CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Strange, that

Re: Strange, that

Four Doors Down — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:35:52 -0000

Similar thoughts were posted in the Chicago Daily Observer:

http://cdobs.com/archive/lo...
/brookins-states-attorney-fiasco-rates-with-
the-dumbest772/#your_comment

Since my response there sort of fits here, might as well do the easy this and cut and paste:

====(snip)====

I think you take an unfair swipe at Alvarez over her tenure in charge of the politcal corruption unit and unfairly try to paint Alvarez's victory as only based on her sex and heritage.

In an election where John Burge was a poltical football tossed around by her challengers, Alvarez was the only one who could say she had successfully bucked the very long odds and achieve convictions against corrupt police officers. While others pounded their fists about corruption, she could say she had actually successfully prosecuted such cases.

Similarly silly, was Allen's efforts to paint Alvarez (and Milan) as responsible for Burge - when the record is that decisions on charging (or better said, not charging him) were made when they were in school. This made Allen look desperate and "political," something I'd say most do not want to see from the State's Attorney.

Now with the primaries over, efforts to paint Alvarez's victory as only or mainly due to her sex and heritage is demeaning and gives voters little credit. This is akin to saying that any successful black candidate only got their vote because of being black - it's a backhanded and racist way of demeaning the candidate's credentials by pulling out the race or sex card to rationalize the vote based on weak generalizations. Not fair when it's a black candidate and not fair when it's a Latina - especially someone as accomplished as Alvarez.

Alvarez carried a lot of wards that are surprising - at some point you have to give her credit for being the one candidate that remained positive and focused on her very extensive credentials for the post rather than dropping down and slinging mud with the others.

Come November I think you will see a fourth entry in the "dumb, dumber and dumberer" line up. The Dumbererer(?) entry will be Tony Peraica's decision to run.

Alvarez is the worst opponent he could have drawn, she's not a political insider, has no ethical problems and is a likeable and talented person.

Peraice can only run negative, has no real credentials to be State's Attorney, has made very questionable decisions in the past (i.e. the drunken march on the County Clerk's office at the end of his unsuccessful run for County Board President). Unlike some of the candidates Alvarez just beat, Peraica has nothing legitimate to throw at Alvarez.

Add to this, there are many skeletons in Peraica's closest unknown to the general public that will certainly come out now that the Democratic Party is getting in line behind Alvarez. Heck, even Cook County Republican Party leaders like Liz Gorman have their knives out for Peraica.

This is going to be a slaughter. The long term effect being Peraica coming out of the slaughter in November vulnerable to even hold his Committee seat next time through.

Keep an eye on Alvarez. At least you concluded your piece by noting she is the "right candidate."

====(snip)====

One thing I forgot to add was Peraica getting sanctioned by a federal district court judge and ordered to obtain trainind the very day after trying to challenge Alvarez's legal talent. This is going to be a fun election to watch. Sort of like passing by a car wreck, you just sort of have to look...

Re: Strange, that

Bill S. Preston, Esq. — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:45:44 -0000

Just a student-

Darkhorse is right, some of us did think she was going to win (see my pre-election comment stating 'watch out for women who voted for Barack to vote for AA to make up for it'). But you're also right, because there really weren't that many. And now they all want to say 'I told you so.'

Re: Strange, that

Darkhorse — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:03:11 -0000

Just a student--

Some of us not only gave her a chance but thought she was going to win. Anita's victory really has changed the way many of the old pols think

Re: Strange, that

Independent — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:10:59 -0000

Allen had the backing of those Rich mentioned, and Milan had Devine's backing. Cook Co. machine Dems must be kicking themselves for not brokering a deal to get Milan to drop out. Allen and Milan split the "establishment" vote enough for Alvarez to win. Allen only lost by 2600 votes, and Milan had 27,500.

Re: Strange, that

Prairie Sage — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:36:21 -0000

Tommy Hynes went from being Senate President to Assessor, maybe MJM will follow in his footsteps. It would be a deft move to both raise money and eliminate a conflict a certain state race in 2010. Possible campaign slogan: "He knows where the loopholes are."

Re: Strange, that

Just a student... — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:09:25 -0000

Isn't it great how everyone can sing AA's praises now when nobody was giving her a chance before the election?

Re: Strange, that

Captain America — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:14:41 -0000

People can make up their own mind on a high level office like the Presidency without any advice form a ward boss and his minions. Obvioulsy, as noted by John Fritchey, women were eager to support a qualified female candidate for State's Attorney, as well as other offices Allan was an extremely lackluster candidate - I still can'r figure out why the Tribune endorsed him. Organization and labor support almost enabled him to win despite his unimpressive persona. Despite her outstanding qualifications,electorally, Alvarez got very lucky in an extremely crowded field of male opponents. I'm happy with the outcome - she was my second choice. If I had not been committed to Larry Suffredin's candidacy, I would have voted for her above all the others.

Re: Strange, that

BannedForLife — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:04:57 -0000

"With respect to the Stateâ€™s Attorney race, I think that it was a combination on an underestimated, but qualified, candidate who also benefited from being both a female and a Latina ... "

Alvarez also benefited from not being a registered lobbyist.

Re: Strange, that

Look Behind the Curtain — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:45:06 -0000

Much of the answer to this riddle wth the State's Attorney's race is invisible to the naked eye which is just the way the riddlers would prefer it.

The answer to this riddle can be found in the under-vote in the City of Chicago; which had the effect of increasing the influence of suburban women, and dimnishing the influence of union households; especially those union households who are employed n the public sector.

Re: Strange, that

HappyToaster — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:35:15 -0000

Am I missing something? Obama won the 33rd(Mell)by 10 points.

He was up 30 points from the '04 primary in the other wards. Like AC said wards that were in Hillary's strike zone. I expect 75-80% in those wards in a general matchup. John McCain is no Ronald Reagan.

Re: Strange, that

wordslinger — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:22:27 -0000

Ward bosses can't compete with 24/7 media in high profile races. They still have influence further down the ballot. And in a primary, as long as you pull the right ballot, you'll still get your tree trimmed or your curb replaced.

Re: Strange, that

Anonymous45 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:20:42 -0000

God forbid if the Dems don't nominate Obama and bring Chicago style politics to the nation's capitol, just think of all the patronage jobs to be had and the possibility of escape from the quagmires of city and state government -here's another thing I am gleaning from the Dem race and the media: Racism and discussions of race are are not allowed but overt sexist BS is still ok...

the Alvarez win tells me the voters want a capable non machine candidate to do the job--I'm pretty sure she wasn't a member of the Boys Club at the CCSA office...

Re: Strange, that

BannedForLife — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:56:52 -0000

"Voters are not happy and are choosing their candidates. In todayâ€™s world, we are expected to be more data driven and informed, so we are undertaking the responsibilities that go along with this when voting."

When the leader takes a hit in a multi-way, it's not necessarily 2nd place that is the primary beneficiary. Most polls and pundits had Suffredin in the lead the week before the election. Then Suffredin's work fixing a landfill for Fred Barbara hit the papers. Sure, there's racial & gender dimensions to Alvarez' apparently come-from-behind victory, but another factor might simply be that she was the 2nd choice of some voters previously leaning toward Suffredin, in other words perhaps Suffredin bled more to Alvarez than to anyone else.

Re: Strange, that

Amy — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:58:34 -0000

bill s.
no, i did not get the term from the Clinton campaign. as I did not get Rezkobama from
them or Perarrogance from the Lipinski people.
give a gal a little credit.

Re: Strange, that

Bill S. Preston, Esq. — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:39:09 -0000

Amy - Osteenesqe? Did you get that buzz word from the Clinton campaign? Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with inspiring people - it's a shame your candidate isn't able to do more of it. It would have been great to have a female president.

Re: Strange, that

Angry Chicagoan — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:36:38 -0000

Isn't it just that some of these Chicago machine wards fit the Clinton demographic to a tee? Go look at some of the other primary results around the country prior to the Potomac Primary. You'll see what I mean.

THe Potomac Primary marks a new stage of the campaign. Obama's broken out of his box. This is now for real.

Now, with regard to the attorney's race, the mud kicked up about Suffredin's imperfections was highly effective and it stuck. And Alvarez, who was both clearly qualified, and clearly screwed over by not getting her boss's endorsement like she was promised, was very well placed to benefit seeing as she was the only other person besides Suffredin who wasn't blatantly a hack. And she came across as being less of a hack than Suffredin to anyone who simply had the ads to go on, which was most of us voters.

Re: Strange, that

Amy — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:13:54 -0000

so, Lee, we are white bigots if we do not vote
for Obama? some of us are just very much for
Hillary Clinton and not at all interested in
"we are the ones we are waiting for" osteenesque
Obama.

Re: Strange, that

Bill S. Preston, Esq. — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:07:57 -0000

In my short years in Chicago, I have yet to see proof of the ward boss effectiveness of the days of yore. I don't even know what a "ward boss" is. Is that the alderman? The committeeman?

These days, with independent voters, tv ads, mailers, etc., who needs a ward boss to tell them how to vote? Plus, voter turnout percentage is so low that you have to assume that those people making the effort to vote already know who they're going to vote for. The ward's palmcards are pretty much worthless except for down ballot races.

That Cook County Dems withheld the Obama endorsement plus Madigan's ward went for Clinton does not pass the smell test.

Re: Strange, that

Lee — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:35 -0000

White bigots are still alive and voting in sections of Chicago.

Re: Strange, that

Lefty Lefty — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:47:22 -0000

Mark Pera losing Bridgeview and Mount Greenwood is a sign that Obama should drop the left? I don't buy it. The south side is going to vote with their interests, and Lipinski's re-election makes perfect sense to them. Most of them, too, are DINOs: anti-abortion, pro-military, etc.

The other explanations offered for the Clinton/Allen wins seem valid. Also, the left loved Edwards until he dropped out. Rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama is playing the center very nicely as far as policy positions go.

Re: Strange, that

Observer — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:40:29 -0000

Pete's correct. MJM et al can deliver for whomever they choose.

By the way, where was the Secretary of State White in all this? The top vote getter; the only african american statewide office holder.

Interesting silence.

Re: Strange, that

RBD — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:18:23 -0000

When you are quite familiar with the candidates, how much do endorsements matter? Once you have determined whom you are voting for, do you even notice who got which endorsement (unless you are a political junkie)?

We in IL are in the unusual position of knowing both candidates quite well. Who local big-mouths were â€œbackingâ€ in the presidential primary was likely to be ignored by a knowledgeable electorate.

Re: Strange, that

VanillaMan — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:04:28 -0000

Voters are not happy and are choosing their candidates. In today's world, we are expected to be more data driven and informed, so we are undertaking the responsibilities that go along with this when voting. Ward bosses are listened to, palm cards are reviewed, but parties have lost their credibility with voters in this age of Blagojevich, corruption, Stroger, taxes, deficits, GA meltdowns, and intraparty warfare.

Alvarez was seen as the clean break from this past. Clinton, unlike Obama, is not a part of the corrupt Chicago environment. They won.

Re: Strange, that

Ghost — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:58:39 -0000

The information is incomplete to draw any conclusions. The first question that comes to mind is how many people in the wards new who the ward bosses supported? If the vast majority had no idea who their ward boss supported, then the problem is the ward bosses failure to communicate thier pic clearly. If they all knew andd chose to ignore it, then this treends to endorsements having little influence.

The secret support for HRC theory would carry more water if it looked like the bosses made their endrosements, but failed to get that message out. However they may have all just been lazy, assumed Obama who was polling well would do well, so why bother.

Re: Strange, that

Garp — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:50:42 -0000

Most wards don't try to push the president because they know they can't compete with media on this level and don't want to offend thier voters so they won't vote for their other candidates. The Hillary/Obama totals were the result of voter preference.

Tom Allen loss was due to several factors. Chiefly, the wards didn't try hard for him. Some double crossed him, some didn't think he was going to do as well as he did so they didn't push him hard, some were just lazy and didn't get the troops out in time to get to early voters and absentees.

Basically, there were a lot of committeemen who woke up Wednesday morning and said, boy we could have won this thing if I would of done my job.

Alvarez may end up being a great States Attorney but she won't be good for the machine.