The [Thursday] Papers
You know what? I don't really have much of a problem with the "Big Sister" anti-Hillary ad. But as much as the ad effectively expresses a central notion of Obama's campaign - that he represents a new day and a new way - it also begs the question of whether independent supporters of Obama's campaign will practice what their man preaches. I don't think this ad crosses any lines that ought not be crossed - though it may have been even more effective not just using Hillary as antagonist but the whole crew of (theoretically) stale Democrats - but what happens and how will Obama respond when the line inevitably does get crossed? He may have a lot of disowning to do.
In Obama's envisioned world of rainbow unity, you'd think this would be a no-brainer. Instead, it's a head-scratcher.
"For Obama, the recent campaign flare-up started the way many such incidents do: The senator was asked a question that he apparently was nto prepared to answer - at least at that moment," the Tribune says in its account. "It was the sort of challenge from reporters and voters that he will face many times on the campaign trail."
Huh? Just what would it have taken for Obama to be "prepared" to answer such a simple question? It's not like he was asked about the minute details of nuclear weaponry.
And when you stop and think about it, even Obama's response to Larry King - that he doesn't think "homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral" - doesn't really make sense.
Deep in the Tribune's story, the paper mentions what Sweet does not: Obama's previous statements that gay marriage is against his Christian beliefs - professions of Obama's noted faith that make some gay advocates skeptical of the statement belatedly issued last week by his campaign. As the Tribune notes, they want to hear it from Obama's mouth. And if Obama now says homosexuality isn't immoral, then why is he against gay marriage? It's a fair question, and Obama ought to have the guts to answer it.
Well, yes - if you think like a political strategist. If you think like a journalist, you might observe that "the challenge the candidates face is to resist trimming their views according to the voters they are trying to manipulate, as their strategists will certainly implore them to do. This particularly applies to Obama, who is campaigning outright against the cynicism that he says dominates our political discourse."
Besides that, do the majority of centrist voters who would consider voting for Obama consider homosexuality immoral? I doubt it.
Daley Tax I
What is it then, the cost of Mayor Daley's The Children Are Our Future Charity Fund?
Daley Tax II
Georges, who as the Tribune points out, "for years swore in court that the city was abiding by hiring restrictions." Right up to the time federal prosecutors unveiled what they called "massive fraud" emanating from officials in the mayor's office and winning four guilty verdicts - including the mayor's patronage chief.
But Mayor Schultz knew nothing. He was too busy committing to reform to know how people in his own administration were hired.
So while this agreement is supposed to be good news, it sounds like a rotten deal to me. Because if all goes according to plan, the Shakman decree will eventually be lifted and it will be left to the mayor's inspector general to police city hiring. And we all know how well that will go.
Return of Pool Boy I
Return of Pool Boy II
The Beachwood Tip Line: Do it yourself.
Posted on March 22, 2007
© 2006 - 2017, The Beachwood Media Company