Jack Franks Snags a Democratic National Convention Delegate Slot

Primary election night was not a good one for State Representative Jack Franks.

Oh, it was OK as far as his nomination for state representative was concerned.

Hard not win a non-contested primary.

But he was also on the ballot for delegate to the Democratic National Convention pledged to United State Senator Hillary Clinton.

Look at the election returns:

(WON) Charles E. Jefferson (Obama) 41,173
(WON) Mary Tuit (Obama) 40,057
Eleanor (Bobbie) Colbert (Obama) 35,520
(WON) Sunil Puri (Obama) 35,520
Victory Bell (Clinton) 25,694
Jack Franks (Clinton) 25,229
(WON) Barbara A. Giolitto (Clinton) 24,044
Martha P. Logemann (Clinton) 23,695

According to Republican Party rules, the four Barack Obama delegates would have won. After all, they got the most votes.

But the Democrats play by proportional representation rules, which I freely admit to not completely understanding. Since Clinton got more that 15% of the vote, she was entitled to one delegate.

The winners were the first male for Obama, the first female for Obama, then the next male for Obama and, finally, the first female for Clinton.

Two men, two women.

And, even though Franks and the other Clinton-pledged male on the ballot ahead of him got more votes than the first Clinton woman, she gets to go to the convention representing the 16th congressional district.

As an aside, I'd observe that the Democratic Party does not seem too democratic.

But, not to worry. The state Democratic Party came to the rescue of Jack Franks.

And to rescue of 16th District Clinton supporter Victory Bell.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns agreed the following seven party leaders and elected officials pledged to Clinton would be named delegates:

Victory Bell
George Cardenas
Kevin Conlon
Jack Franks
Sylvia Leonberger
Shirley McCombs
Alice Palmer

Click to enlarge the images.

Posted first on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

A Lesson in Canadian Health Care

For all those folks who think that Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's visions of health care are for you, consider this story.

The granddaughter of an acquaintance and her her family live in Canada.

The granddaughter and her mothers came to Illinois to visit this Easter.

But, it wasn't to celebrate the Holy Day with the family.

It was because the granddaughter's toe got hurt.

It wasn't healing.

Her mother took her to her Canadian pediatrician.

The pediatrician said she had to see a specialist. The wait was so long and the mother cared so much about her daughter that she decided to come south for medical care.

In order to prevent the long delays the Canadian system entails, the little girl came back to Illinois to see a specialist.

Maybe if the Democrats impose a similar system next year, we can go south of the border for better care.

= = = = =
On top is the Health Canada home page.

Posted first on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

Finally, A National Poll That DOES Matter

It amazes me how often t.v. pundits and newspapers report national head-to-head polls, especially this far out. Give t.v. pundits credit for usually reporting that these national polls are irrelevant because they ignore the electoral math.

Finally, a state-by-state poll by a reputable firm that DOES matter, atleast as far as polls eight months out matter.

The lede:

SurveyUSA's 30,000 sample poll (600 voters per state) gives a slight edge in the Electoral Vote race to Obama at first glance, and a significant electability edge upon further analysis.

It shows Obama beating McCain, 280 - 258, while Clinton beats McCain, 276-262.

Both match-ups show either Democrat winning California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, for a total of 202 electoral votes.

How they add to those totals is very interesting. Clinton adds Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, for a total of 74 more. Winning the Big States, just as she says.

Obama adds Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska (split), Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, for a total of 78 more. Doing better in smaller states, Midwestern states and Western states, Purple States just as he says.

What's MOST interesting about these results for Obama is that Florida (-2 points), New Jersey (virtually tied) and Pennsylvania (-5) are states that he hasn't campaigned in. Yet. Head-to-heads also show Obama down only 2 points in North Carolina, another state where he hasn't campaigned. That shows 78 additional swing states that Obama could compete in.

To be fair, Clinton is competitive in Michigan (virtually tied) and Washington (-2), but much less so in Colorado (-6), Iowa (-5) and Oregon (-5), and don't expect her to compete at all in Nebraska (-27), Nevada (-8), New Hampshire (-8), North Dakota (-19) or Virginia (-10). That's 51 potential swing votes for Clinton, but one would expect that being so well known already, there's only modest gains for her to be made.

Aside from Florida (and Arkansas for Clinton), neither candidate really competes in the South. Which makes the whole "Will the South elect a black President?" question the Clinton's hint at moot.

With the exception of Arkansas, it also blows a pretty big hole in Clinton's "I can win his voters, but he can't win mine."

Quite to the contrary, Obama does significantly better in Western states and the Midwest, where the other big question, "Do voters want the Clinton's back in the White House?" looms apparent.

(Note: I've been staying away from Clinton-Obama stories, but I thought this might be a good story on poll analysis. Feel free to disagree with me, but before anyone who doesn't like what they read lashes out at thepollster or their methodology, SurveyUSA was only 1 point off on the Foster-Oberweis race, and out of 26 presidential primaries they've polled so far, they've had a median error of +/- 2.0 points). Compared to 5.0 for Zogby (17 polls) and 7.0 for Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon. These guys are to national polling what Dave Fako is to Illinois. No offense, Dave, I know you do business elsewhere)

X-posted at Yellow Dog Blog.

Read more...

Grand Old Partisan: Setting the Obama Record Straight

Earlier this week, Grand Old Partisan issued what I'm sure is to be a continued party of the Clinton-McCain attacks on Barack Obama: "Where's the beef?"

GOP charged that Obama was all talk, no action on education, health care, transportation and government reform.

Before I respond, let me offer a counter challenge to GOP: What have Hillary Clinton and John McCain ACCOMPLISHED to improve education, health care, transportation and government ethics?

OBAMA ON EDUCATION:

- SB 19 (LAW) enacted school reforms backed by Mayor Daley

- SB 533 (law) expanded teacher training;

- SB 903 (LAW) expanded early childhood education;

- SB 1369 (LAW) created Illinois' first statewide capital needs assessment for schools;

ON HEALTH CARE:

- HB 2268 (LAW) Created the Health Care Justice Act, creating a bipartisan committee of experts to develop a universal health care plan for Illinois;

- SB 59 (LAW) created safety report cards for hospitals;

- SB 130 (LAW) Extended the children's health insurance program;

- SB 263 (LAW) HIV counselling and testing for pregnant women;

- SB 989 (LAW) expand health coverage for the developmentally disabled;

- SB 1417 (LAW) require insurance companies to cover colorectal cancer;

- SB 1418 (LAW) banned the sale of diet pill ephedra, linked to deaths in IL;

- HB 6 (LAW) expanded disaster preparedness programs to include hospitals and first responders;

ON TRANSPORTATION

- SB 1408 (LAW) Bipartisan measure to expand tranportation programs in Illinois;

- SB 46 (LAW) Extended tax credits for bio-fuels;

ON GOVERNMENT REFORM:

- SB 15 (LAW) Required videotaping of homocide interrogations;

- SB 30 (LAW) Cracked down on racial profiling by police;

- SB 1586 (LAW) Strengthened IL Open Meetings Act;

- SB 702 (LAW) Banned solicitation of state employees for campaign contributions, created the IL Inspector General's Office, and made other sweeping changes;

- SB 706 (LAW) Creates an Inspector General's office for the IL SOS to investigate corruption;

GOP uses the same-old attacks that have always been used against advocates of campaign finance reform. George Ryan used them very effectively against Glenn Poshard.

The argument goes something like this: Barack Obama says that Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists and PACs than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. But Barack Obama used to take money from lobbyists and PACs, so if Hillary Clinton is doing something wrong now, Barack Obama must have been doing something wrong then.

Well, as a State Senator, Obama did raise $93,000 in contributions of more than $1,000. The largest was $10,000 from Gold Coast philanthropist Abby O'Neil.

But he raised $379,000 from donors giving $150 to $1,000 (77%).

Given Illinois "Wild West" campaign finance laws, that's not too shabby.

Compare that to Illinois House GOP Leader Tom Cross:

Contributions of more than $1,000: $5.5 million (66%)

Contributions of $150 to $1,000: $2.2 million (33%)

Or Tom Cross' #2 man, Brent Hassert:

More than $1000: $806,000 (45%)

$150 to $1,000: $1 million (55%)

Read more...

You've been Sinclaired

Over the weekend, the Internet Death Eaters swarmed over Larry Sinclair, adopting him as their Messiah.

Larry, an admitted former drug abuser, alleges that he engaged in felonious activity with Barack Obama back in 1999.

Frustrated that the traditional media ignored his fairy tale, Larry uploaded his accusations to You Tube, although it might have been more appropriate for You Porn.

While the Death Eaters continued to push and prod this non-existent sex scandal, WhiteHouse.com offered Larry $10,000.00 to take a polygraph regarding his allegations—Larry, who apparently lives in HUD assisted housing, quickly accepted.

The holes in Sinclair’s story are too numerous to list. The irony is that Larry may actually believe the encounter happened—but that does not make it true.

While the main stream media has rightly ignore this feckless story, the Death Eaters are quietly pushing this crap to every Democratic Super Delegate on the planet

Although Sinclair’s myth is not enough for Obama's Super Delegates to switch allegiance to Clinton, the salaciousness may be enough to give Clinton's Super Delegates pause in switching allegiance to Obama.

And with the nomination hanging by a chad, that pause is quite damaging to Obama.

Sadly, based upon Sinclair’s one minute and forty-two second “confession”, a new definition of poli-sleaziness may have been born:

Sinclaired, to be, verb: A politically motivated, false and malicious statement posted on the Internet to prevent Super Delegates from changing their allegiance.

Read more...

What's wrong with Super-Delegates?

Perhaps it is because I am a political junkie who finds fascinating the mechanics of government, but I really don’t understand why people are getting all bent out of shape about the concept of un-pledged delegates making the final decision for the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

“It’s unfair.” “It ignores the will of the people.” “It sounds like a Communist/Fascist/(insert immoral political philosophy of your choice here) plot.”

“It's Un-American.”

Those are the thoughts being expressed by the Professional Political Pontificators these days about the “super-delegates” who may wind up casting the final votes and deciding whether Barack Obama or Hillary R. Clinton will be the Democrat who gets to tangle with likely GOP nominee John McCain come the Nov. 4 general election.

Those people (many of whom are professional pundits who prostitute their viewpoints for money) want to think it is wrong for several classifications of delegates to be included this year in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.

While most of those delegates were either allocated to supporters of whichever candidate won the popular vote in each congressional district or which candidate took the popular vote across the state, some delegates have a different status.

The delegates who were allocated based on elections results are obligated to go to the nominating convention and support (at least initially) the candidate for whom they declared support early on.

When former Illinois Attorney General and state Comptroller Roland Burris (one of the delegates I voted for in a district that solidly went for Obama) travels to Denver, he is required to remain true to Barack. Only if the convention turns into a free-for-all with no candidate being able to take a majority would he be allowed to consider changing his mind.

Then, there are the un-pledged delegates, also known as the “super-delegates.” They do not have to declare a preference, and they can vote at the nominating convention for whichever candidate they choose.

The triple-P’s of the world would have you think that all these “super-delegates” are craven individuals who are going to ignore the will of the people in their respective states and pick a presidential nominee based on which one is willing to offer them personally the best perks.

They also state these “super-delegates” are, “elected by no one” and are, “accountable to nobody.” They want to believe this is the equivalent of the days of old when Tammany Hall and Chicago Machine politicos would cut political deals that did not have the interests of the public in mind.

I don’t buy it.

For one thing, it is not true that the “super delegates” are un-elected. In reality, they are elected government officials – they just weren’t elected specifically to be “super-delegates.”

In each of the 50 states, the “super-delegates” include every member of Congress (including the two senators). Also included are the governors and other high-ranking state officials. There also are a few slots in each state that are filled at the last minute, and party officials usually pick people who are reliable when it comes to voting along with the mood of the political party.

In Illinois, there are 35 super-delegate slots among the delegates at the convention. Of those, 32 are set and the other three will be filled some time in May.

Some choices are likely to be made based on the desires of the Democratic Party to have a convention of presidential nominators that bears some resemblance to the overall racial and ethnic makeup of the United States of America. There also are party rules that require the delegations from each state to consist of an equal number of women and men.

The bottom line is that for those of us from Illinois, the Democratic “super-delegates” are going to be people like Sen. Richard Durbin, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

I expect Mayor Richard M. Daley also will be a “super-delegate,” unless Rich decides he doesn’t feel like spending a week in Denver this summer. In which case, he will probably arrange for one of his brothers (former Commerce Secretary William or Cook County Board member John) to fill the slot.

These people were elected to their positions of influence in large part because they know how to reflect the moods of the people who live in their respective districts. If they really behave in a manner as reprehensible as the triple-P commentators would have us believe, we can always take it out on them come Election Day.

Would Sen. Durbin (who probably is a shoo-in for re-election to his third term in the U.S. Senate) really be willing to risk the wrath of the voter and give his token Republican opponent a legitimate campaign issue to use against him? Does Blagojevich want to stir up the wrath of Democrats even more than he already has by cutting a sleazy presidential deal?

There is another factor to consider.

The “super-delegate” issue only comes into play if the regularly chosen delegates who are publicly bound to a specific candidate cannot reach a decision on their own as to who the presidential nominee should be.

The critics would have you think that the “will of the people” was being ignored by the super-delegates. In reality, the “will” is uncertainty. If the will of the people was as strong for one candidate as these pundits want us to believe, then one of the candidates would wind up with a majority of the elected delegates.

There would be no need for the next step of “super-delegates,” whose purpose would be to serve as a tiebreaker mechanism used by the political party if the majority of declared delegates become hopelessly deadlocked and cannot choose a candidate.

Insofar as political mechanisms are concerned, “super-delegates” sounds to me like a reasonable way to break ties. At least those individuals have to put themselves on the record, and their political legacies (always a priority with elected officials) would be at stake if they truly voted for someone the locals hated.

I always hate it when government matters are decided on something that is the equivalent of a coin toss. For those who think I’m exaggerating, all too many decisions with great effects on public policy were made by dumb luck.

Had then-Illinois Secretary of State George H. Ryan reached into the antique glass bowl once used by Abraham Lincoln and picked out the name of a Democrat in 1991, Republicans likely NEVER would have gained control of the state Legislature in the 1990s.

But Ryan picked out the Republican name, and the commission that drew political boundaries for the decade used their influence to favor their political party. Likewise, Democrats gained control in the 1980s and in the current decade because that same random drawing ended in their favor.

Would you really want the Democratic Party’s nominee being chosen by putting the names of Obama and Clinton into a hat (perhaps one once worn by Franklin D. Roosevelt), and picking one out at random?

What I find ironic is that both Clinton and Obama (in their roles as U.S. senators from New York and Illinois respectively) are “super-delegates” themselves. Both will get the chance in Denver to personally try to sway their “super-delegate” colleagues over to their side. It’s not like either one of them will be at a disadvantage due to access.

Besides, the concept of political party officials getting together to decide who should represent their party for president is a good thing, particularly if the convention turns into a debate.

The last thing that a healthy Democracy needs is a nominating convention that is a pre-set schedule of events intended to be a candidate coronation or an over-glorified political pep rally.

Regardless of the celebration that one campaign will do at convention’s end, the other side will wind up the loser. Then, the winner has to reach out to the losing faction and remind them of the issues they have in common (which in the case of Obama and Clinton is most everything). If the winning Democrat can’t do that, then we the people of the United States of America get President McCain.

It will be messy to watch the politicos at work while they figure out whether we are better off with Obama or Clinton at the top of the ballot. But the “mess” IS Democracy at work.

Democracy is often rambunctious and raucous. It is not neat and pretty. As far as I’m concerned, anybody who would want “neat and pretty” politics is asking for something that is really and truly Un-American.

-30-

Originally posted at www.ChicagoArgus.blogspot.com

Read more...

Hillary snubs Eric & Kathy radio show

Hat tip to Mrs. Marathon Pundit for this one.

The Eric & Kathy Show is a popular morning radio talk show in Chicago, broadcasting on WTMX-FM. Earlier today, a Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign representative called the show's producer and asked if they'd like to have the former Chicago area resident appear on the show for a telephone interview at 9:00am. The show accepted the offer, they called the magic telephone number at the agreed upon time, but the hosts were put on hold for 15 minutes, after which the pair was told that the senator would not be available.

I'm listening to the Eric and Kathy now, they're still talking about the snub.

To comment on this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

Debate Thoughts?

Cold War Between Obama and Clinton

Much of the discussion from last night is about how much nicer Clinton and Obama were during last night's debate. Which inevitably reminds everyone of South Carolina, and I'm not sure that helps Clinton.

To Be, Or Not To Be

Obama should have had a better answer to the question of being Vice President, or Hillary as his.

Try these:

"I think many of the other Democratic candidates who entered this race would be on anyone's shortlist."

"I'm running for President because I believe the country is ready for a change, and I think I'm the best one to lead the American people. There's a clear choice in this election, and I am the candidate of change that even the Republicans are trying to imitate. If I don't get the nomination, that will be a clear sign to me that the country isn't as ready for change as so many people have hoped."

Of course, there's alot of gossip these days about what exactly Senator Obama will do if he doesn't get the nomination. Some say he couldn't turn down the VP slot if Clinton offered it. Some hope he will stay in the Senate and help them gain a meaningful majority. Some advise him to run for Governor of Mayor of Chicago and get executive experience.

The Issues

The two crossed sharp swords over fine but important differences on health care. Hillary offers a Blagojevich-style health care plan. Like Blagojevich, Clinton would tax businesses who fail to provide a government-mandated level of care.

Obama takes an approach that had bipartisan support in George Ryan's time. Gradual expansion of programs that help individuals to choose to get subsidies to buy insurance. Obama should be touting the success of Family Care far-and-wide, while pointing out the failure of a plan very similar to Clinton's in Massachusetts. John McCain will love him for it.

One thing is clear. Obama needs to expand the debate over immigration. While the current "bipartisan" plan in Washington is viewed as radical by those on the Right, it is not "radical" enough in the true meaning of the word because it does not address root causes.

"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to breath free" are not just empty words on a rusted statue.

In fact, while the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France in 1886, the famous poem "The New Colossus" was not part of the original design, and wasn't inscribed on the statue's pedestal until 1903. Between 1890 and 1900, more than half a million Italians immigrated to the U.S. fleeing abject poverty. Before them came the Irish. While many brought skills with them, mostly as farmers, they could not buy land, and most worked doing back-breaking unskilled labor, working their way up into the middle class.

America must recognize that people are still immigrating to the U.S. today driven by the same forces. What forces someone to risk arrest and death in the desert? Why would someone suffer separation from their family and second class citizenship? Because economic conditions for the average Mexican family are so inhuman.

On the War Front

Most think the shifting of the debate back to Iraq helps Obama. He can thank the Republicans for that. With the notable exception of Ron Paul, they seem to be trying to out-Dr. Strangelove one another.

One point that Obama needs to make explicitly -- which John Kerry should be the one to deliver -- is that the Republicans will surely Swiftboat Hillary just as they swiftboated Kerry. Only probably worse, given her lack of military service. "She was for the war before she was against it" is all that we will hear for 5 months. And Clinton still doesn't have an answer.

In 2003, roughly 3 in 4 American adults supported the invasion of Iraq.

That means that - for whatever reason - 1 in 4 Americans did not. That's even if you believe that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong and was just taking the politically expedient exit.

But to me, the real question in this debate isn't "How did Barack Obama get it right and Hillary Clinton get it wrong?"

The real question in this debate is "How did 50 million Americans get it right and Hillary Clinton get it wrong?"

Read more...

Just in Time for Super Tuesday

Hillary Clinton received a gift from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald today.

Rod Blagojevich fund raiser and Barack Obama political career launcher Tony Rezko has been taken into custody.

Posted first on McHenry County Blog.

He’s to be tried on various corruption charges, starting late next month.

The arrest will put the Hillary Clinton’s Rezko attack on front pages in numerous states.

Read more...

Now it's the Clintons and Rezko?

This is headlining on the Drudge Report today:

From Drudge's "Internet Exclusive":

Clinton tells NBC 'TODAY' show on Friday: 'I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door'...

Well, this certainly makes things more interesting. I wonder who leaked it to Matt Drudge...

Read more...

Jack Franks' Bet on Hillary Clinton

The Daily Herald is reporting that Bull Valley’s State Rep. Jack Franks spoke on Hillary Clinton’s behalf at a Chicago fund raiser.

Franks is co-chairman of her Illinois campaign.

It’s an interesting strategy that Franks and his father Herb have embarked upon.

Being a high profile supporter of the non-favorite son would certainly gain Franks tremendous White House access should Clinton succeed in her quest. Imagine a President Clinton appearing at a fund raiser for candidate for governor Jack Franks, for instance.

Such access could come in handy should Franks decide to run for statewide office.

According to Dave Berry’s article, Franks said

“he's not concerned by shifting poll numbers.

"’We've always known that it would be a close race,’ Franks said, ‘We understood that from the beginning. But a few months ago, she was 25 points down in Iowa, and now look at her; that's what the story line ought to be.’"

Posted first at McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

More on International Profit Associates

My good friend Dan Curry at Reverse Spin has been keeping an eye on the International Profit Associates scandal for months. The Miami Herald has a story on the controversial Illinois firm, one that has been very generous to the campaign funds of many Democratic candidates--including Illinois' attorney general, Lisa Madigan, as well as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From the Herald:

Florida's attorney general has registered 28 complaints against IPA and passed those concerns along to its Illinois counterpart, which is investigating the company. While IPA has been sued by individual clients in the past, this is the first time that former customers have banded together in court.

From Reverse Spin:

That was Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum's first mistake—if he wants anything done about IPA. Madigan, a Democrat, has been investigating IPA, a political donor, for more than four years without producing any results. And the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the political action committee of Democratic AGs, took one of its largest campaign donations, $50,000, from IPA last year in the midst of Madigan’s "probe."

Getting anyone in Illinois interested in IPA fraud complaints will be difficult. The New York Times and now the Miami Herald have delved deeply into the IPA matter but not the Chicago media. That is puzzling to say the least considering that IPA is headquartered in suburban Buffalo Grove and it has showered Illinois politicians with hundreds of thousands in campaign donations. IPA also has given Hillary Clinton more than $150,000. For all (of Curry's) posts on IPA, go here.

There are active communities of victims who vent their frustrations with IPA here, here and now at the bottom of the Miami Herald story.

A friend recently (not me, by the way) asked me if the Illinois media freeze on IPA was related to the IPA radio and TV ads that seem to air constantly on Chicago stations. Seems like a fair question.

Seems like a fair question to bring up in the next Democratic debate.

To comment on this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

Obama Lands a Solid Left Jab

Here's the e-mail I got signed by Barack Obama tonight:

Subject Line: Inevitable?

Yellow Dog Democrat,

I'm leaving the Tonight Show studio and I wanted to share something.

Jay Leno just asked if it bothers me that some of the Washington pundits are declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of this election before a single vote has been cast.

I'll tell you what I told him: Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare "Mission Accomplished" a little too soon.

We started this week $2.1 million behind the Clinton campaign -- a lead they built in large part with contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

We don't accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs. But thanks to your contribution, we've already cut that advantage in half.

Let's close the rest of that gap now. Please make another donation of $100:

https://donate.barackobama.com/closingthegap

Thank you,

Barack

(emphasis added)

That's a solid left jab where I come from. Comparing Clinton to George Bush in a very visceral, burned-image-in your-brain kind of way. It's also a message that could do some damage with Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats. They take their caucuses and their early primaries seriously. They believe they better understand the candidates and the issues better than the lower 48. They take pride in their independence, and they don't like to have their vote discounted or taken for granted. They also like underdogs. Obama's message could cause Clinton troubles.

The second-to-last paragraph also caught my eye:

We don't accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs. But thanks to your contribution, we've already cut that advantage in half.

First because it reminded me of Glenn Poshard's problem when he unilaterally disarmed his fundraising against George Ryan.

And then I realized that Obama was telling me that he raised $1.05 million in a single e-mail. That's right, Obama sent out just one e-mail Tuesday morning, and in less than 36 hours he raised over $1 million. Unreal.

Assuming Obama raised an average of $100 from those donors, he must have had 10,500 people respond, assuming the e-mail went out to 3/4 of his 352,000 donors, or 264,000, that's a 4% response rate. Pretty darn good. If he can keep up his current pace of adding 90,000 donors a quarter and get a 4% response rate every week, he'll raise nearly $18 million just off the Internet by January 1 and he'll be raising almost $1.5 million off the Internet starting in 2008.

Barack Poshard?
Poshard was nailed by Ryan on trumped up charges that he violated his own pledge, let's see if Hillary tries to put some chinks in his armor. Of course, if she does, Obama is likely to strike back and attack Clinton for her fundraising. I'm betting she's getting alot of money from insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, so opening that debate could be a Pandora's Box.

I also have to wonder if Poshard might have been able to out-raise Ryan in 1998 if the Internet were at its current level of political penetration.

Chambana
One of the best fundraisers I ever knew was a guy known as The Old-Timer who did an old-time bluegrass show on WEFT 90.1 FM in Champaign. The Old-Timer raised more money than just about anybody, except News From Neptune, a show further to the left than anything you'll ever find. I figure if the Old-Timer could nickel and dime his way to the top, Poshard could to, if he could reach a large enough audience cheaply and conveniently enough.

News from Neptune, btw, was followed immediately on air by the Illinois Labor Hour, the only radio show I know of in Illinois dedicated to covering the labor movement on a weekly basis. During the strike years in Decatur in the early 90's, before the World Wide Web (invented at U of I) took off, the Illinois Labor Hour was the best source of coverage of the strikes at Staley, Goodyear and ADM, and it was a critical organizing tool for labor activists building community support and recruiting student volunteers.

A little Illinois Political Trivia: The Old-Timer was a member of the U of I College Republicans with the late Senator Stan Weaver. News from Neptune is co-hosted by former Green Party Congressional candidate Carl Estabrook, and Illinois Labor Hour is hosted by Bill Gorrell, organizer for Laborers International Union of North America #703.

Union tradesmen made up a big section of WEFT's weekday audience, tuning in from noon to 3 pm weekdays for the Blues slot. The D.J.'s were all live, all volunteer, and if you called in with a request, they would play it if they had it. And they had just about everything.

Are Community/Public Radio still Relevant?
This week happens to be pledge week for a lot of public/community radio stations. Alot of people wonder if broadcast t.v. and radio are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the era of cable television and the Internet, but what's surprising is that while traditional t.v. and radio stations have seen their audiences shrink, public television and radio have seen their audiences grow in recent years.

Maybe because its one place we can get away from Brittney Spears?

Read more...

Hillary's vacuous vetting exposes International Profit Associates hypocrisy

My good friend Dan Curry has been working on the Hillary/International Profit Associates story for months, and I'm sure he won't mind that I take his post, almost word for word, and post it here.

Dan blogs at Reverse Spin, and I highly recommend his blog.

On Meet the Press last Sunday, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that new vetting procedures had been been put in place to prevent her from taking money from sleaze merchants like Norman Hsu.

If you think you've heard that line before, you are right.

The spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, Ann Lewis, said Mrs. Clinton was not aware of Mr. Burgess's background when he held fund-raising affairs for her in 2000 and 2003, nor did she know whether other prominent Democrats had rejected contributions. She said that Mrs. Clinton’s vetting procedures have been strengthened since the senator’s appearance at I.P.A.

That paragraph appeared in a May 2006 article in the New York Times focusing on questionable contributions to Clinton from Illinois-based International Profit Associates, a business consulting company run by a convicted criminal that is beset by fraud allegations and a massive federal sexual harassment lawsuit.

Small business owners across the country, frustrated by Hillary’s continued refusal to turn away IPA funds, have written her this letter today. The small business owners were victimized by IPA’s fraud and are suing IPA in a federal racketeering lawsuit pending in Chicago.

Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA. 22203

Dear Senator Clinton:

We, the undersigned small business owners from across the country are deeply offended that you continue to accept campaign contributions from top officials of a business consulting company, International Profit Associates (IPA), Buffalo Grove, IL., that defrauded us. As we struggle in federal court via a civil racketeering lawsuit to recover the thousands of dollars this company took from us illegally, you continue to use political donations that might have come directly from our pockets.

We also are appalled because you accepted the money amid dark clouds of fraud allegations, a criminal past by the company's founder, and one of the largest sexual harassment lawsuits ever filed by the federal government.

We are trying to fight back against this company and you, Senator Clinton, are enabling it. We ask that you immediately donate to charity the more than $150,000 the New York Times says you've accepted from IPA's top officials, a figure that includes a ride on IPA's corporate jet and a donation from a high school age son of an IPA official.

Surely, now, in the wake of the Norman Hsu scandal, some time, including:

IPA is being sued by the federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for widespread sexual harassment. In a New York Times article May 7, 2006 titled, "Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents," EEOC lawyer Diane Smason called the allegations "probably the most egregious" ever filed by the agency's Chicago office. She said the investigation found that "sex harassment is the standard operating procedure for this company." That case is pending in U.S. District Court.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office has acknowledged publicly that it is investigating IPA for alleged fraud.

The Better Business Bureau says IPA has an "unsatisfactory record" based on reoccurring complaints that total 427 in the last three years. The BBB has issued "alerts" in various states to warn businesses that IPA was soliciting work there.

The company founder, John Burgess, is a convicted criminal, according to numerous published reports. He was convicted of attempted grand larceny and of soliciting a 16-year-old prostitute, those reports state. He was disbarred as a lawyer in New York state in July 1987 for "failing to answer charges which involved perjury, larceny, a conviction for patronizing a 16-year-old prostitute, possession of drugs and engaging in a pattern over a six-year period of lies and deceit," according to The Lawyers Fund for Client Protection of New York state. Burgess also is named as a key defendant in the sexual harassment lawsuit.

The company's attorney, Myron "Mike" Cherry, also a contributor of yours, has been identified in published reports as "Individual "H" in the Illinois criminal indictment of businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Cherry has acknowledged in published reports that he was the conduit for some of the IPA campaign contributions.

Already, politicians across the country have returned donations from IPA because of the company's checkered past. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager are among those who have returned contributions from IPA.

We have made our fraud allegations in a federal racketeering lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

Mrs. Clinton, we see from published reports that you have identified yourself as a champion for women’s rights and an advocate for small business owners. We cannot fathom, in light of those self-labels, how you could possibly accept campaign contributions from a company accused by the federal government of sexually harassing scores of women and one that has left behind a long trail of fraud complaints from small business owners. Do you believe the 114 women who were allegedly sexually harassed at IPA are not telling the truth about that harassment? Do you believe the Better Business Bureau is wrong? Do you think the state Attorney General is unjustified in her investigation of IPA?

We believe this is our concern because the campaign contributions you continue to accept came from the money that we believe was taken from us illegally. We do not believe you should continue to further your political career with such tainted cash.

We are not singling you out in this request. We plan to make the same request to other public officials who continue to accept and hold IPA-related campaign contributions. We wrote you first because you are running for President and certainly should be setting an example for other politicians.

Sincerely,
Amari Company, Inc., Amherst, NH.
Amazing Productions, Inc., Tamarac, FL.
Precision Painting and Decorating, Inc., Elmhurst, IL.
All About Construction, Inc., Fort Myers, FL.
Capital Removal, Gold River, CA.
BBQ Island, LLC., Gilbert, AZ.
Compsolution VA, Inc., Richmond, VA.
JRP Construction, LLC., Yuma, AZ.
Evco Commercial Construction, Corp., Lake Elsinore, CA.
Gunnison Metal Shop, Inc., Gunnison, CA.
Captains Select Seafood, Minneapolis, MN.
MSI Redimix Inc., Mesquite, CA.
Joseph E. Clouse, Inc., Lehigh Acres, FL.
Kyles Discount Stuff, McPherson, KS.
Dames Air, LLC., Warrenton, MO.
Home Theater Design Group, Carrollton, TX.
Gigs Inc., Tewksbury, MA.
Cool Access LLC., Mesquite, TX.
Philipsburg Electric & Supply, Inc., Philipsburg, PA.
Gilbert-American Companies, Rockwall, TX.
Hinsdale Sales and Rental, Inc., Hinsdale, NH.
Hitech Fire Detection, Inc., Houston, TX.

Tonight, the Democratic candidates for President are debating in New Hampshire. Considering that some of IPA’s victims are from that state, it would be the perfect time for somebody to ask Hillary about how IPA has escaped her vaunted vetting procedures.

The International Profit Associates story is out there on the Internet, but you have to do some digging to find it. The Oprah Winfrey Show's take on it can be found here.

From Oprah's site:

According to Charlotte, even the top executive participated in the harassment. "John Burgess, the owner, had his assistant proposition me to have sex with him," she says. "She started telling me a story of how he sleeps with women in the company and how I can get a better job if I do sleep with him."

Shortly after Charlotte rejected her boss's proposition, she says, she was demoted. "The next day I went to the [Human Resources] department and spoke with the manager," Charlotte says. "She looked at me and shrugged her shoulders and said, 'That's how he is.'"

To comment on this or any other Marathon Pundit post, click here.

Read more...

Posturing for Judgeships?

Two Illinois legislators have recently taken surprising political stands.

State Senator Kirk Dillard (R-DuPage County) cut a campaign ad segment for Barack Obama. It made big news in the Chicago metropolitan market and got big criticism from Republicans.

State Representative Jack Franks (D-Bull Valley) has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

So, why would Dillard go out onto a limb for Obama and Franks onto a similar branch for Hillary?

Dillard lost in the Illinois Senate Leadership fight to Frank Watson. Dillard also just voluntarily gave up the traditional power base of Chairman of the DuPage County Republican Central Committee.

Maybe he would like to be a federal judge in Chicago. Couldn't hurt to have a president or a vice president or even a U.S. Senator as an advocate.

Franks is similarly boxed in politically.

He could run for Congress against Republican Congressman Don Manzullo in the 16th congressional district.

But that would by no means be a slam-dunk.

And one of his 2006 contributors, Robert Abboud, is acting as if he is going to run against Manzullo.

Does Franks run against State Senator Pam Althoff next year?

Only if he is very, very brave.

He’d have to knock on twice as many doors and, surely, he has gotten tired of knocking on doors by now. It’s been eight years of going door-to-door.

As I have stated repeatedly, I have seen that women have a five- percentage point advantage over men in this area.

Why would he run for the state senate if Althoff were not vacating her seat to challenge Congresswoman Melissa Bean?

So, could Franks, who barely beat Dr. Tom Salvi—a man, I point out—afford to spot Althoff five-percentage points?

I don’t think so.

And, why take the risk by leaving what is by now a “safe” seat?

Or has Franks’ support of Hillary blown the conservative “cover” has spent low these many years creating?

Maybe it would make him vulnerable in his legislative seat, especially if a woman ran against him.

Franks got lots of publicity posturing for a Democratic Party primary challenge against Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Indeed, Franks is the anti-Blagojevich in the Illinois General Assembly.

So, why would Franks want to be a state senator under the leadership of Rod Blagojevich lover Emil Jones?

He gets paid the same as a state representative. And he seems to have reached a détente with McHenry County Republicans on giving Mike Tryon a free ride to Springfield, that is, no Democratic Party opponent, in return for his having no opposition.

And, Franks get to work with the father of Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who must love it every time Franks takes on the man the Speaker wants to beat in a gubernatorial primary election in 2010.

What else it left?

Franks could run for Attorney General, if Lisa Madigan ran for governor. I thought that most likely until Franks' endorsement of Hillary.

But that is a statewide race and his stances on hot button Democratic Party issues like homosexual rights and abortion have not been liberal enough to gain the support of the Personal PAC’s and gay rights supporters in Illinois.

So, what’s left that would be a step up?

How about a federal judgeship?

If Hillary gets elected president, Franks would have been one of the few prominent Illinois Democrats to have supported her before the primary election.

Trust me. Politicians remember who supported them when it counted most.

Sure, Franks would have to have the support of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin.

But, Durbin is a practical kind of guy.

I don’t see that as an obstacle.

So, if Hillary wins, I figure Franks has his choice of sitting on the federal bench in Rockford or in Chicago.

It’s a toss-up, in my mind, as to which he would pick.

= = = = =
The picture of Kirk Dillard and Frank Watson came from the Illinois Channel, which Comcast refuses to broadcast in McHenry County. Hillary Clinton's photograph comes from her campaign web site. The photos of Don Manzullo and Robert Abboud, Pam Althoff, Jack Franks, Mike Tryon and Dick Durbin were take by your intrepid photographer, most with need for a flash. All can be enlarged by clicking on them.

Posted originally on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

Park Ridge, Illinois surrounded by farms? A Hillary fib?

In Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times, Jennifer Hunter reported on a speech Hillary Clinton made in San Diego where she speaks about her experience growing up in the town of Park Ridge, which is just a few miles west of where I live in Morton Grove.

She recalled Park Ridge was surrounded by farms that relied on migrant labor and that she used to baby-sit the workers' children, an experience that awakened her to the complexities of the immigrant experience.

That paragraph didn't pass the smell test with me. However, Hunter didn't present those as direct Hillary quotes, so perhaps, Hillary didn't actually say those things.

Well, she did. Roger Hedgecock subbed for Rush Limbaugh Thursday, and he played that segment of her San Diego speech. What was played matched almost word for word what was reported in Hunter's report.

Hedgecock asked people who knew about the Chicago area to opine on Hillary's agricultural exclamation.

Well, while Hillary was supposedly watching those migrant kids, I was a toddler in Chicago's South Side Roseland neighborhood, where there were no farms. I'm not old enough to give my first hand recollections of Kennedy-era Park Ridge.

However, I've lived in the north suburban area of Chicago long enough--and spoken to enough old-timers who did live around here then, to realize that although there were some farms near Park Ridge, circa 1963, the suburb wasn't surrounded by farms when Hillary said she was watching those kids.

Park Ridge is bordered by Chicago on it's southern and southeastern borders. The old Rodham farmhouse, pictured above, is within walking distance of Chicago's city limits. But as late as 1970 there were a few farms in Chicago proper, but very few.

Directly southwest of Park Ridge is O'Hare International Airport. The airport dates back to the 1940s, but it didn't begin become an commercial airport until the mid-1950s. No farms there. The other sides of Park Ridge are bordered by Niles, Glenview, and Des Plaines. Once you do a quick drive through these suburbs, and it becomes very clear that the majority of the residences in those towns--outside of the recent tear-down constructions, are post-war housing boom units. Those homes probably supplanted farm land, but most of them were built--I would guess--before Hillary Rodham was old enough to babysit young-ins. That is, if she actually did watch those migrant kids. The Clintons have a way with stretching the truth.

Yes, there were certainly a few farms surrounding Park Ridge then. As late as 1999, I saw a pumpkin patch in Glenview--There are condos there now.

To comment on this post, or to vote in the Pajamas Media presidential straw poll, click here.

Read more...