City arts, entertainment, dining, news and events
Remember how Ned Lamont got into all sorts of trouble because of a blogger who supported, but wasn’t a part of, his campaign to unseat Joe Lieberman? And then John Edwards, last year, got into a little hot water?
I’m not saying that it’s right to hold a candidate responsible for the actions of the people who are independently campaigning for them. But I am saying that Hillary Clinton needs to put a stop to this.
Yesterday, I knew I would feel approximately the way I do today: No less settled on the outcome of the Democratic nomination, and anxious for my candidate of choice (rhymes with pajama). I was right. Only today I’m far less emotionally stable than I thought, thanks in part to how weird the NBA is, but mostly due to my new obsession with superdelegates, who, unlike their "regular" or "pledged" counterparts, will hit the Democratic National Convention unbeholden to voters. They’re mostly elected officials or party hacks who have occupied offices in one capacity or another, who can presumably be "trusted" with a vote. The best write-up I could find on how this system works is on the US Embassy in Norway page. Go figure.
The bottom line is this: there are 796 superdelegates headed to the convention who don’t have to represent voters’ say. In Illinois, it’s not much of an issue, where all but one of the state’s superdelegates who have pledged their votes say they’re going with their junior senator (including one superdelegate you may have heard of: Barack Obama). The lone Clinton supporter is John Rednour, mayor of downstate DuQuoin, population 6,500. Six superdels haven’t said who they’ll vote for yet, including state reps Daniel Lipinski, who won handily yesterday, and Rahm Emanuel, who of course has strong ties to Bill Clinton. Here’s Democratic Convention Watch’s full list of superdelegates who haven’t announced.
We’ve heard at least twelve people received voter registration cards with incorrect information. Did this happen to you? Leave us a comment below. (Update: Jim Allen of the Chicago Board of Elections explains the problem after the jump).
Sure, I had my misgivings. Just before the January deadline, I gave the Chicago Board of Elections my new address. So when they sent me the official red-white-and-blue card with the address of my new polling place—“to reflect,” it said, “your updated registration”—I did think it was strange that my polling place wasn’t in my new ‘hood, Andersonville. Instead, the address was 115 W. Chicago Ave.—closer to my previous polling place downtown. But in my rush to vote and get to work by 9am, what can I say? I figured this must be part of some newfangled polling-efficiency scheme. In other words, I simply trusted the Board’s document and its big bold letters telling me where to go.
Update: The Illinois House has passed HB 656, with the governor’s amendatory veto that provides for free rides for seniors. Debate has now begun on SB1409, which would link free rides to the Circuit Breaker program so that only those with a financial need would receive free rides. HB 656 is now headed to the senate.
Update 2: The House just passed SB 1409. But in order for that to go into effect, the senate needs to pass HB 656 with the governor’s amendatory veto attached.
Update 3: If you want to know more about the costs and the issues surrounding the free rides for seniors program, allow me to direct you to this PDF of a transcript of a recent Chicago Tonight show. Starting on page 5, Carol Marin talks to Rep. Julie Hamos, House Minority Leader Tom Cross, Senator Ricky Hendon, and Senator Matt Murphy (not this Matt Murphy, this one).
12:54pm So a little late, but things are getting started on the debate about HB 656, the transit bill. Rep. John Fritchey (D-11th), a leader on the need for transit funding is pisssssed. He says he dislikes the governor’s ammendatory veto but he will vote for it so as "not to make transit riders the innocent victims" of the governor’s "defiance of the Illinois Constitution. "Shame on him," he says. Dag.
12:57pm Rich Miller at Capitol Fax is saying there are enough votes for the bill to pass so this is mostly going to be blather.
12:58pm: Rep. Julie Hamos (D-18th), the sponsor of the bill who really deserves a drink after all this, says she expects lots of other "worthy" groups to ask for their own reduced or free rides if the bill passes.
1:00pm: Rep. David Miller (D-29th) says reps should vote yes on the bill and that representatives "are not elected to like the govenor." Good thing, or that’d be a tough job to fill.
1:05pm: Holy moses, people are angry! Rep. Jim Sacia (R-89th) is reading into the record a column that Neil Steinberg wrote that calls most downstaters "hicks." He just called the column "a damn insult" since "I will help Chicago…any day of the week" and is thanking Miller, Hamos and Fritchey for their work on the bill. Regarding anyone who would call downstaters "hicks" he says "You better not say that with your mouth full, ’cause we fed ya!"
Governor Blagojevich’s plan to offer free rides for seniors - as part of a transit funding bill that he recently amended - is so confusing, it appears to confuse even him.
In an unedited video posted at ChicagoTribune.com, the governor laments that sales tax increases - like the one he calls "modest" in the transit bill that adds 25 cents in sales tax for every $100 spent by someone in the RTA’s coverage area - adversely affect low-income families, and working men who "can’t buy that extra Christmas gift for wife or for their kids." Yet the bill only offers free rides to seniors, regardless of their income. The governor says this is because "means-testing" would be an undue burden on the RTA and CTA even though comments by the heads of all the region’s transit agencies made clear that the governor didn’t actually discuss his plans with them before making his ammendatory veto last week.
Later in the video, he praises the transit bill - the same one he just got finished demeaning - for providing $500 million in funds to transit agencies without taking away money from other parts of the state’s budget. This is particularly vexing as the beginning of the video shows the governor saying he would have preferred a different transit bill had been presented to him: a bill that would re-direct funds from the Illinois gas tax that is intended to pay for roads and bridges, and would - wait for it - take money away from other parts of the state’s budget.
Watch the whole video here.
UPDATE 4:57pm: I just got off the phone with Rebecca Rausch, spokewoman for Governor Blagojevich. She says that the governor does not know how much revenue the RTA will lose from giving free rides to seniors, but she did say that the governor believes this program will cost $19 million. Therefore, the money that transit agencies will get will not be the $494 million that the legislature passed in its original bill, but rather $475 million. When I asked Rausch if this meant that the transit agencies would now be receiving less money, she replied "That’s a really cynical way of looking at it." In fact, she said the governor believes that this is good for transit because if these bills don’t pass then they’d be getting no money. Eventually, she did acknowledge that the governor’s plan meant the new bill would give transit agencies "less new money than the original legislation included." So I guess cynicism is the order of the day no matter who you are.
I asked her why the governor waited until now to bring up his plan, and Rausch said that he had hoped that the GA would not pass the sales tax bill and would instead pass the bill that would divert a portion of gas taxes to transit funding. When it became clear that the sales tax bill would pass, the governor wanted to ensure that those would feel the greatest economic impact of a sales tax increase - seniors on a fixed income - would have it made up some other way. She also noted that the transit agencies and Rep. Hamos and Herndon both supported the governor’s plan for free rides for seniors. I suppose I would be in favor of it too if it meant the alternative was looking like someone who hates grandmas.
UPDATE 5:17pm: This Crain’s article says the plan will only cost $15 million. The quotes from Rep. Hamos don’t exactly cream "support" as Rausch claims. But the chicago_el livejournal page (via Chicagoist commenters) links to a WBBM story that says the heads of the CTA and RTA do indeed support it and stood with the gov when he announced the plan.
Via the Trib, the governor says he will support a transit bill with a sales tax increase, but only if legislators approve his plan to give free bus and train rides to senior citizens on the CTA, Metra and Pace (this was that improving he was referring to apparently).
The governor’s own press release (reprinted after the jump) says that "a senior who uses public transit twice a week could save $176 a year on CTA fares" and that 1.3 million seniors live in communities with public transit, though the release does not provide information about the number of seniors who do use it. Nor does it mention the economic impact his plan will have on the CTA’s operating expenses.
Surely by now, you’ve gotten wind that the city is hoping to host the 2016 Summer Games. And while some of you might have seen some rather cut, muscular specimens cavorting in or around the Palmer House, it seems many of you aren’t aware that the city is set to host the World Boxing Championships beginning this week.
While the pugilists don’t get to punching until Tuesday, you can start cheering them on as they parade down State Street beginning at 4pm today (stepping off from the Palmer House Hilton).
As this is by far the largest athletic event the city has ever hosted, and the last major event taking place in Chicago before the 2009 vote on who gets to host the 2016 Summer Games, local organizers are hoping for a good show. City officials are keeping their fingers crossed that the tourney goes off without a hitch as a contingent from the International Olympic Committee, including president Jacques Rogge, keeps an eye on the proceedings.
Here’s a tip: If you find yourself running for President of the United States, and you are asked by the biggest labor federation in the country to show up at a candidate forum and debate, make sure you tell the audience you support unions. And say it a lot. At least, that’s the strategy followed by all seven of the Democratic candidates for president who came to Soldier Field last night to seek the blessing of 17,000 members of the AFL-CIO and, by extension, the national unions they represent. Everybody was there—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. Everyone but long-shot Mike Gravel, who few seemed to miss. They came to the AFL-CIO-sponsored forum to stand on a stage on the 10-yard line near the south end zone of the home of the Bears to do what all presidential candidates do in debates: speak in sound bites, fail to answer direct questions and take shots at each other whenever possible. Oh, right—and say they love unions and union values. Read the rest of this entry »
You have probably - by now - seen the "I Got a Crush…on Obama" video. Maybe you’re even mad that you didn’t YouTube your own Obama love video first. Me? I’m interested in the video because it illustrates the open secret at the root of Obama love: many of us love him, but we have no idea why. As someone who studies and writes about sex and relationships, I’ve been thinking about the Triangular Theory of Love, the different types of love it describes, and how these relate to our choice of candidates. To be geeky for a moment, in this model there are three components of love - passion, intimacy and commitment - and seven forms of love that are supported by one or more of these components of love. Liking is similar to friendship - we like someone, but don’t really feel the passion or commitment to them. Infatuation is akin to "love at first sight" and is full of passion, but lacks intimacy or commitment. Empty love has a sense of commitment but not really any intimacy or passion. Companionate love describes many long term relationships or marriage in which perhaps the passion has subsided (if it was ever really there), but there is deep affection, feelings of closeness or understanding, and commitment. Read the rest of this entry »
