Secretary of State Jesse White announced a couple of years ago that he planned to run again in 2010.
Since the SoS office has often been used as a successful springboard to higher office (Dixon, Edgar, Ryan, to name a few) and White says he won’t move up, do you think he ought to abandon his ‘10 reelection plans for the “good of the party” or do you think he ought to keep on racking up those crushing wins over his GOP opponents, which might also be considered acting on behalf of the “good of the party”? After all, he carried DuPage County four years ago, breaking a once unheard-of barrier.
And, please, anybody who thinks Jesse White is not as sharp mentally as he’s always been has never spent much time with the guy. I have. So I don’t care what you’ve heard, you’re wrong. I don’t want to see any goofy comments about how he’s “losing it.” I’ve been listening to people (mostly Republicans) whisper about this alleged “affliction” for years, and they’ve always been wrong. Stick to the topic at hand, please.
I had a brief bit about this in yesterday’s Capitol Fax and more in the subscriber-only blog, but today Lynn Sweet based her column on the subject so we’ll talk about it here now.
Washington - Seeking to solidify African-American backing for Barack Obama’s presidential bid, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. told black Democrats meeting here last week they don’t “owe” anyone, alluding to, but not mentioning by name, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Jones concluded his speech with a reference to the jobs and appointments Bill Clinton had given blacks, including many people in the room, and asked when they would stop owing the Clintons for that patronage, attendees said.
“You could hear a pin drop,” said one person in the room who doesn’t currently support either Obama or Clinton. “It was one of those moments when you say, ‘I can’t believe he just said that.’”
Jones’ call was received frostily by Clinton allies, including Minyon Moore, the former White House aide who now heads Hillary Clinton’s black outreach, and former Clinton and Gore campaign aide Donna Brazile, according to some attendees.
Moore walked out of the room when Jones stopped speaking, according to two people who were there. Moore said Sunday she’d left because she had somewhere else to be, and that she would “agree to disagree” with Jones.
Neither Moore nor Brazile could be reached for comment. But another Clinton supporter who was who at the meeting said Clinton’s camp took Jones’ remarks as an affront.
“The feeling was, ‘Who is [Jones] to tell us how to be black?’ ” said the Clinton supporter, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the issue.
Back to Sweet:
The controversy triggered by Jones was picked up by CNN Monday, and the Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN that Jones “could offend people by saying you got to unite just because someone is your race.”
Sharpton noted that Obama endorsed Mayor Daley for re-election over two black candidates, so it would not follow to ask blacks “to do something for Obama that he himself is not doing at home.”
Good points on all sides. First, many of those very same Hillary supporters have been whispering to their favored DC pundits hacks that Obama is somehow “not black enough,” which is pretty ironic since they’re working for a white person whose husband gave most of them jobs and contracts. And, frankly, it’s about time that the DC consultant establishment - white, black, purple - was called out for what it really is: an intensely cynical, purely self-serving money-making machine. Then again, as Sharpton pointed out, there is the matter of that Daley endorsement. Nobody is perfectly clean here.
To be fair, many of Clinton’s top African-American supporters have a long and strong relationship with the Senator and her husband, regardless of patronage.
And even if her high-level support is purely patronage-based, Senate President Jones is really in no position to argue. For instance, Jones absolutely hates it whenever people link his campaign finance and other relationships with ComEd to his support for the utility company’s often anti-consumer legislative agenda. Glass houses. Stones. Etc.
In the end, this internal struggle with racial identity might turn out to be healthy, but it’s undoubtedly gonna get a whole lot uglier before it’s all over.
The funniest take on Jones’ comments was from Matt Stoller over at MyDD, who wrote that the controversy “revealed a generational split among black political leaders between the old patronage model and a newer movement model.”
Apparently, he doesn’t know Emil Jones very well.
Also, as I told you yesterday, John Edwards was in the Bloomington area this week. Apparently, he was just there for a private fundraiser and didn’t notify the media, so most of them missed the story. A local radio station did manage to get a sound bite, however.
Oops. I forgot to mention the party in honor of Obama’s announcement at the Firefighters Lake Club Friday evening. Here are the particulars:
Firefighters Lake Club
940 West Lake Drive, Springfield
Friday, February 9th
5:00p - 7:00p
Free Food and Drinks
Donations for Senator Obama’s Exploratory Committee will be accepted!
Contributions to Obama Exploratory Committee are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. Federal law prohibits the acceptance of corporate checks.
Contact Neil for more information at: email4neil@yahoo.com
Both the Sun-Times and the Tribune have recently editorialized against a proposed mandatory cervical cancer vaccine for young girls. Two bills have been introduced in Springfield, both with opt-out clauses.Sun-Times:
The march of modern medicine is a great and wondrous thing in preventing diseases that once were thought unpreventable. Among them is the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, which causes the cervical cancer that kills 3,700 women in the United States each year, and also causes genital warts. There is now a vaccine that can immunize girls against HPV. The question is, should the three-shot series be added to the other immunizations and booster shots legally required by schools?
A bill in the Illinois Senate says yes. It would require the vaccine, Gardasil, to be administered to girls at 11 or 12 by the 2009 school year. We say not so fast. Our objection is not the moral one raised by conservatives: We’re not concerned this treatment would encourage promiscuity.
We think this vaccine is an important medical advance. Still, we believe parents, some of whom may have to pay $120 per shot, should be making this choice. This type of decision is best left to parents after talking to the doctor. State-mandated vaccinations should be limited to preventing diseases caused by casual contact.
If many parents have welcomed the chance to protect their daughters, some have reacted more guardedly. The vaccine, after all, doesn’t prevent a childhood disease, but one that would not strike for many years. Kids are not at risk in the classroom, through casual contact, as with most other diseases calling for mandatory vaccination. HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. […]
Should the shot be mandatory? This would be an easier decision if Gardasil were catching on quickly across America. It wouldn’t be necessary to issue a mandate. But so far, Gardasil is not being used as often as some doctors would like, the Associated Press reported. That’s probably about cost and insurance coverage and undoubtedly some parents’ queasiness over vaccinating a preteen girl against a sexually transmitted disease.
The Gardasil debate forces us to think about a question of principle: Should the state require medical treatments for diseases that aren’t easily communicable in our day-to-day casual contact with one another? That’s a big step from our current public health policies for protecting children in classrooms and on the playground. Examined through that prism, the Gardasil debate may well be the first of many as drug companies develop new vaccines–or even cures.
Gardasil is a terrific breakthrough in the fight against cancer. On average, there are 9,710 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths in the United States each year. Still, it’s premature for this vaccine to be added to the mandatory list for Illinois schoolchildren.
Not mentioned is that the manufacturer of the drug, Merck, is pushing legislatures throughout the state (through a legislative group called Women in Government) to make the vaccine mandatory, which could result in billions in profits.
Proponents say the vaccine will save lives. Some opponents, who worked against making the drug available in the first place, claim it will somehow encourage promiscuity. Other opponents point to opposition by the American Academy of Pediatrics to mandating the vaccine right away. The Academy wants more research first.
The state Senate mandate is here, the House bill is here.
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger on Monday defended his hiring and promotion of political allies and friends to top posts by saying, “There is no way we are going to let the inmates run the asylum. I need someone that I can trust.”
* 2-Party system got you down? Check out the Suburban caucuses
* Supreme Court to decide if felons can be aldermen
* IDOTsays make a deal or else: “In a new round of letters dated Jan. 24, the Illinois Department of Transportation informed the property owners that if a sale price cannot be agreed upon, the state will seize the land through condemnation.”
* Embattled HDO prepares for $140,000 in legal costs
* Bush budget slashes affect Illinois; Guv voices concern
It looks like Obama will be having two announcement events this weekend, one in Springfield on Saturday and another in Chicago on Sunday. Plus, there’s a party Friday night that you might want to check out. From an internal e-mail…
Obama Presidential Announcement in Springfield
That announcement starts at 9 a.m. outside the Old State Capitol on Saturday, February 10. Tickets will not be necessary. I believe the speech will start later at about 10 a.m.
For Springfield, Dan Shomon and a bunch of folks are hosting a pre-party on Friday, February 9 from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. at Alamo at 115 North 5th Street (5th and Jefferson). Cosponsors include Amy and Chris Martin, Julie Mirostaw, Julie Foehr, Scott Kennedy, Mia Phifer and others.
No tickets will be necessary and people are asking about parking but who knows.
The Obama presidential announcement in Chicago will be on Sunday, February 11 at 4:30 p.m. at UIC Pavilion at 525 S. Racine. Tickets will be distributed but not required for UIC.
Want to know what an Obama event is like from the crowd’s perspective? This may give you a little idea…
The person who posted that vid noted, “I almost went deaf.”
Meanwhile, Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com takes a look at early polls that show Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama among African-American voters. Blumenthal has a warning for anyone who might think that this automatically bodes ill for Obama…
Yes, he has been covered extensively and is well known to political junkies. But never underestimate how remote most political coverage is to everyone else.
Having polled for one of Obama’s primary opponents in 2004, I can tell you that whatever doubts Illnois African-Americans may have had about Obama prior to the 2004 primary race, they faded fast as he began to run television advertising, move in the polls and receive routine coverage on media outlets (read local TV news) that reached real voters.
He is exactly right about this. Obama’s numbers with black voters weren’t great at all until he started running TV ads and got some other free media bumps.
Having watched Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, I agree with Mark Blumenthal that whatever misgivings or doubts African-Americans have about Obama are likely to fade pretty darn quick as he emerges, especially if he acquires the look of a winner with some early momentum.
And on another topic entirely, the Democratic blog AmericaBlog says that Obama “has a lot of catching up to do” when it comes to his Internet operation. He points to how quickly other candidates posted their speeches from last week’s DNC cattle call, but by Saturday…
Obama’s website and YouTube don’t have his speech up there - a substantial missed opportunity with no excuse. When people talk about an “inexperienced candidate†it’s not just the gaffes that they make on the campaign trail, it’s failure to quickly capitalize on opportunity also.
The Post-Dispatch has a piece today on who the governor might appoint to replace Barack Obama, should the US Senator win the presidency.
llinois political experts who were asked the question declared it premature, but then offered some thoughts anyway on whom Gov. Rod Blagojevich might appoint to fill an Obama Senate vacancy, if it comes that.
The consensus: Undoubtedly a Democrat, probably an African-American, possibly a woman — and most likely not Blagojevich himself, though the law would give him that option.
Among the more interesting names being suggested: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Illinois Attorney General (and Blagojevich rival) Lisa Madigan. […]
“There’s certainly going to be pressure from the African-American community, both in Chicago and nationally, to appoint another African-American to the seat,” Redfield said. “I don’t know who that’s going to be, but that’s a consideration.”
I would add that Latinos would also want the slot.
(10 ILCS 5/25‑8) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑8)
Sec. 25‑8. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
Yes, I know it’s way too early to think that Obama can even win the nomination, let alone the presidency, but who do you think might have the upper hand?
On Friday, Southtown columnist Phil Kadner wrote a long and excellent column about tow-truck scams.
“These chasers — that’s what we call these tow truck companies — monitor police calls and will usually target car owners who have insurance with State Farm and Allstate,” said the owner of a south suburban auto body shop who asked not to be identified.
According to car owners, body shop operators and legitimate tow truck operators, these “chasers” often will use a “solicitor” driving an unmarked car to make the initial approach to motorists at accident scenes.
The solicitor is a friendly fellow who acts as though he just stumbled on the accident scene while driving by.
“He makes sure the car involved is a newer model or a luxury car because they don’t want to haul an old junker to the yard and get stuck with it,” said the owner of a tow truck company who feels the “chasers” are giving the industry a bad name.
“Typically, the solicitor will initially ask if the driver is all right and then say something like, ‘You’ve got insurance, don’t you?’ And then he will ask for the name of the insurance company.”
The solicitor promises to take the car anywhere the owner wants, to his home or an auto body shop, but the car almost always ends up in the tow truck company’s lot.
To retrieve the car, someone’s going to have to pay more than $1,000 — cash only.
But Kadner also quoted someone in Lisa Madigan’s office saying that they couldn’t control how much the vultures could charge.
Today, Kadner has another column, which shows how difficult it can be to pass any real consumer protections in this state.
Tow truck operators who charge $1,000 are “criminals,” “the lowest form of humanity” and “just awful people.”
Those are the words of Bill Howard, president of the Illinois Professional Towers and Recovery Operators, an organization that represents the towing industry.
He claims his association is working on the problem of pirate tow truck firms that chase automobile accident scenes, promise car owners a free tow and often end up charging more than $1,000.
But…
I’m told the insurance companies actually tried to get a tougher tow truck law passed in Illinois a few years ago. The tow truck industry association killed it, I was informed.
It’s always easier to kill a bill than pass one, unless the bill doesn’t do anything. And, even when a bill does pass, there is often an inverse relationship to the number of votes a bill gets and what it actually does. The more votes, the less impact.
Opposition to the federal Real ID law is heating up at the state level. The $11 billion implementation cost is just one factor in the dust-up, as this article notes.
Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Real ID ordered by Congress would require a digital photo and probably a fingerprint on each driver’s license or state-issued ID card. That, he said, will make it more valuable to identity thieves because the ID card will be accepted as much more than a driving credential.
“It’s going to be a honey pot out there that’s going to be irresistible to identity thieves,” Steinhardt said.
An identity thief, he said, could buy a Real ID from a rogue motor vehicle department employee with is own photo and fingerprint on it.
So far, lawmakers in 34 states have joined a coalition to propose legislation that would a majority of the states have taken some sort of protest action. The Congressional sponsors of the bill said it would fight terrorism by making it more difficult for terrorists to get a government identification card.
Here are some of the other objections to the law, according to the above article:
-Some states will have to invest millions in new computer systems that can communicate with federal databases. That is something they probably will not accomplish by the deadline.
-It will be difficult to comply with the requirement that license applicants prove they are in the country legally. There are more than 100 different immigration statutes, Steinhardt said, which will pose problems for motor vehicle clerks unfamiliar with immigration law.
-It does not solve the problem of terrorism. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and some of the hijackers from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had legitimate driver’s licenses.
-Even the requirement that applicants’ full legal names appear on licenses will pose problems because some states limit the number of characters on the face of the card.
Unlike most of the commissioners, Jerry Butler (D-Chicago) said what he was going to do about it.
“I am going to propose that we increase the tax,” Butler said. “I am going to ask the sheriff and the state’s attorney and all these officials — to stand with me on it.”
* Cook County commissioners eye land sale to raise revenue
* CTA funding looks dim: “Right now, we have three different Democratic leaders who have their own concerns, none of which involves transit,” concedes state Rep. Julia Hamos, an Evanston Democrat who heads a House panel studying transit matters for Mr. Madigan.
The Daley administration would set up a $12 million fund to compensate people denied City Hall jobs or promotions because of politics under a tentative settlement of the federal Shakman lawsuit, the Sun-Times has learned.
* After 12 years, mixed results for Daley’s school reforms
* Mary Mitchell: County health cuts hit poor youth the hardest
* Lawmaker targets remote control hunting: State Rep. Dan Reitz, D-Steelville, has proposed banning such hunting in Illinois, saying such “ready, aim, click” kills — or the prospect of them — push the ethical envelope and violate the spirit of “fair chase” hunts.
* Illinois may impose limits on campaign contributions; more here
* Sue Ontiveros: Vote in ‘Alderman Idol’… winner gets $100,000 a year
We live in a society in which it is perfectly legal to destroy a pre-born human life, to send pornography over the Internet or to display sexually explicit magazines in supermarkets. And yet we are engaged in this massive campaign to prevent people from smoking in public.
The four legislative leaders doled out a total of $23.4 million in the final six months of 2006 in an attempt to either keep power or wrest it away from the opposing party. In the end, spending by Democratic leaders, who were the big winners on Election Day, outpaced the Republican effort by nearly $3.1 million.
