Do we really wish we still had the Obamas to kick around politically?

I’m sure for the ideologically-minded amongst us, the news of recent days has been particularly dreadful.

Most admired? Invited to royal wedding?

For Barack Obama keeps cropping up in ways that remind us he will be remembered as a respected public official, no matter how much the ideologues want to disrespect his memory.

WHILE THE CURRENT occupant of the Oval Office most likely will never be taken all that seriously – no matter how many times the ideologues rant and rage that he is the ideal of what a president ought to be.

For what it’s worth, I’m not getting too worked up over these particular news reports because I’m fully aware we’re in that time period between the holidays. It’s the end of 2017.

Anybody with sense is finding reasons to take time off. Little of significance (unless it’s dismal) will happen this week. Meaning a lot of trivia will manage to find its way into filling up space and air time for news reports this week.

So am I really getting all giddy that Prince Harry wants Obama invited to his wedding to Northwestern University alumnus Meghan Markle, and British officials are trying to urge him not to issue such an invitation out of fear that Trump will take it as a personal snub against himself?

Feeling snubbed by Brits AND Gallup?

IS IT REALLY all that interesting that Obama gave an interview to the prince who most likely is too far down the royal pecking order to become King of England? Yes, Harry has a program broadcast by the BBC, and from what I gather, the most interesting thing Obama said was that he’s still getting used to having to cope with traffic – rather than his presidential days when security would ensure the roads were cleared for his path and no one caused him a delay.

Or as the president said, “I didn’t experience traffic. I used to cause traffic.”

I could care less about presidential traffic jams. As for Trump’s ego, I don’t doubt he would find reason to take offense to an Obama invitation. Particularly since the whole purpose of a Trump presidency thus far appears to be to erase any evidence that Obama ever was the nation’s chief executive.

'16 voters AND '17 polls prefer Hillary

Which probably is what Trump’s voters most want. The ability to go into denial that they are so far removed from the mainstream of society, and that all their talk of “making America great again” is more about ensuring the exclusion of people so unlike themselves.

WHICH IS WHY I’m sure those individuals are shocked and appalled at the latest Gallup Organization study – the one that says Obama is the “Most Admired Man” in the United States. Which I’m sure is made worse by the notion that Hillary Clinton is the “Most Admired Woman.”

Because to the ideologues, it’s not so much that Trump ought to be thought of as “Most Admired,” but those two individuals are supposed to be the most repulsive examples of what our society offers. Even though to the majority of us, it’s Trump who fills that role.

Although when one looks at the figures Gallup offers, it becomes clear there is no dominant persona that our society thinks highly of.

Bush's No. 2 higher than Trump

For the second-most Admired man in our society? It’s a tie between Pope Francis and George W. Bush – which, if you think about it, may be a concept even more appalling to the Trump types than the presence of Obama.

WHILE AS FOR the women, our city’s formerly very own Oprah Winfrey came in second, while former first lady Michelle Obama finished third – in a tie with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Michelle falls right behind Oprah

As Gallup points out, this is the sixth straight year Obama has been “most admired,” which means that all of Trump’s rancid rhetoric hasn’t really diminished the strong sentiments some of us feel toward him. It just means those in support of this “Age of Trump” are just very loud about shouting out their attacks to make sure they’re overheard amongst the majority of us.

And as for Trump, he didn’t even factor into the rankings. Heck, even Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney got minimal support for “Most Admired.”

Which makes me believe all the more that Trump-ites live in their own little world, and they think the majority of us (including the Obamas) should have to live there with them in a place of subservience! Ugh!!!

  -30-

65,844,610 – More than just Chicago will miss what we’re losing Friday

The day upon which Barack Obama departs our federal government's employ and becomes just another private citizen has finally arrived.
 

A Chicago bye-bye to Barack Obama

It’s Inauguration Day in the District of Columbia and we transition into the presidency of Donald J. Trump, which has the potential to undermine the eight years of the possibility of “hope” and “change” that many of us voted for back in 2008.

BUT WITH THE quirks of the Electoral College, the 62 million-plus people who wanted Trump in office actually outweighed the 65 million-plus who preferred the thought of “President Hillary Clinton,” let alone the other few million who went for a Libertarian or Green party person – or perhaps some other stray name that appeared on the ballot in certain states.

Not that I’m turning this into a diatribe against the nitwits who stuck our nation with the egomaniacal Trump as its leader. I’m sure I’ll have plenty of reasons to write such commentary in the future.

Because this would be a sad day on Friday even if it was the chance to transition into a presidential administration that did not see its mission as to undo what little was accomplished (largely due to strident GOP opposition) during the Obama years.

The past eight years have been unique from the perspective of Illinois and Chicago because there was that sense of one of our hometown people was actually in a position of authority.

SOMEONE WHO WASN’T going to use our city to score cheap partisan political points for himself.

 

A "President Hillary" wouldn't be the same

Which may be the most offensive aspect of a Trump administration – he’s already taken enough cheap shots at Chicago to last a four-year presidential term; and he hasn’t even started that term yet!

We’re no longer going to have someone in office who comprehends the sense of neighborhood that makes up Chicago, or who realizes that there is a Chicago beyond the tourist traps along Michigan Avenue.

Potential to be "President Pot-shot?"

If anything, I’m sure there are those who found the fact of a Chicago president who settled into the South Side of the city was a unique touch. Living in that Hyde Park home, which actually is just across the neighborhood boundary in Kenwood. Not that most people ever noticed.

EVEN IF WE were transitioning from an Obama administration to a Clinton presidency, it would not be quite the same local touch. Even though Hillary herself would have been the first Chicago-born U.S. president who was raised in suburban Park Ridge.

Unlike any first lady because she WAS Chi!

For she left us for the east coast to attend college, then Arkansas to follow husband Bill through his own political aspirations. She became of elsewhere.

Just like Ronald Reagan, who some like to try to claim for purely partisan reasons as one of our own because he was born here and attended a local college, even though he left us for an adult life in California and never returned. The fact that spouse Nancy Reagan was a Chicagoan as a child added little to his understanding of our city.

For Ronald was the guy who gave us the “welfare queen” in the form of a Chicago woman, Linda Taylor, who managed to collect benefits while driving around in a Cadillac and had expensive jewelry and furs. Trying to claim that all welfare recipients were the same!

WE’RE COMING UP on the four-year anniversary of the death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton; shot to death by a stray bullet fired in the Kenwood neighborhood. First Lady Michelle Obama was the one who famously said of the girl who lost her chance to have a significant life, “Hadiya Pendleton was me and I was her.”

 

Created the "welfare queen," can Trump top that?

Can anyone envision Trump or anyone in his circle identifying with Chicago, or anything significantly urban? Particularly Trump himself, whose own idea of Noo Yawk life is seen from that 69^th floor penthouse he lives in when not spending time at his gaudy Palm Beach, Fla., mansion.

This is a day of note because I do remember Obama from his earliest days in the Illinois Legislature, and I suspect none of the other local clowns whom I’ve written about throughout the years will have the ambition or talent to seek the presidency.

Friday is a day of loss for Chicago, and even a “President Trump” will come to realize that. Who's he going to blame for the next homicide in Chicago without Obama around when he makes the next of his Tweets from a twit!

  -30-

We’re on verge of Obama finale

I find it somewhat amusing to see the amount of attention being paid to the fact that Barack Obama will soon no longer be president.

The next time Barack and Michelle Obama check out Chicago, it will be as D.C.-residing tourists. Photograph provided by the White House

All presidents are meant to be replaced, and Obama managed to win himself election to the post twice – the maximum allowed. Which is a good thing – no one should last too long in that particular post.

IN FACT, THE reality is that it is a good thing that political posts rotate around various political parties – neither of which should ever have total control. Not even Democrats, who in all honesty don’t do as much harm because they’re usually incapable of working together.

Which means that the real threat to our federal government during the next two (perhaps four) years isn’t that we elected Donald J. Trump as president. It is that we elected so many knuckleheads of the GOP persuasion to serve in the Senate and House of Representatives.

People who will be willing to rubber-stamp Trump’s egomaniacal actions so long as they coincide with their own partisan desires. Trump’s blow-hard tendencies wouldn’t be a threat if there was someone willing to stand up to him.

Which may well be why many people are so willing to make a big deal out of Obama’s departure. It will be the last bit of celebration that many of us will have in connection to our federal government for years to come.

WE LITERALLY HAD Michelle Obama make an appearance on Friday that was billed as her last public event as “first lady.” Then on Saturday, people were queued up as early as 6 a.m. all lined up to get the free tickets being issued to the Tuesday event at the McCormick Place convention center that is being billed as Barack Obama’s last public appearance as president.

For every crackpot out there whose political partisanship wants him to denounce this as the ultimate political non-event, there are the masses who truly want to hear one last bit of wisdom from the lone president our city has produced.

It has been quite a while since that moment in Metropolis (the version in Illinois). Photograph provided by Obama for America campaign

Personally, I think those people who are now expressing a willingness to pay mass amounts of money to get tickets from those who got the freebie passes given away during the weekend are a bit foolish.

I wouldn’t pay anything, particularly not the several thousands of dollars that some are asking for in order to be able to say they were there when Obama gave his national farewell.

EVEN THOUGH I’LL admit to feeling a twinge of regret that the Obama years are now over. Obama is someone I have been aware of since he first got elected to the state Senate (I was still a Statehouse reporter back then, and our times in Springfield overlapped by three years).

In fact, I still remember the first time I was introduced to the man – it was on the January 1997 day when he was first sworn in as a legislator. We were given a brief “hello” and handshake, and the token offer of “doing lunch” someday – which never actually happened.

Maybe I’m just the pinhead who didn’t fully appreciate the significance of the man I was meeting. Because I suspect that of all the people I have encountered during some two decades of writing about the Chicago and Illinois political scenes, Obama is most likely the only one of them with the ability and ambition to become U.S. president.

And now, all of that is over. A Hillary Clinton presidency would have given us someone born in Chicago and raised in its suburbs, but it wouldn’t have been the same for Chicago as the Obama years have been.

HILLARY, AFTER ALL, did leave us to attend college, then follow her husband, Bill, to Arkansas.

How many figured the one-time legislator from Hyde Park would become an admired (and reviled) chief executive? Photograph provided by Obama for America campaign.

It will be interesting to hear what, if anything of significance, he has to say on Tuesday. Personally, I’m not expecting something too profound!

It may well be a ceremonial farewell. A chance to say “Goodbye,” while the followers engage in one last chant of “Oh-Bah-Mah! Oh-Bah-Mah!!!”

While that 46 percent segment of the nation that actually voted for Trump to be president will shudder in disgust, then come up with a whole bunch of lame reasons why they think the next four years will be an improvement – even if it turns to be a loss of health insurance and a whole series of other actions that harm their own personal interests.

  -30-

EXTRA: Will we really care by week’s end about plagiarized Trump speech?

I can’t get too worked up over the fact that would-be first lady Melania Trump stole bits of her nominating convention speech (the one in which she was supposed to convince the nation that her husband wasn’t the ogre many presume him to be) from a similar talk given eight years ago by First Lady Michelle Obama.

 

Will Trump rescue Melania's reputation ...

For one thing, I highly suspect that this won’t even be the most stupid moment of this year’s Republican convention. For all I know by the time you read this, Trump or one of his allies will have done something even dumber.

THIS COULD WIND up being a mini moment of absurdity in a week devoted to ridiculousness.

After all, Trump is showing us that he doesn’t care what the so-called rules of politics are – he’s going to do things his way.

Considering that this is the real estate developer who thinks that all of his buildings need to have his name on them in giant letters (40 feet high, for his tower in Chicago), I’m sure he thinks anything is appropriate – so long as it’s done on his behalf.

His so-called defense Tuesday morning to his wife’s rhetoric Monday night amounted to little more than telling us not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain – the Wizard of Oz line of logic.

PERSONALLY, I THINK that she took a couple of lines during her 10-minute address to the nation isn’t whole-hearted pirating. In fact, some could claim it flattery that she would take from the source being the spouse of the man that Trump wants us to believe is the source of all this nation’s problems.

I should be honest in admitting that it was a speech-writer who actually came up with this talk. I doubt that Melania herself would be capable of crafting a speech of any significant length – even though she claims she put it together herself.

 

... by doing something more absurd to distract?

Which means she probably gave it a read-through, and may have changed a word or two. But this is more a case of an amateurish campaign taking pride in its amateurism and thinking they can get away with anything.

What is most pathetic is that Melania Trump’s talk was supposed to be the key of the Monday night activity (unless you believe that it was Scott Baio the nation really wanted to hear from).

SHE WAS SUPPOSED to put the human face on him. She was supposed to give us insights into the real man that would make us all want to cast our votes for him come Nov. 8.

Instead, she goes into the history books as the ultimate trophy wife who earned her place at Trump’s side because he likes the way she looks while wearing a tight sweater. I can’t help but wonder what Ivana or Marla think these days?

The nominating convention proceeds, and we’ll be waiting for the next gaffe – one most likely to be committed by Trump himself. For unlike most nominating conventions where the candidate doesn’t show up until the last minute and the events build a level of suspense leading to that moment, Trump wants to make daily appearances.

Just like he can’t envision a building without his name on it, he thinks this week is all about him. Feeding his ego, which really is the purpose of his whole presidential campaign.

IT IS WHY I actually found it funny to learn that former President George W. Bush recently attended a reunion of his staff from his days in the White House, and said there’s a good chance he’ll be the last Republican to ever get elected president.

 

BUSH: No longer the GOP head dumb-dumb!

All because Trump is about to do so much damage to the political brand that was once the “Party of Lincoln” and had a nobility in the way it stood up to the segregationist elements of our society. Now, Trump seems determined to let those people know the GOP won’t hold their nativist thoughts against them.

Although in a sense, you’d think that Bush would be pleased to have a Trump come along. He’ll get blamed for killing off the GOP’s chances of being anything more than a regional political party of rural America.

Because it detracts from the blame that some would put on Bush himself – what with his own many intellectual gaffes as president – for causing the political party irreparable harm!

  -30-

Obama damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t, w/ regard to funerals

Let’s brace ourselves for another round of political trash talk aimed at President Barack Obama – who’s going to be criticized for everything possible until the day his term expires in January.

OBAMA: Rather be in Texas?

And probably for long after that!

IT’S BECAUSE OF that reality that I’m going to think that the critics ought to pipe down with their latest round of trash – over the fact that Obama says he’s not going to the funeral services to be held Friday for former first lady Nancy Reagan.

Which comes so soon after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – another funeral which the president decided not to attend.

Some news reports also have included the fact that Obama didn’t bother to show up back in 2011 for the funeral of former first lady Betty Ford. Does Obama have problems with showing up for funeral rituals for Republicans?

Is this some sort of dis to a woman who some people in our society want to lionize just as much as they do her husband? While certain others of us remember her overbearing nature that seemed to turn up everywhere.

THE WOMAN LITERALLY appeared on television with Gary Coleman in a “Diff’rent Strokes” episode to “Just say no!”

 

I’ll admit that as a political observer, I’m used to the idea of government officials feeling compelled to turn funeral into a spectacle. Some like to talk of the idea that one-time Mayor Richard J. Daley was notorious for feeling the need to show up at the funerals of just about every lowly bureaucrat within city government.

First ladies Obama ...

His presence made the family feel better, and gave them some sense of recognition that their dearly departed loved one was someone who truly mattered.

Obama is definitely of a different generation – having decided that attending a memorial service for Scalia was sufficient. It also was noted that first lady Michelle Obama was on hand when Betty Ford died, and is the one who is expected to attend the funeral for Nancy Reagan.

WHICH IN A sense may be altogether appropriate. The current first lady pays tribute to one of her predecessors.



... and Clinton to pay tribute to Nancy

I just wish the president had a better reason for not showing up – a previously-scheduled commitment that he doesn’t want to break. He plans to be in Austin, Texas to attend the SXSW festival – an event that allows digital startup companies a chance to show off their latest technologies.

It also has a portion that has a film and music festival, and you just know the ideologues are going to create a rant that goes something along the lines of how Obama chose to disrespect Nancy Reagan because he wanted to party down at a rock concert.

Of course, that won’t be true. But when has “truth” ever mattered when it comes to going off on a rant against Barack Obama?

BESIDES, I SUSPECT that deep down the ideologues are glad Obama won’t be there – although they won’t let that sentiment get in the way of their taking a cheap shot at the president.

They’d probably rather have an all-ideologue gathering where they could give Nancy a send-off in line with their own politically partisan leanings. One in which Obama’s presence would be a thorn. For all I know, even the presence of Michelle Obama is probably a blotch on their fantasy funeral weekend for the second Mrs. Reagan.

The one thing no one would ever want is a repeat of that day in April 1994 when President Bill Clinton actually gave the eulogy at the funeral service for Richard M. Nixon.

 

Putting aside any past animosity he may have felt for Nixon, Clinton acknowledged the legitimate accomplishments whose memory were washed away by Watergate. A sense of political bipartisanship that truly feels like a distant memory in today’s political structure.

  -30-

Are we destined to be “blessed” by being picked for site of Obama library?

In the ongoing dispute over where President Barack Obama would choose to have the legacy museum and library meant to enhance his historical reputation, I can’t help but wonder how long until we get the big announcement.

Because to listen to the various reports that have emanated from assorted places, Chicago has done everything that has been asked.

WE CAME UP with a site with proximity to the University of Chicago and put on the political pressure to make those individuals who hate the idea of a presidential library being built on Chicago Park District land feel uncomfortable.

Heck, some 332,171 of us even went so far as to vote for Rahm Emanuel to be our mayor for the next four years – out of the ridiculous belief that having Jesus Garcia as nuestra alcalde (that’s “our mayor” for those of you who are linguistically challenged) was somehow a deal-killer for the Obamas.

That supposedly was the reason why the Obama Foundation that technically is deciding this issue (in reality, it’s the president himself, deferring to the best judgment of first lady Michelle) held off on making an announcement about a museum and library location back in February.

We needed to see if Chicago voters cast their ballots properly in order to deserve such a facility.

YES, I’M BEING very facetious in writing this, because I honestly believe if the Obama interests were being shallow enough to decide their library location based on a municipal election outcome that ought to be the deal-killer for anybody with sense.

In which case, let the facility go to Honolulu – which you have to admit would provide for a most-unique location for a facility that usually winds up in places like Abilene, Kan., or Grand Rapids, Mich.

Then again, Ike and Jerry Ford aren’t Obama by any means.

I got my amusement from the Chicago Sun-Times Wednesday, which gave us a “Sneed Exlusive” that says it’s just about a done deal – the presidential library will be located in Chicago.

THE CLINCHING ACTION was the resignation of Cassandra Francis of the Friends of the Parks organization. That is the group that always complains about over-commercialization of the public parks, and was threatening to tie the Obama library/museum proposal into legal knots if they tried to put it there.

They may still be opposed, technically. But having a hole in leadership hurts their effort to put up much of a court fight.

Although considering how political people have their ways of influencing the courts, I’d have to wonder what judge out there would want to be remembered as the guy who ruled against Obama.

This isn’t South Texas where a federal judge was only too eager to put a hold on Obama’s attempt to impose some common sense to the nation’s immigration policies – rather than the ideological nonsense that comes from the kind of people who are likely to want to demonize the library/museum project for years to come.

IN CHICAGO, THIS project is going to be a big deal.

The part of columnist Michael Sneed’s report Wednesday that caught my eye was her claim that the Business Leadership Council and other African-American community leaders were preparing to take on Friends of the Parks by claiming that their no-parkland stance was denying the black community of Chicago a chance to have a significant facility.

Even Emanuel seems to realize this. In Washington this week, he told reporter-types who asked if Chicago would consider bidding for a future Olympic Games that he was more interested in attracting the library/museum for the man whom he once served as chief of staff.

He called a presidential library, “an Olympics with an annuity that gives every year,” the Chicago Tribune reported.

EVEN THOUGH THERE’S a good chance that such a facility would be visited once by locals, then become the site where future generations of schoolchildren from the city (if not the more Republican-oriented of suburban communities) would go on field trips.

Which is what we have to look forward to when the announcement is made.

As I look up from my keyboard, I see a plastic mold figure of the U-505, the Nazi Germany submarine that was captured intact and has been on display for decades at the Museum of Science and Industry. The mold is a souvenir from a long-ago trip to the museum.

Will future generations go to the Obama museum and wind up coming home with a plastic mold bust of the president’s head – big ears and all?!?

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Suburbanizing the city? Political heavyweights? Or twin mediocrity?

I remember once being in the now-former Borders Books store at Diversey, Clark and Broadway when I overheard what appeared to be a rural couple approach a sales clerk and ask if there was a Wal-mart store anywhere nearby.

 

That clerk explained to the couple that Wal-mart wasn’t exactly the kind of business that located in such a community as the Lakeview neighborhood. The tone of his voice made it clear he held the couple in some sort of contempt for even thinking of shopping at a Wal-mart.

 

I COULDN’T HELP but think of that clerk (whom I don’t believe I have ever seen or heard from since that moment) when I stumbled across the press release Gov. Pat Quinn put out on Monday – one that boasted of something that Quinn wants to think is a major business accomplishment during his administration.

 

Chicago, the city proper, is getting its first Olive Garden restaurant!

 

Officials say the restaurant on Addison Street will employ 170 people in all. Those new jobs are among 13,800 new private sector jobs created across all of Illinois during the month of August.

 

What would that clerk think of the concept of an Olive Garden – mass produced Italian food for those people who claim they like Italian, except for the garlic – being located within the city limits?

 

THIS COMMENTARY IS not about to turn into a rant about generic businesses being located in Chicago. I’m not about to claim the city is a bastion of sophistication.

 

I’m sure there are many city residents who would patronize an Olive Garden if it was located near their homes. It’s not the kind of place they’re going to make a lengthy trip for.

 

Yet the idea of boasting about this particular business accomplishment. It makes me wonder what’s next – will Quinn get all worked up at the thought of a Steak ‘n’ Shake being located within the city? Or maybe an International House of Pancakes winding up in Chicago?

 

Small businesses might well be an important part of our local and regional economy. But it takes a lot of them to create benefits that are noticeable to the masses.

 

POLITICAL REINFORCEMENTS: Gov. Pat Quinn is going to get the reinforcements to bolster his campaign during the next week-and-a-half.

 

Both President Barack and first lady Michelle Obama will be in Chicago at events on his behalf. And one-time suburban Park Ridge native Hillary Rodham Clinton will be in Chicago to tell people why they should get off their keisters and cast ballots for Quinn.

 

That’s some pretty heavy-duty political power to be able to wield. When combined with the fact that Republican opponent Bruce Rauner isn’t the kind of guy who inspires people to vote for him (GOP backers are voting against Quinn, by and large, the incumbent governor is looking like he’d better win come Nov. 4.

 

For if he can’t turn out the vote in Illinois, particularly the urban parts of the state, in strong enough numbers, he’s got no one to blame really but himself.

 

73-89 SQUARED: The professional baseball season is over in Chicago. Both the White Sox and Cubs finished with identical won-loss records that say they improved from being absolutely dreadful last year (99 White Sox losses compared to 96 for the Cubs) to being mediocre in ’14.

 

It has some wondering if the improvement will continue to the point where we might have dual pennant races within a couple of years. I’m not rushing to any judgment. Serious contention is a big leap from the mediocrity we saw this past season.

 

So while I joke about that upcoming all-Chicago World Series, I realize there is much development (and many quirks that must break just so) for that to become a reality – and it may never occur.

 

So now we count down to 2015, and the possibility of Jose Abreu improving on his 36-home run performance – more home runs than any other White Sox rookie (and good enough for third best in the American League).

 

  -30-

Too many unfunny laughs on Illnois' gubernatorial trail to endure at once

Phony headlines, or phony political praise?


That's what we're seeing these days in the political duel taking place between Gov. Pat Quinn and the venture capitalist using the Republican label to try to send him into unemployment.


I'M STILL TRYING to figure out which story related to the gubernatorial campaign is more lame -- the pseudo-support Quinn got from first lady Michelle Obama, or the pseudo headlines appearing in campaign spots promoting Quinn challenger Bruce Rauner.


On the surface, the fact that the first lady is speaking out publicly in favor of Quinn ought to be a plus. There are many public officials these days bearing the "Democrat" label who, if I promise them "off-the-record" status, will eagerly make all kinds of snotty comments about Quinn and how worthless they believe he is.


It is that kind of attitude that Rauner is hoping to play into -- a Democratic Party apathy that will cause many of their backers to stay home on Nov. 4.


That could make the rural Illinois/business executive coalition large enough to actually win an election in a state where a Republican candidate with no political experience like Rauner ought to be dead meat.


MICHELLE OBAMA USED a campaign event this week to urge people to make sizable donations to the Democratic Party's candidates and to turn out for Quinn in Illinois.


"We need to do everything in our power to get him over the finish line," she said. Which in a sense is true for Obama, whose influence would wind up being diminished if his own home state picks the opposition political party for its new leader.


But how many people really listen to federal officials when it comes to these elections? It comes down to the old Tip O'Neill saying, "All politics are local."


Besides, I still remember back in 2010 when President Barack Obama himself made a point of campaigning in Illinois to benefit the local Dems running for Congress.


MOST OF THEM wound up being defeated. Tea Party-types beat up on them -- such as the case of someone like Debbie Halvorson; the one-time state senator who wound up getting one two-year term in Congress before becoming a political has-been.


She got swept in by the Obama-love movement of 2008, then brushed out again in 2010 by the Obama-is-a-Muslim/terrorist/Communist/whatever other slur they can think of types in our society.


She wasn't alone.


Quinn won that year, but that was more because Republican opponent William Brady came across as so blatantly rural and hostile to Chicago interests that Chicago voters turned out en masse.


RAUNER ISN'T GOING to make that same mistake just over three months from now.


President Obama had little to do with Quinn's victory in 2010. I doubt the first lady will have much influence in turning out votes for the governor in November.


People who think she will be just don't seem to get it.


Although they're not as ridiculous as the Rauner camp seems to be these days with their new campaign attack ad that features newspaper "headlines" that, the Chicago Tribune figured out, never actually appeared in any newspapers.


THEY WANT THE credibility that the printed word conveys with its sense of permanence (at least compared to the Internet where things perpetually disappear, only to reappear when least desired). But they want their own take on these alleged headline facts.


Quinn aides are attacking Rauner, who's trying to claim that they're disseminating accurate information. They want Quinn to "Shut Up" and take the blows they wish to dish out to him.


But what amuses me about this line of defense is that a similar controversy came up in 2004 when documentary filmmaker Michael Moore got hit with the same accusation for "Fahrenheit 9/11."


His movie came up with "headlines" that showed negative news coverage of then-President George W. Bush. Except that one of the headlines that supposedly appeared in the Bloomington Pantagraph newspaper was actually a headline that appeared on someone's "Letter to the Editor," rather than on an actual story of fact.


THE IDEOLOGUES WHO like to trash people still demonize Moore for "making up" facts to bolster his film.


But I'm sure these same people will eagerly defend Rauner -- whose defense sounds remarkably the same as what Moore offered up.


Which makes the whole thing such a line of bunk -- yet another phony controversy to go along with a not-so-legitimate endorsement from the White House.


Although I'm sure the people who want to believe it all also lapped up every single word spewed during Rauner's campaign appearance with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Any new traffic jam jokes?


  -30-

Examples of not letting the facts get in the way of a good Election Day story?

We’ve been going through much speculation these days about whether Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle will run for mayor in next year’s election cycle.

 

CLINTON: Will she, for president?

And now, out of the District of Columbia, the speculation is spurring as to whether Michelle Obama will seek to become a member of the U.S. Senate, representing the good people of Illinois.

NOW TO LISTEN to either woman, they seem to indicate the answer to these scenarios becoming truth is “no.” But we’re still going to hear them, because quite frankly, the idea of not having those two women as candidates means we’re in for some dreadfully-dull election cycles in coming years.

Somebody has to stir up some dirt!

As for Preckwinkle, she’ll be on the Nov. 4 ballot seeking re-election. Her chances of winning are outstanding – Republicans couldn’t even get a token challenger on the ballot.

But way too many people want to believe that Preckwinkle will give up that post next spring to take on Rahm Emanuel. Heck, I recently joked with one of Preckwinkle’s aides at an event where he asked me if I had any specific questions for her.

MY SARCASM CAUSED me to respond that I could be the millionth reporter to ask if she was running for mayor. To which he laughed.

Part of the reason for asking is that, by pure chance, she might say something differently this time.

But it also comes down to the fact that if she doesn’t get into the mayoral race, there won’t be a credible opposition to Emanuel. Nobody thinks of Robert Shaw in that way. And the other African-American people who say they’re running for mayor?

 

PRECKWINKLE: Still saying 'no'

They probably won’t get anybody who doesn’t live on their specific block to actually vote for them!

THERE WILL BE a lot of people who wind up voting for Emanuel because there’s nobody else – even though they desperately want that somebody else!

It’s a similar sentiment that has people offering up the current first lady for U.S. Senate. She will, after all, be leaving that post in January 2017. She has to do something, even though she has made it clear throughout her life that she personally never had interest in running for office.

And privately probably wonders how she could ever fall in love with someone who was politically motivated.

 

OBAMA: Returning to So. Shore roots?

I don’t know that I believe she would ever seek the Senate post currently held by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., when he has to go for re-election in 2016. Although I’m sure some like the idea of a storyline of a first lady-turned-senator.

WHICH IS JUST the same as what happened to Hillary R. Clinton when her husband’s presidential term ended. Although she became an honorary New Yorker, rather than returning to her suburban Park Ridge roots for that aspiration.

The idea of Michelle as Hillary, the Sequel? That’s just a stretch.

Although it brings up the other person who’s the focus of political speculation these days – Hillary for president.

She’s going to wait for the absolute last-minute before she makes any announcement. What does she gain from rushing her decision?

ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO for our local political scene in coming years. Suppose it all were to come true?

 

MADIGAN: Higher aspirations?

We’d have President Hillary R. Clinton, Mayor Toni Preckwinkle, Sen. Michelle Obama and (come the 2018 election cycle) Gov. Lisa Madigan – whose own political future is a constant source of speculation and fantasy.

A major plus for female political empowerment, for sure. That would be quite a lineup that would show just how far we as a society have advanced.

Which is probably the ultimate evidence that all the political speculation is a little too fantasy-based to be taken seriously.

  -30-