The Blog

I see the Sun-Times went a third way, endorsing not Sandi Jackson, not Darcel Beavers but Ron David, the veteran Chicago cop in the running. The Tribsters went for Jackson, seemingly because they like her smile, but also gave David a positive mention.

and regarding having a truly independent block of alderman, maybe it would be best if they were independent of the Jacksons as well. volunteer for Askew here, candidate in the 2nd ward. and with little money and no big names, we got the Tribune and Sun-Times endorsement even though we support the big-box. people-powered

or maybe volunteering for Bob Fioretti, a civil rights attorney who has worked for 35 years fighting for peoples rights. Sidenote: Askew was not a supporter of the big box -- he flip flopped when everyone else became in favor. We need leaders not followers.

Those photos are funny. I am going to learn photo shop.

I am glad that Jesse James Jackson Jr did not run for Mayor. He would be worse than Daley.

If you think that Jesse Jackson Jr. pictures are fake you should see the fake black family, the fake black nurse and construction man on everyone that was endorsed by the UNIONS (really original guys).Do anyone know who these people are? They do not live in my ward or are they American Top Models. Maybe get real people from your unions Ha Ha

Well, if everytime someone needed a picture. The congressman stop and flew in to take one. You would say he was mishandling gov. funds. You are Dammed if you do and Dammed if you don't. Technology is a beautiful. Get with the program.

These are the same people he meets. AND he charges for POLLING and PHOTOS. This con artist charges for the photos. Plus wants you to use mail and call people too. It is a business to him, exploitation nothing more. Every Greek restaurant has real photos of Rich Daley. An actual on the spot photo. Jackson is a sick puppy.

Kenny Johnson is a very scary looking guy in the photo. His face just yells out wierd. But that is the type of guy Jackson likes. Imagine seeing a billboard of that wierdo liar Vincent Fry.

Didn't Congressman the Honorable Jesse Jackson Jr call Frank Coconate some kind of mussel and use anti-Italian slurs used by a fictional drug dealer in the movie New Jack City?

Congressman Jesse Jackson should resign or at least go into sensitivity training and apologize maybe with Paul Sorvino. If an Italian Congressman called African Americans moolinjan (Sicilian dialect for Eggplant) or tatoon (I never knew what this means) or starting talking in jive and making fun of peoples name the media would go ape shit. The media doesn't care when Jackson is a racist or offensive to certain groups. Jackson is a racist and an ignorant self righteous nut.

Junior is a selfish, spoiled, arrogant, immature, insecure, attention desiring, brat. That is compounded that he is a corrupt shakedown artist. This bozo has no credibility anymore. He uses these poor candidates and gets their money with his stupid photo and supposed services.

That stupid photo is funnnny. Everyone is laughing at that fool and any idiot who takes their photo with him. I feel sorry for those poor candidates. Jackson is a liar too because he never raised an army or money to run candidates. At least the unions are taking some candidates on. Jackson is a laughing stock with these photos. He even charged his wife and could not take the time to take a photo with her. What a joke.

Barack Obama is an intelligent and engaging and clearly articulate man. However, he lacks some things in terms of identifying with African American voters: 1. He is not a descendant of slaves. His father, who he did not know, was a Black African from Kenay, who abandoned his white mother, and did not have a slave history nor mentality. 2. He does not have the historical connection of the "great migration" of American Blacks from the South to the North. Most African American Chicago politicians have connections like Jesse Jackson Sr, Alice Tregay, former MWRD Prez Fuller from South Carolina or the Strogers from Arkansas and the other connection to the Catholic-Black community(ies) in Louisiana at Xavier University. The tar and featherings, the abject poverty, the fighting with white ethnic immigrants in Chicago. Obama has no connection to that history. 3. Barack Obama is not an American Black. This is not to be a joke, an insult, or be stereotypical but if you watch the video of Obama swaying back and forth--he does not have the same rythm or flow of the other Church goers at the Church. Obama did not grow up stepping. He did not grow up throwing raps or rhymes or insults. He didn't go to jookie parties on the South Side or even oldie stepper sets. When he was in the Senate, the other Black Senators like Donne Trotter and even Ricky Hendon used to make fun of him and mock him. Even Jesse Jackson Jr made jokes about him not being Black enough or Chicago enough. His skin is Black but his culture is not. Barack Obama did not endure the racism of Chicago or the Deep South but the multicultural warmth of the Hawaiin sun and the wealth of white family and the opportunity of private schools. 4. He does not bond or provide a real role model because he is not from Chicago and did not have a hard life or poverty. He did not go to Chicago Public Schools bad or good. He did not go to Catholic or Baptist Chicago Schools. He did not get beat up in Bridgeport or have gangs follow him home from school. He never had to go to County Hospital. He grew up a life of privilege and luck and opportunity. No doubt he has talent and worked hard. But his life was not one of difficulty or challenge. He did not know his dad, but unfortunately that is not atypical. He went to elite private schools. His step dad was an International Businessman and he was world travelled by the time he was a teenager. His mom was white. He never knew nor dealt with any Black people. As a teenager his white grandparents raised him in Hawaii in a upper middle class environment. He never had to deal with gangs. He went to all good schools. He did not know dangerous streets. He never went without a meal. He went to private school in Indonesia. He went to private school in Hawaii. He was in a white and wealthy international world. He went to Columbia undergrad and Harvard law. He and his wife are wealthy get inside deals on books and property, get government or corporate travel. He is an elected official. This is not a challenged person, again he worked hard and is talented but this idea that it is so odd he is where he is and had to overcome the name and being Black is absurd. Barack Obama had a life of privilege and opportunity. This is not the life of most Black kids in the South or West Side of Chicago. Not the biracial kids who are tall or good looking or at Latin School or U of C prep but the poor kids in the Chicago Public Schools. Barack Obama's upbringing and history is radically different and he is no more of a role model than any successful Ivy League white kid. 5. Yes, he has chosen to Black (maybe for political reasons but don't be so cynical. Clearly chose a lovely Black wife and has Black(er) kids. So he is Black. BUT HE IS ALSO WHITE. WITH A WHTIE MOTHER WHO RAISED HIM. AND WHITE GRANDPARENTS WHO RAISED HIM. HE NEVER DEALT WITH BLACK PEOPLE UNTIL HE WAS AN ADULT. He represented a Black (primarily Senatorial District) that is relatively unchanged because of his representation (still many chronic problems) 6. There is also a double standard of support. Obama can endorse White candidates over Black in other states but we must back him because he is Black. Emil Jones says that Blacks must go with Barack because he has a somewhat Black skin color (there are Hispanics darker than Barack Obama) but Obama backs Mayor Daley over a Black candidate (with a much more compelling story than Barack---Dorothy Brown had a large family, illiterate parents who got educated later in life, mother was a maid, dad was a farmer and factory worker, poverty, religious, dark skinned black, South, real racism, real poverty, real overcoming of obstacles) Now, Obama can back Mayor Daley but don't than play the race card to say we must now back Obama. There is a hypocricy and Double standard here. 7. Obama seems rightfully justified in talking about the genocide in Sudan or the corruption in Kenya. But he is silent on the corruption in Chicago under Daley or the torture in Chicago in Areas 2 and 3 under Jon Burge or the genocide of African American children being murdered, in jail and in a system that seems not to work. Obama is silent at home and in with the powers that be. 8. Obama is NOT a historical first. There is nothing that unique about his candidacy except that the media loves him and he is being hyped and like Biden says he is "clean". BUT the first African American to run for President was Shirley Chisolm a Congressowman from Texas when it was historic and different, Rev. Jesse Jackson ran for President and actually did very well, Rev. Al Sharpton ran for President, and with the Republicans Alan Keyes ran for President and had a small but fervent conservative following and did well in debates, General Colin Powell was almost recruited. So Obama is not a first and really not that unique, the uniqueness is in the number of media stories. Is it because he is light skinned? or more acceptable to whites? or he is a good speaker? What is historic or unique here that was not with Colin Powell, Alan Keyes or Cong Chisolm? Why isn't the darker skinned JC Watts loved by the media or even Democrat Harold Ford? 9. Most people I talk too don't know his stands on the issues or what he really thinks or means or does, just that he is different or represents hope. Was he different in endorsing Todd Stroger or just doing the partisan line? Was he different in endorsing Mayor Daley or doing a good political move? Was he different or reform in wanting to pay the pastor $10,000 or month or was he just like any other politician? What about his fundraising or Tony Rezko? What are his stands on issues? 10. He is more hopeful or optimisitic or not negative yet his operatives and the media destroyed Blair Hull because of his wife and he accepted Congressman Jackson making jokes about wife beating even though that was not what it was, he admitted to drug use but Jack Ryan's sex life with his wife became the biggest story and forced him out of the race, should we explore Barack Obama's sex life? It was fair game for Jack Ryan. Is it negative to ask Barack Obama about his private sex life because he is kind of Black or hopeful or a Democrat but not for Jack Ryan. Obama benefitted from the negative attacks on Blair Hull, Jack Ryan, and the maneuvers of Daley consultant and guru Axelrod. Obama was the beneficiary of a brutal media and good political operatives. I am uncertain what is historic, different or hopeful. It seems more of the same with a better and maybe slightly darker veneer.

So can I ask exactly what makes Hillary better than Obama? Because when I look at Bill Clinton's record, I don't see the magic that apparently our nation's first black president spread over Chicago: 1) He ramped up the War on Drugs considerably. This has affected black folks massively, legalizing drugs would immediately take the profit aspect out, which would immensely help reduce the stranglehold the larger gangs have in the inner city. 2) Clinton was a NAFTA and globalization supporter. The movement of good paying industrial jobs first to Mexico and then to Asia certainly has not been a boon for black Chicago. so what is Hillary's appeal? I just don't see it...

Try to keep the thread focused on what a fake punk JJJr is. He is as phony as a three dollar bill That kid Jackson is just no good

Exactly. One has to wonder why would he spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars of his own, or money he controls, for a job that only pays $100,000 ? while leaving his "slate of candidates" out in the cold ?

Congressman Jackson Jr., What a defference a a year makes.It looks like you really miss Coconate. He had you in a position to look like a real winner. Now don't even bother coming north of 31st street!

I supported Jackson Jr but I guess he is no worse than Mayor Daley, Cong jackson sold out the blacks by supporting Daley over Doc Walls and Clerk Brown.

==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning. I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind. I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public. This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties. So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!). Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula: * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them. * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate. * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST. * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST. * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed. Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above. If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate? If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office? Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)? Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)? Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways? As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing. The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT. The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds. Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few. To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.

Just..Get your affairs in order for the next election David E. Neeley!