53 Comments - Bill - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:25 am: Yes, the time is now. America needs a strong leader who will extricate us from the hopeless morass of the middle east, the failed policies and philosphies of the past six years and return our country to its rightful place in the world community. We need to restore the economic prosperity of pre-Bush America, find a solution for the social security problem, pay down the deficit, insure that all Americans have access to quality health care and affordable prescription drugs, and ensure that every citizen has a chance at self improvement and a better life. Obama is the man for the job. Even the reactionary Trib recognizes it, although they will probably endorse whatever sacraficial lamb loser the Repubs come up with. - Levois - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:39 am: All I know is that right now I’m not jumping on board. I need a reason to support him and I haven’t seen it yet. If he runs I don’t think he’ll do it to win. If anything it’s to see if people really want him and all he has to do is run well in some of the primaries especially Iowa and New Hampshire. - Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:43 am: Well, considering the fact that he’s never really done anything at all, that he’s been tied-into a real estate deal with Tony Reszko and that he pushed Todd Stroger despite the obvious, I think this is one strange bandwagon I’ll refrain from hopping onto. The Trib must think it’d be just “neat-o queat-o” to have a president from Illinois. I’d rather have one from some backwater untouched by Chicago-style corrupt politics, and with an actual record to stand on. Hopefully, this is one “journey” that the Messiah won’t finish. - Leroy - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:48 am: More importantly than the Chicago Trib endorsement: How much money did Obama pull out of George Soros yesterday, and what did he have to promise to get it? - beowulf - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:51 am: As a Republican, I am in agreement that now is the time for Obama to run for President. It would seem to give the people of all parties a clear third choice. My only misgiving about Barack is not that he let himself get implicated with Rezko on that real estate deal but rather that he endorsed Todd Stroger with a straight face. That bothers me and many other Independents and GOP swing-voters. Obama made his decision to endorse Todd Stroger not based on whether he thought that Todd Stroger was “the better qualified candidate” but rather “simply because he was a Democrat”. Barack allowed the Illinois and Cook County Democrat political power brokers to put words in his mouth before he spoke them. That bothers me. I asked one of the reporters that was present when Barack made his endorsement why Barack would endorse Stroger? The reporter said that the reporters asked Barack this same question and Obama’s reply was simply “because Todd Stroger was a Democrat.” That is scary but also very revealing about Barack Obama. I and many others seem to have forgotten that Barack is human and, thus is subject to human frailties such as “ambition”. Many of us had Barack riding on a white horse and sitting on top of pedestals that were way too high. Reality suddenly descended on us when we watched Barack take his orders from his Cook County Democrat leadership. “Not a bad guy” but also, not some deity that we had allowed ourselves to believe was above the political fray and who we found out was willing to prostitute himself for personal political ambition. - The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:55 am: Must be a slow news day. - PalosParkBob - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:56 am: Obama is all flash and media-induced perception of quality, which, when you study his “qualifications”, crumble into dust. He comes from perhaps the most corrupt and patronage ridden political systems in the world, and at no time has shown any capability of dealing with state fiscal, health care, deficit and government waste issues. Now we’re expected to believe he has the “answers” and “leadership skills” to solve these problems at a much more complex Federal level? The man has shown virtually no grasp or understanding of foreign policy or military tactics or strategy, doesn’t even have ONE diplomatic success due to his leadership that he can point to, and some are ready to anoint him as Leader of the Free World? And I thought we were in trouble with “Bush Lite” as Pres! God save our nation and its people from the travesty that’s being wrought against them. - dick - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:04 am: The Rezko deal suggests that Obama may just be another Trojan Horse for what John Kass calls the political “Combine” that runs Illinois, which is one of the most politically corrupt states in the Union. Republican or Democrat, the Combine owns our politicians. All the country needs is for the gang of Prairie State Profiteers to own the president. Beware of Obama! - Bill - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:06 am: Todd Stroger is the best man for the job, considering the alternative, as the voters decided on election day. Barack, like all other right minded Democrats, supported the people’s choice and should be commencded for that. The fact that Barack and the rest of us were correct was made abundantly clear during the election night storming of the county building by peraica thugs.It is really funny how quick Republicans are to start screaming about corruption. I guess if anyone knows about that stuff it would be them. - 105th Blues - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:09 am: Hmmm..A free pass up to this point and the Drive By Media setting him up for a walk into the White House. Has he ever been seriously challenged to explain his positions or views on anything beyond a few sound bite buzz word sentences? - Fellow Dawg - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:12 am: Endorsements? Still a bit premature I’d say. Probably still a bit early for official announcements to run. Even for fundraising purposes. But, I can assure that this a sign that us Dems have finally remembered the importance of being organized. And we all know what happens when the “Big Tent” gets organized… Senator Obama appears to be the individual best suited to Lead this effort. The Democrats so desperately need somebody willing and able to articulate our collective thoughts and feelings. Heck, who knows, maybe even redefine the platform. Yeah, that’s right! The so called pitfalls of Sen. Obama’s party loyalty and lack of experience are perceived by many of us as strengths. There’s nothing wrong with being a newbie outsider (with opinions) that’s willing to take a position. Get ready Kids! It’s gonna be one one heck’uva ride! I for one am ready. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:24 am: I agree that now is the time from his perspective. The next president is likely to serve 8 years and it is impossible to predict the political scene almost 10 years from now, when another chance would open up for Obama should he decide to wait. And many Americans would likely be grateful to him for taking out Hillary should he win the nomination. Her impending candidacy is an ego trip for the Clintons, who are unable to let go of power, regardless of the impact on the Democratic party. For the Clintons, only the Clintons matter. But we have absolutely no idea if Obambi can do anything. He has little to show for his years in various elective positions. And so we are forced to give a lot of weight to the Rezko deal, which foreshadows another White House imbued with the sleaze approach to government. I’m for a Bloomberg presidency. A first Jewish president would rival a first black president as a symbol of Americans moving beyond race and ethnicity in selecting their leaders. Bloomberg is likely smarter than Obama and his wealth makdes him impervious to the kind of sleaze we had to put up with during Clinton/Gore and would likely continue to have to put up with Obama. And he has shown over and over that he can run the most complicated city in the world and run it well. - Justice - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:28 am: Bill…Once again you made me smile. Barack hasn’t done anything of great consequence yet and now he is our salvation? Wow!!! I guess there is always hope that he can actually “do something.” He is about to enter the cruel world of big time politics and I simply don’t see him surviving. If he does, maybe we’ll all be better for it. Anyone, but anyone, would be better than Giuliani, McCain, or Biden. Hilary might even come around to some level of sanity………naaaaaah! Besides, I see an endorsement by the Trib as a kiss of death. - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:31 am: While Senator Obama seems a likeable man and earnest, I don’t see the substance. For president, give me a governor who has run a clean and efficient state system. As for fixing Social Security and providing health care and prescription drugs, President Bush attempted the first and partially accomplished the third, both with the opposition of the Democrat Party. The Democrat answer will simply be to raise taxes, yet nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to levy taxes for those uses. Not what I want from my federal government. - oldie opah - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:38 am: Obama should test the waters,the fact that he has no record is a plus it will spare him the rovian misinformation tactics the neo cons are so fond of.Although I’m sure the neo cons are licking their chops over the prospect of a Black man with a muslim middle name as a potential Dem nominee for President. Our primary process will ferret out the pretenders and tell us who is tough enough - Drew - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:40 am: I just don’t see the appeal. Do we really want an Emil Jones crony in the White House? Yikes! - seb - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:40 am: Please would all those who believe Obama to be “all flash and media-induced perception of quality” just go out and read his books. Though it may be said that “Audacity of Hope” will read like a political manifesto, the “Dreams from my Father” is a deeply personal account of a journey of self discovery. It was written years before he decided to enter politics. This guy really is the real deal. As for lack of experience, the American people elected a man with a consistent record of failure at every business venture he had been involved in, requiring Daddy’s friends to bail him out of trouble on multiple occasions. somebody who was notoriously lazy when he found himself installed in the Governor’s mansion in Texas. A chickenhawk whose military experience involved flying practice jets around Texas for the national guard, when he could be bothered to turn up. A man whose only forays abroad had been to Mexico, and who was so ignorant of foreign affairs he was unable to name the President of Pakistan. For the last six years you’ve had a President who has somehow managed to turn the US into an international pariah, seen as a greater threat to world peace than even North Korea and its tin-pot dictator. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html - Tweed - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:43 am: I’m getting tired of comments like the one by PalosParkBob and Snidely Whiplash. It doesn’t take any talent to write “Obama hasn’t done anything at all and even if he did do something one time, he would have/did mess it up”. If I wanted to read sentences like that, I would start reading discussion boards on the Blackhawks. Actual comments from above include, “Well, considering the fact that he’s never really done anything at all” and “at no time has shown any capability of dealing with state fiscal, health care, deficit and government waste issues”. Instead of saying these absurd general statements, could you try and give actual criticism? Perhaps you could point out a certain time that he messed up on a health care vote or even a local hospital issue. You could even show how other Presidential candidates had a similar situation where they did show capability to handle a certain issue where Obama has failed. Apparently since Obama hasn’t done anything and he has never done one thing correct, it shouldn’t be hard to point out ONE time when someone did something better and Obama messed up. - Niles Township - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:49 am: Obama runs in 2008, Obama loses in 2008. He will win a couple primary states, but not the whole thing. Excellent oratory skills do not substitute for the necessary substantive experience to lead this country in this era. 20 years ago, I would have said Obama would own this thing. Today, we need someone who has foreign policy, military and sustainable economic development plans and experience. We need someone who can bring togetehr a trusted circle of advisors. Is Obama going to bring in Tony Rezko to help him understand the Arab mindset that we are fighting? This from a Dem, btw. - ZC - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 8:53 am: What is so bad about partisanship, again, when it comes to enacting major changes in our nation? You look at the creation of the Social Security Act - that was partisan Democratic politics. Medicare - that was partisan. The 1993 Clinton tax hikes that liberals look back fondly at - not a single Republican voted for those. For Republicans, and things they look back at as progress, the 1981 Reagan tax cuts - those were largely partisan. Taft-Hartley - partisan. The Bush tax cuts. The Medicare prescription drug expansion (if you’re a fan) - partisan. What are some examples of significant, really big long-term reforms that were truly bipartisan creations? I can think of some - but not as many. Sad truth is, a lot of the legislation we look at as most significant and long-lasting for this nation gets passed because one side took a partisan stance, took it to an election, and WON. Some people were unhappy, true. That’s called democracy. I think there’s a strong case to be made, if you’re looking for a leader who might make us all “feel good,” in abstract, but who won’t have much of a mandate to pursue the hard, alienating choices that might actually move this country forward, pick Barack. If you want a real mandate (especially on health care, our nation’s #1 domestic problem) and a leader who, if she wins, can credibly claim that the people have spoken to make difficult decisions, then you should at least consider the merits of Hillary. A lot of people who post to this blog might hate such an outcome, but that’s precisely the point. If she won, that would show that they are clearly in the minority, and they should buck up and deal while us liberals take a turn setting national priorities. They’d get their chance again eventually. And I hope Barack realizes this. If he runs, and he doesn’t take a few risks and start alienating at least a few people on tough issues, then what does he expect to do for four years in the White House? Fly around the country giving motivational speeches and hawking his books? I’m not ruling Barack out here by any means, but I’m waiting to hear just what his policies are. If they’re not at least a little partisan and divisive, what’s the point? - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 9:01 am: First of all, Obama is only a centrist in his rhetoric. His scant voting record is decidedly hard-Dem and hard-liberal, not centrist. As I point out in a post at my blog ( http://gopartisan. blogspot.com/2006/12/ limits-of-hopes-audacity.html ) he will now - as a member of the majority - have no excuse for not drafting and co-sponsoring more legislation on the issues he has spent so much time talking about. The devil will be in the details, and we’ll see how “centrist” he appears by the end of 2007. If he can find a way to match his walk with his talk, more power to him….I’d be glad to see him make the race. But I just don’t think that will happen. He’s running from the wrong place (ie, the Senate) to do what he’s trying to do politically. - Citizen of Kane - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 9:37 am: Obama might be a great president if conditions were such that it did not matter who was president. - Dan Vock - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 10:39 am: For the record, the Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president more recently than 1872. Sort of. It happened just one year ago. The Trib ran an editorial called “Matthew V. Santos for president” last Dec. 16. Of course, Santos was only running for president in West Wing. But that didn’t prevent the Trib from gloating when he won. The newspaper ran an editorial crowing about its perfect endorsement record in the new century — two nods for George Bush and another for Santos. - Fellow Dawg - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 10:52 am: seb 8:40 sums it all up. It just hurts to read that we have to use the Smirking Chimp to put it in context. I hate to say it, but the GOP is seriously risking another couple of generations in the “Desert”. Similar to what happened after the Goldwater fiasco all them years ago. But as they say, it is what it is. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 11:04 am: Obama should run. He is a newborn with no experience. If he is sincere, he needs to do more than talk himself up in his books. So, a run will help toughen him up. He has nothing to lose. He has to run on a record of little to no accomplishments. Even after years as a state senator, Obama’s district is as poor as the first day he arrived. He could have fought the poverty, unwed motherhood, drug crimes and unemployment within his senate district. He didn’t. He could have offered new ideas to help his district. Nothing. New innovations? Nope. Nothing. Even as a US Senator, drive through his old neighborhood and ask yourself, “What did Obama do to earn the recognition he currently has?” You want to know what kind of leader he is? Take a look around and shudder. Instead of bringing hope to his constituents, Obama cultivated political connections - that can be a great thing, if it helps your people. But take a look at his district and you see ZERO accomplishments. Obama’s plate as a state senator was full. He has a lifetime of work to service and revitalize his district. But Obama had himself to promote politically, and he had to choose between promoting his own messiah via the media, or promoting his accomplishments by actually accomplishing something for the people he represents - he chose the PR stunts. He couldn’t get elected as a US Representative based on his lack of accomplishments in his district. He started meeting with cronies and made enough deals to get into the game for a US Senate shot. It worked. So now he’s God? Like Al Salvi or Oberweis, Obama was ready to jump ship the moment he saw one come along. He didn’t have an interest in being a hard-working leader on his home turf, because that would require unglamorous hard work, new ideas and results. He wanted to kiss up to Oprah, and delivering a future to his neighborhood wasn’t going to deliver the messiah-hood he envisioned for himself. After two years as US Senator - nothing. He has been about as good as he was as a Chicago backwater political hack from the poor sticks. So bring it on Barak! Let’s run on the record you so desperately shy away from! Good luck pretty boy! - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 11:14 am: “VanillaMan,” you’re off-base about Obama’s work in the IL Senate. And as for his district (which I think may be code for “black people”) I lived in his district, as did many other people on the Lakefront. It was a very diverse district and he was quite popular there. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 11:19 am: Nuts! I thought I had something. I’ll keep working on it. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 11:31 am: lol - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 12:05 pm: Thank you Rich for setting the record straight regarding Obama. Last time I checked — and as I think I reported before — Obama was the chief sponsor of 38 pieces of legislation signed into law between from 2003-2004. That was while he was running for US Senator. Those who say that Obama accomplished little or nothing obviously haven’t taken five minutes to look at the man’s record. 38 bills signed into law in one year is huge. The typical senator might enact 3-4. You obviously didn’t read the newspapers either, because these were not small bills for the most part. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and making it permanent. Requiring homocide interrogations to be videotaped. Enabling folks who’ve committed petty crimes and repaid their debt to society to move on with their lives. Your strategy is obvious: repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true. You’re not much better than that nutjob who keeps posting that Obama is a Muslim, or the smear campaign that Goerge Bush ran against John McCain in Carolina that he had “an illegitimate coloured baby.” I don’t think it’s fair to say that Obama has a liberal record — maybe liberal compared to Pate, but it’s pretty reflective of the priorities of the Hyde Park district he represented. But atleast whether his record is liberal or mainstream is a debatable point. Arguing that he has no record is ludicrous — he has a much more extensive track record than George Bush had when he became President, or Eisenhower and many others. In fact, Obama’s track record parallels another’s…who served only eight years in the Illinois House and two years in Congress before running for President. I don’t think anyone can recall much that he accomplished in either of those bodies at the time, but Abraham Lincoln still made a damn fine president. Vision and character trump experience every time. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 12:12 pm: Actually, “YDD,” Lincoln had a pretty strong record in the Illinois House, made it to the rank of Minority Leader, was considered a great orator and was well-liked by his peers. - PalosParkBob - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:21 pm: Tweed: Where we disagree is with your apparent proposition that Obama not “messing up” somehow qualifies him to be POTUS. We have a right to expect leadership, and success on key issues, to be on his resume’. Not just avoiding “screwing up”. YDD: All your examples of him making the Earned Income Tax Credit permanent, and placing restrictions on law enforcement, certainly may make him a credible candidate for President…. of the ACLU. That certainly does not impress for POTUS purposes. Oddly enough, at one time I actually was considering supporting Mr Obama for Senator, until I read his positions on his web site. At the time, we had soaring gas prices and possible shortages because of lack of domestic refining capacity and convoluted blend requirements from various regions of the country, especially California. What was Mr Obama’s solution to getting more domestic refining capacity? Making it harder to obtain a permit for refinery construction,increasing oil industry regulation, and forcing non-market based “conservation” regulations on the energy using public. As someone who had decades of previous experience in the energy industry (no, not ENRON), it was clear that the man had absolutely no concept of, or respect for, market driven industry, the chilling effect of reactionary government regulation without value or strategic purpose, or America’s place in the global energy picture. Such wrong headedness relying on failed policy of the past would be a disaster in the Oval Office. Think stagflation “Jimmy Carter”, except with far less experience, resume’, portfolio, and global and military sense. - ZC - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:21 pm: Abe was a great President. He had one famous moment in the U.S. House where he challenged President James Polk to show the exact spot of American soil on which American blood had been shed by Mexican troops (this was the dispute over which side invaded to start the Mexican-American War). The “Spot Resolution” was widely reported and commented upon across the nation. Beyond that, I think Abe did spend most of his time on local district concerns. Abe also goes to further my point: his reputation as a “uniter” today besides, in his time Abe was viewed as an intensely polarizing figure from a partisan perspective. With the Democrats seceding , and all that. - Bubs - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:24 pm: YDD joins the “Obama = Lincoln” Club. It’s a disgusting overreach. Stop it. There was only one Abraham Lincoln. - Ghost - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:30 pm: Obama should run. His books offer persepctives on how he views problems in our society that reflect a thoughtful person interested in seeking effective solutions. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:32 pm: There are a number of factors that make Sen. Obama a feasible candidate. First and foremost, there are no strong alternatives. Hillary has the charisma of Mondale, the polarizing effect of Nixon, and the executive abilities of George W. Gore is tainted by the past. Edwards comes off too slick. Dodd too old and boring. Clark won’t go anywhere without the Clintons support. The Iowa Gov has no support outside Iowa. Kerry blew his chance. The fact that Obama excites even the staid Tribune says a lot about his widespread appeal. He has a nationally recognized name and been building support around the country by campaigning and fundraising for other politicians. Few of the potential opponents can match him here. Most importantly, Obama has the ability to attract star caliber advisors and staff. Idealistically, they want to be part of a movement. Cynically, they want to align themselves with someone who has longterm potential to help their careers. Obama meets both of these criteria. I could see him running with one eye on the presidency and the other on the vice-presidency. As VP candidate, he would bring energy to the campaign and make history as the first African-American VP. It lays the groundwork for him to run in 4 years if they lose and 8 years if they win. As a young man that is reasonable time frame. In regards to his experience level, while I think he will face a learning curve, I’m sure he can handle it. My perception is he is capable of being a good manager and ultimately people vote based on perceptions not reality. - THE ORACLE - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 1:51 pm: THE ORACLE WILL NOW SPEAK… Some have questioned Senator Obamas independence. They accuse him of being beholden to the so called “machine.” Obama ran against Rush. Rush was the Party’s candidate. Then Obama ran against HUll. The Party loved Hull because of his donations, and he could fund his own campaign. Obama doesn’t need anyones pac money. He can raise all the money he wants. The real question to put forth is after Obama declares his candidacy for President. Who will be his running mate? THE ORACLE HAS SPOKEN… - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 2:47 pm: “The Party loved Hull” Geez, where did you get that load of crap? Obama’s insiders sandbagged Hull by exposing personal information within Hull’s divorce proceedings. Oracle is wacked. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 2:52 pm: I remember when John McCain’s “maverick” rebukes of the Bush Administration and its policies on some matters was enough to earn him a “pass” when he was otherwise supportive of the President and his party’s platform on other issues, allowing him to stay above the “partisan” fray. Not so much anymore, however. And what about Rudy Giuliani? He was once lionized as a unifying American hero. Now the Trib (bizarrely, if you ask me) characterizes him as “polarizing.” So make no mistake, if Obama is able to bring “an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography” to the 2008 race, it will largely be a result of the media allowing him to. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 2:53 pm: “Todd Stroger is the best man for the job, considering the alternative, as the voters decided on election day. Barack, like all other right minded Democrats, supported the people’s choice and should be commencded for that.” Well said Bill! Everyone knows Toddler was selected by THE PEOPLE to run for office, and Obama endorse the candidate and the way he got the nomination, right? Just how many US voters are willing to see some guy in with the Chicago Democratic machine get into the Oval Office? You just mention New Jersey, and a candidate is practically disqualified immediately by most voters. Can a smiling pretty boy paper over his roots? We’ll see. Rodham-Clinton has already bought and set up the teams to take Obama down if he tries to run. Bill is getting ready to get Barak into one of his bear hug death grips of which no human ever escaped. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 3:01 pm: Tony Blankly to Obama, Or consider my old boss Newt Gingrich — Clinton’s primary political opponent in the 1990s. Clinton’s IRS very publicly opened an investigation of Newt for tax fraud. They kept it open for years, and then, a few weeks after he retired, the IRS quietly announced the investigation was complete and he was innocent. But not before Democrats spent years using that phony investigation as a basis for calling Newt a tax cheat. That’s the way the Clintons play the game. They call it the policy of personal destruction. For Obama’s sake, I hope he is ready for the game he is so anxious to get into. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 3:09 pm: YDD, think for a second…Emil Jones more than likely propped Obama up by allowing his legislation to pass through. From what I’ve always heard Obama was Emil and Vince’s choice for U.S. Senator from the second he made his intentions known. Without that tag-team working to help him out, there was no way “Obama’s legislation” would have made it through on that scale. And who’s to say that many of Obama’s ideas weren’t “taken” from other Dem caucus members to help out a little-known state senator who was going up a two-term comptroller and a multi-gajillionaire? With the way Illinois politics is conducted, people like Emil and MJM continuously move bills around and tell members how to vote and what to do with their legislation. If MJM were different, somebody like Wyvetter Younge would have 100+ bills passed EACH SESSION! It all comes down to semantics. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 3:15 pm: Rich - absent the rank of “Minority Leader,” your description of Lincoln’s record in the Illinois General Assembly sounds alot like Obama’s record in the General Assembly. Palos Park Bob — The Chicago Tribune has led calls for expanding the earned income tax credit and requiring homocide interrogations to be videotaped. Calling them “ACLU” bills is absurd. The Earned Income Tax Credit was created by that great liberal, Richard Millhouse Nixon. Bubs: I’m not saying Obama = Lincoln, I’m saying that experience is a moot argument. The greatest virtues extolled of Lincoln were his ability to unite folks behind his vision, his intellectual acumen, and his deep, personal faith. Those are traits Obama shares. Yes, they are different men, but they are both men for their times. And yes, Obama has made mistakes, like the Rezko affair, but so did Lincoln. Lincoln “campaigned vigorously” to elect Gen. Zach Taylor POTUS - the same General he attacked in the “Spot Resolution” - and immediately sought a high-level patronage job from Taylor when he won. Lincoln and Obama both have their faults — as do all — but candidates’ character should be judged on the totality of their life, not defined by a few missteps — especially if they can demonstrate they’ve learned something from them. After eight years of a President who’s only admitted mistake is trading Sammy Sosa from the Texas Rangers, I think that’s the kind of leadership America will want. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 3:24 pm: Team Sleep - Yes, Obama had Emil’s support. But Dan Hynes was Madigan’s choice, and still those bills passed the House. Blair Hull was the Governor’s choice, and still they were signed into law. And political alliances cut both ways. For every Senate Democrat motivated to help Obama, there was a Senate Republican motivated to thwart him. At the end of the day, Obama got it done, and that’s what counts. - Bubs - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 4:27 pm: YDD, do me a favor and stop talking about Obama and Lincoln like they are equals. They are not. Like all of us, Obama is a midget compared to Lincoln. It’s fairly obvious that Obamamania stems from public dissatisfaction with national political strategies pursued over the past decade, as each side has abandoned the center (some asserting that no center ever existed.) They now bank on high turnout from the extremes by “energizing the base.” The public is fed up with the partisanship and red/blue extremism that these stratgies have engendered, so they want a uniter from the center on the national stage. Obama hands them that, and many love it. Whether that makes him Presidential material, however, is another story. Barack Obama is hardly the next John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Mick Jagger, Sidney Poitier, Superman or whatever other pedestal his overheated supporters may supply. But I grant you that he is a pretty clever politician. - NW Side - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 6:03 pm: Truth is, no one knows who will make a great president until they get there. Obama might be another Lincoln. He might be another Carter. And Palos Park Bob and all the others who have an idealized notion of presidents as people with extraordinary resumes, and years of political experience, are simply not paying attention to who our presidents have been. JFK, Lincoln, FDR–all held office for very short periods prior to election, and were not known for extraordinary legislative or executive accomplishments. They were, however, able to inspire and lead, which is what we want most from our presidents. The successful ones have it–whether it’s Republicans like Reagan or Democrats like Kennedy. - Bubs - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 6:27 pm: NW Side - Nice hogwash, but hogwash. If you are telling us that being inspiring and a leader is a prerequisite for being a successful President, you get the Obvious Fact Award for the day. If your premise is that being inspiring and a leader means you are a lock for being a successful President, I have two words for you - Bill Clinton. He was both, but will not be remembered for his accomplishments, because not many occurred. - Angie - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 7:14 pm: The Senator is responsive to voters, I must say, which further helps him to be viewed as a man of the people. Had sent something about the charity care/billing/collections issue that Lisa Madigan has been working on once, and he did reply within about 30 days (personally, via email). Something about being “committed” to the issue (we’re still waiting to see what will actually be DONE after all the rhetoric, of course, since his wife now has a really cushy job as a VP over at University of Chicago Hospitals, right?). Of course, if he would actually DO something on the issue, it would probably help him out a lot, I’m sure. Healthcare is a huge issue, so you definitely want to be on the right side of that one (and not on the side of the price-gouging, we-turn-em-over-to-sleazy-collections-agencies-too-fast so-called non-profit hospitals–not that I’m implicating U of C, but just speaking in general terms about the whole issue). So, you’ve got an inexperienced, yet affable, charismatic, good-lookin’ political version of Rico Suave out there who dresses sharp and knows how to get back to the voters rather promptly (which is more than I can say for SOME people who can’t get papers graded and turned back to their own students on time-cough cough-but that’s a different story). He’s approachable and reachable. Heck, that’s a start! I’m still rooting for Giuliani, though. On the experience thing.: ) - Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 9:01 pm: Tweed, we are all entitled to our opinions; there is no way to make things personal. Seeing as you have already done so, please, you tell me what Obama did prior to become a “rock star” to warrant his becoming a “rock star.” And, what has he done since? All he does is draw media attention to himself. When he actually had a chance to show some leadership and make a difference, he showed his true (cowardly and self-ambitious) colors by endorsing Todd Stroger. He is perceived to be saintly, above all reproach, above corruption and nepotism in government, yet he has PROVEN himself to be nothing more than your garden-variety machine hack, albeit a bit more educated, well-groomed and well-spoken than most. You imply (actually, I think you SAID) that no one has any right to criticize anything Obama has done. That is absolutely absurd. Uninformed, blind, party-line, hero-worshipping voting patterns are what is making this state the joke it is today. Tell ya what: If he starts wearing more earth-tone ties, I’ll vote for him. I like earth tones. It shows that he’s “down to earth”, a man of the people. Blech! - Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 9:05 pm: P.S. There’s your example, Tweed. He endorsed the unqualified son of a patronage-machine-engineer who himself was elected in the primary while on life support as said son and others around him lied to the public about his condition. He directly helped to perpetuate incompetent and corrupt government in his own county. Happy now? - Brian McDaniel - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 10:10 pm: Would someone please tell me what Barack Obama has done other than make one good speech at the Democrat Convention a few years ago? - Ali - Wednesday, Dec 6, 06 @ 10:15 pm: I like Obama. But what has he does as Senator, and if he is so great shouldn’t he stay as Senator. I don’t think the Todd Stroger endorsement is good BUT it is not a big deal. Stroger will implode but he was the Democrat. - jackie - Thursday, Dec 7, 06 @ 12:19 am: He should certainly run while he’s still got lustre. Eventually they will see him for what he is. One speech can only get you so far. - PalosParkBob - Thursday, Dec 7, 06 @ 10:31 am: YDD: Regarding that great “liberal” Richard Nixon, I heartily agree with your skeptism of his conservative bonafides considering his actions as President. He was far more liberal than JFK in tax policy, deficit spending, and foreign policy, opening the door to a malevelant Chinese government for narrow financial interests, as well as becoming a “surrender monkey” to the commies with Henry “America is a declining power so it should surrender now” Kissinger. Nixon’s horrible non-wartime wage and price control system was perhaps the greatest act of centrally controlled economic socialism in American history. It’s not that I disagree with the legislation Obama was allowed to push through. It’s just that making progress towards finding solutions to critical Medicaid, transportation, infrastructure, pension, education, corruption, and economic growth problems in Illinois would have been able to demonstrate that he at least had some skills in clearly understanding the issues well enough to formulate optimal solutions and legislation, and ability to show the leadership in getting beneficial legislation for these solutions in place. I really think his getting involved is part of the Clinton strategy, He’ll scare off more qualified and threatening candidates, and once he spends about $50 million creating a “clean” image, HRC’s hit squads will link him to Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois corruption, expose his lack of understanding or achievement as a political leader, and leave him a quivering mass of jello as she promenades to the White House. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.