wonder if his campaign is going to wind up getting bogged down this summer and autumn with having to issue denials of all the crazy poop that his so-called supporters will spew against Obama.

TAKE FORMER SECRETARY of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who this week appeared at a GOP fundraiser and introduced Cindy McCain (the other potential first lady) as someone who is, “proud of her country, not just once but always.”

The allusion to Michelle Obama’s comment earlier this year in Wisconsin that, “for the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country,” because of the enthusiastic response her bi-racial husband’s presidential campaign received from white voters really is pathetic, when you think about it.

Michelle was saying she was “proud” that this country was at a point where it could look beyond race when deciding a presidential campaign. Does Eagleburger (or any McCain follower) really want to be on the opposite side of that argument – that race still ought to be an issue?

That is ridiculous, if not racist in and of itself. In many ways, it is even un-American.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Will Michelle Obama become a burden for her husband’s (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11044.html) presidential campaign? Or will the American people become disgusted enough with cheap shots against her that he gains support?

Michelle Obama made campaign history on that day in Wisconsin when she uttered her words (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/michelle-obamas.html) about the state of race and politics in the United States.

English newspaper readers got to read this take on the “baby mama” controversy (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/foxs_baby_mama_booboo.html), while Barack Obama’s new website (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/13/content_8357909.htm) gained attention in China.

Daley wins, but Blagojevich bungles in Wednesday “Battle of the Chicago pols”

Political observers who realize the world of Chicago politics to be far more interesting than anything happening in Washington had a serious decision to make Wednesday – south, or north.

Of Randolph Street, that is.

PEOPLE WHO WANTED to see the reality of power politics in Chicago had to decide whether to focus their attention on the south side of Randolph Street between Clark and LaSalle streets (City Hall), or the north side (Thompson Center state government building) of that block.

Either way, the realities of Chicago politics were at work.

At “da Hall,” the City Council became a rubber stamp for Mayor Richard M. Daley’s desire to have the Children’s Museum “forever defile” (in the minds of environmental critics) Grant Park.

At “the Thompson,” a negotiating session between Gov. Rod Blagojevich that was supposed to be about reaching a compromise on a budget for state government turned into a gubernatorial diatribe about a state capital projects plan and a legislative response to impeach the governor.

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT say that the activity at City Hall was “the Machine” of old, rubber-stamping the desires of a mayor named Daley, regardless of what any of those egg-headed activists might think or say about the public good.

But the activity involving state government (which usually takes a back seat to city government in the interests of Chicago resident) is more intriguing, because it is the ultimate power struggle.

Blagojevich usually tries to show that he is just as significant a political person in Illinois as Mayor Daley. But now, he’s trying to show that he’s not less important to the operations of state government than Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago.

How else to view the meeting between Blagojevich and the General Assembly’s four leaders that was supposed to be about plugging $2 billion holes in a nearly $60 billion budget for the upcoming state fiscal year.

BUT BLAGOJEVICH DIDN’T want to discuss the budget. He merely wanted to harangue the Legislature’s leadership about their failure to pass the $31 billion capital projects plan that he had retired Reps. Glenn Poshard and J. Dennis Hastert craft for him.

Some reports indicate Blagojevich told lawmakers that a budget would craft itself if only the Legislature would pass a capital projects plan – a goal that many legislators think is less important than a budget and can wait for a future year.

Days like Wednesday might be the way in which Blagojevich tries to convince himself that he has significant influence – if only those pesky legislators were to just please, do what he told them to do.

It is in dealing with such a mentality that Madigan’s political counter-punch makes sense. He didn’t bother to show up for Wednesday’s meeting, sending House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, in his place. (He previously has said meetings with Blagojevich are a “waste of time”).

INSTEAD, A MEMO wound up getting circulated that (in theory) informs members of the Illinois House of Representatives that they ought to start seriously thinking about impeachment of Blagojevich.

It also goes so far as to tell legislators that they ought to deny that they were influenced by leadership, and should insist that they are “research(ing) this issue on my own.”

Since June 1, Republicans have become significant in the budgetary process since the failure to meet a May 31 deadline means any revised budget will have to have more votes of approval than Democrats can provide on their own.

So naturally, House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, felt the need to get in the middle of the impeachment memo scandal – he said Madigan is more concerned with “creating a political document to play games” with the budgetary process.

YET IT IS sort of hypocritical for Cross to act so “shocked, shocked I say” to find politics being played with the budget. By taking his shot at Madigan, he’s engaging in his own political gamesmanship.

For what it’s worth, the memo about impeachment really isn’t about impeaching Blagojevich (even Madigan realizes the Democratic Party would come off looking so stupid if they tried to remove a sitting governor just because he’s arrogant).

They just want to hold it over his head while the budget talks take place, in part because of a belief that Blagojevich could resolve the whole budget situation on his own. He could use amendatory veto powers to make changes to the budget plan the Legislature approved almost two weeks ago.

Instead, he’s dragging the Legislature into the mess, trying to make it appear as though the whole matter is their fault – and that he’s Saint Rod, the Innocent, who doesn’t deserve blame for anything that goes wrong in Illinois government operations.

BASICALLY, THE NORTH side of Randolph Street is a political power play, with the governor trying to show who’s the boss, and Madigan reminding Rod that the Speaker was “The Speaker” back in the days when Blagojevich was just a college kid goofing off his way to a “C” average.

By comparison, the south side of Randolph was city government showing off its arrogant side – letting people know that it is not overly concerned about any reasons that might be given by environmentalists and residents of the high-rise luxury buildings that surround Grant Park.

THEY will decide where the Children’s Museum will be placed, and if they want it in Grant Park, then so be it.

Sixteen members of the City Council led an effort that lasted for nearly four hours to drag out the debate, while activists gathered outside the council chambers with their picket signs and cute chants to let them know that any construction in Grant Park amounts to “defiling” a civic treasure – the Chicago lakeshore of Lake Michigan.

BUT WHILE THERE are some legitimate reasons for putting a museum as potentially significant as the Children’s Museum at Grant Park (which is far more accessible than the current location at Navy Pier), none of the political geeks who comprise the Chicago City Council were concerned with those.

They did it because they did, even if they had to endure four hours of loudmouths (who they probably thought one-time Chicago Cubs manager Lee Elia’s description of Cubs fans also applied today when he said, “85 percent of the world works for a living, the rest of them come out here.”)

In the end, Alderman Bernard Stone, who represents the Rogers Park neighborhood on the far north lakefront, spoke their mindset when he said of the opposition, “I heard their chants. I read their t-shirts. ‘Save Grant Park,’ Save it from what?”

What we all need saving from are the political mindsets that prevailed on both sides of Randolph Street. When people place politics ahead of issues, the only people who benefit are political scientists, and even then, only because they get fresh anecdotal material for their studies.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Was House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, really upset with House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, about a memo his staff secretly circulated (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/999913,blago061108.article) about possible impeachment of the governor? Or was he just sticking up for his old friend, who was one of his colleagues in the Illinois House in the mid-1990s?

What would happen (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6199880) if you had budget negotiation talks, and nobody talked about the budget?

Ultimately, an appeals court panel somewhere will decide whether or not the Children’s (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=5104&TM=64361.57) Museum is permitted to relocate to Grant Park.

With all this activity in and near “da Hall,” nobody in Chicago cared much about the other political scandal story of the day, where Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHFZaew6MajX6n5OFf5oEz4K2K2w) had to accept the resignation of one of the people who was going to help him pick a vice presidential running mate due to allegations that the aide, former Fannie Mae executive Jim Johnson, accepted preferential home loans.

EXTRA!: 33-16, it passes

What a shock (heavy sarcasm intended). The City Council elected to let Mayor Richard M. Daley have his way with a proposed new structure in Grant Park for the Children’s Museum.

The only real question I have is whether the structure now at the site for the proposed museum will have its name retained in some form. The Daley Bicentennial Field House already exists, and wouldn’t it be a perfect tribute to Machine politics that the name of old man Daley, Richard J., gets attached to this museum, which passed due to pure partisan politics.

The only thing that would have been more appropriate is if the microphones of museum critics were to suddenly die on them during the council’s debate.

For those who want to read the work based on real reporters who were present for the council’s activity, check this (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29787) site.

Now, this can quit being a political issue and can become a legal one, as I’m sure opposition groups will try to tie this up in the courts for years to come. Oh joy.

-30-

Don't count out Daley on museum

It will be interesting to see the City Council put on the spot Wednesday, should they proceed with plans to vote on whether or not the Children’s Museum should be allowed to move from their current location amidst the tourist playground at Navy Pier to the “pristine” land of Grant Park.

A city council committee last week gave its recommendation to the move, even though many people interpret planner Daniel Burnham’s decree that the Chicago lakefront should remain “forever open, clear and free” to mean that nothing should be built in the downtown lakefront public park.

SO NOW, IT is up to the council whether this act should be permitted. Mayor Richard M. Daley has allies who tells the “gentlemen of the press” that enough support exists in the City Council to ensure a bill passage, and two supporters of the concept appeared on the “Chicago Tonight” program this week to say it would pass overwhelmingly.

Of course, two other aldermen (including the daughter-in-law of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson) say the measure will be defeated by a slim margin.

So who is telling the truth? Who is engaged in political posturing?

My incredibly safe prediction is that Daley will get what he wants, similar to how the one-time downtown airplane runway known as Meigs Field no longer exists – despite significant support in the city’s business community.

THE PEOPLE WHO are adamantly opposed to building anything at Grant Park are going to have to overcome their revulsion. Because this feels like it will happen, although we’re probably going to have to undergo hours of political posturing on Wednesday as its political critics insist on giving its defeat one last try.

What these people ought to be focusing their attention on is the design of any such museum. It is totally possible that something ugly and hideous could be put at the site that would defile the appearance of Chicago’s lakefront. They ought to be putting their political muscle behind ensuring that something of quality is constructed.

If that means they ought to think more like architectural critics than environmental preservationists, then that is totally proper.

Because the actual idea of a museum that is oriented toward families with younger children makes total sense at a downtown Chicago location.

PERSONALLY, I ALWAYS wondered just who was going to the museum at its current location.

Navy Pier itself has become a place with touristy theme restaurants (I don’t feel the need to eat shrimp at Bubba Gump’s, do you?) and overpriced bars and gift shops selling junk no real Chicagoan would ever have use for.

It is not a “kid-friendly” place, unless you define “kid-friendly” as a place where one can spend too much money on tacky souvenirs like t-shirts.

Navy Pier’s location is not the most accessible, if one is a Chicago-area type (roughly two of every three Chicago-area people live in a suburb of the city) who wants to drive their car to take the kids to see the place.

I COULD EASILY picture many suburban people being intimidated at the thought of driving their car to some place in the city near Navy Pier, only to have to park and then take a bus to the pier itself. How many would get on the wrong bus and wind up on Belmont Avenue?

The site proposed in Grant Park would be easier to get to for the masses. Urban residents who rely on public transportation would already be able to take their elevated train or bus combination that they use on a regular basis to get to downtown Chicago, then walk over to Michigan Avenue.

For suburban folks, it would be a matter of using the Metra commuter trains (which already have discounted fares on weekends), then walking to the site once they get to the downtown Chicago end of the line. In one case, riders of the Metra Electric line that runs from Randolph Street to University Park would literally be only a couple of blocks from the museum site.

People using Metra lines that stop at other downtown train stations might have to walk an extra few blocks. But it is totally practical.

IT IS MORE practical than the thought of taking a suburban commuter train, then trying to walk to Navy Pier, which is more than a mile away and could be a torturous walk if one is trying to lug along little children who are confused by the mass of big buildings surrounding them.

Now I understand that the residents of the high-rise luxury apartments in the downtown area are trying to find technical maneuvers that would allow them to get a court order prohibiting a museum from being built in the area.

These people are not as obsessed with the notion of defiling Grant Park as they are of objecting to the idea of a potentially major tourist site being built right in their area (in some cases, right across the street from their condominiums).

These people are the ones who offend my sensibilities the most when it comes to the Children’s Museum debate. I can kind of respect those people who quote Daniel Burnham and claim they have a vision for the city’s lakefront, even if I think they carry that vision just a tad too far.

BUT THE LOCAL residents are the ones who are trying to act as though Grant Park is their neighborhood park for their personal use.

It isn’t.

One summer of my life, I lived in Near North Chicago, just a couple of blocks behind what is the Gold Coast. It was an interesting summer because I was literally near the heart of the city. There was a convenience factor to having everything one could want from urban life within walking distance.

There was also a vitality to being in the middle of the masses that would come from all around the Chicago area (and other parts of the country) to enjoy the local amenities.

THE TRADEOFF IS the crowds. You have to put up with a few more clowns than you would if you spent the bulk of your life in one of the residential neighborhoods such as Sauganash, or out in a suburb like Lombard.

These residents seem to want the convenience factor, but don’t want to have to pay the price. Besides, it’s not like anyone is talking about building a new sports stadium (seriously, the team now known as the Chicago Cubs once played in a ballpark near Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street for a couple of years in the 19th century) in the area.

Something like that would attract raucous crowds that could be disruptive (how many Lake View neighborhood residents would be overjoyed if the Cubs were to leave their community?). This is an attraction that will generate the complete opposite kind of crowd.

IF YOUR PROBLEM is that you don’t want that many kids around, all I have to say is “Get over yourself.” Kids exist. We cope. It’s that simple.

Insofar as they exist, it is not unreasonable to have attractions that could appeal to them. Putting them in the downtown area is a way of having major attractions that could appeal to all of them – whether they live South Side, north suburb or anywhere else in the six-county region that comprises the Chicago area.

That ultimately is the problem I have with the thought of using other sites, some of which are out in the neighborhoods. The potential exists to create something that benefits one neighborhood (and one alderman whose ward is fortunate enough to get the project), but is inaccessible to the bulk of Chicago-area people.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: City council officials are bracing themselves for the ultimate showdown (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/990610,museum060608web.article) Wednesday on the location of a proposed new Children’s Museum in Chicago.

What a shock. The Chicago Tribune and I disagree. The city’s still-largest circulation newspaper (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-080604grant_briefs,0,6444767.story) thinks a Grant Park location is not readily accessible for a museum.

Should City Council officials respect their long-running tradition of supporting a local alderman on any measures related to zoning of property in their wards? If so, they ought to vote (http://www.wthitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8452692) against the Children’s Museum, because local Ald. Brendan Reilly opposes the project.