Obama eyes Lisa Madigan

Item: Obama meets with Lisa Madigan re the Senate seat.

Response:

1. So much for the notion that Obama (and Jarrett and Emanuel, who were also reported to be in on the meeting) would stay above the fray of Prairie State politics.
2. Apparently Barack  isn’t as down with his basketball buddy as he was back in ‘06 when he cut that TV ad for Alexi. Rahm & crew can’t be happy with Giannoulias‘ Bright Star problems– and are likely privvy to the rumors I hear that more ugly headlines are likely.  Could the White House be worried that Alexi is “Blagojevich all over again,” as someone speculated recently?
3. Lisa running for Senate would brighten the futures of her father and the governor.
4. Which will come first: Lisa’s decision, a state budget, or Aramis Ramirez’s return to Wrigley?

Meanwhile:

• The incumbent junior Senator, Roland Buris, just learned that the Pentagon runs its own research labs.
• The city is potentially on the hook for another $500 million in Olympics funding.
• In the dog-bites-man department, Ron Huberman is looking to bring quantitative analysis to CPS.
• Richard Lindberg’s look at Big Mike McDonald looks to provide insight on our own times, alas.

Illinois Senate Update: Gutierrez Out

Luis Gutierrez, stating the obvious, says he is no longer a candiate for the open Senate seat. If you’re keeping track of Chicago’s Congressional delegation, Schakowsky and Davis are still  the game, while Luis and Jackson are out. (Robert Herguth also reports that Gutierrez and Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce CEO Omar Duque were among “a group of prominent Chicago-area Latinos” who gathered last Friday night at an Old Town restaurant to raise funds for Blagojevich. “A Gutierrez aide says the congressman attended the fundraiser only to speak to the governor about the Republic Windows & Doors sit-in and did not contribute money.)

Obama’s Dept. of Energy Recalmation

I haven’t been as focused on Obama’s Cabinet picks as have others, but the pending nomination of Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy begs a note. Xeni Jardin’s headline (Obama Selects Nobel Prize Winning Nerd for Energy Chief) addresses part of what’s exciting about the appointment. Just as exciting to me, and something I haven’t seen mentioned by those who are tracking Obama’s appointments closely,  is the symbolism of the Chinese-American Chu taking the reigns of a Department that 8 years wrongfully imprisoned  Chinese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee. (Robert Scheer did yeoman’s work tracking the NYT’s disgraceful role in Lee’s persecution.) Chu’s fellow Secretary-desginee Bill Richardson was running Energy at the time and responsible for Lee’s treatment.

Even cooler, of course, is the fact that Chu is an expert on alternative energy sources.

Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said the need for alternatives to gasoline has become “very pressing” as the price of oil has risen. “Currently, transportation fuel is the most valuable form of energy we have,” Chu said. The economics is such that powering automobiles with gasoline is now four times as expensive as powering them with plug-in electricity, he said.

The Jewish Roots of Obama’s Chicago White House

Charles B. Bernstein and Stuart L. Cohen take a look at the The Jewish History of Barack Obama’s House for the Chicago Jewish News. One of the owners of the tract was Moses Greenbaum, whose father Elias co-founded Sinai Temple; years later the Hebrew Theological College made the house the site of the South Side Jewish Day School.

Where to put the Obama Presidential Library?

Lee Bey suggests putting the Obama Library in Pullman:

I’m sure the lobbying machine is already being built in Hyde Park and the University of Chicago. But Obama’s early days as a little-known community organizer were spent on the far South Side. Back then, his strategy meetings took place at a McDonald’s just three blocks due south of the Pullman factory. The presidential library would bring the kind of investment, equity, attention–and yes, change–that the Far South Side, and Chicago, sorely needs.

What has Obama Campaign/Transition Meant for Chicago Economy?

I have yet to see any examinations of what Team Obama, and co-joined media and security hangers on, have meant to the local economy. Greg Hinz gives us a small taste, pointing out that the transition team has taken root at the Hilton’s Contiental Ballroom for all those press conferences we’re seeing this week.

Obama Might Blow Up, But He Won’t Go Pop

So said De La Soul’s Dave (aka Trugoy):

Not only do you have an individual who’s trying to get in the house and run a country, but I’m sure there are a lot of people who are on one side of the field that’s expecting him to deliver for them. I think there’s gonna come a time where he has to separate politics from popularity. I think there’s people out there wavin’ that flag—Obama, Obama!—and literally, Black folks are out there waiting for our deliverance. But I think at the end of the day when that man gets into office he has to deal with politics, and politics are supposed to be for the benefit of the people. But when there’s a time when you have people who are waiting for this deliverance, you gotta kinda let that go, so they [Black people] may view that as him going pop; Black folks might be like, ‘Well what’s up wit’ us? I thought we was supposed to be blowing up!’

Should Obama have gone to Pakistan instead?

The big political news of the weekend, well, after Maliki’s “misquote,” has focused on Obama’s doubling down in Afghanistan by calling it “the central front, on our battle against terrorism.” There doesn’t seem much new to his calls for some additional brigades and more action from NATO, but being on the ground garners more attention for his proposals, naturally.

Juan Cole (who will be in Chicago Thursday for a National Iranian American Council forum) is skeptical, calling Afghanistan “a trap”:

When was the last time that an al-Qaeda operative was captured in Afghanistan by US forces? Is that really what US troops are doing there, looking for al-Qaeda?…If the Afghanistan gambit is sincere, I don’t think it is good geostrategy. Afghanistan is far more unwinnable even than Iraq. If playing it up is politics, then it is dangerous politics.

Obama’s also renewed his calls for adjustments to policy to Pakistan, calling for an expansion in non-military aid to Pakistan. Graham Usher says Obama “should be careful what he wishes for,” as 90% of Pakistanis repudiate the U.S.’s war on terror and two-thirds call the U.S. Pakistan’s greatest national security threat. Pervez Hoodbhoy, meanshile, says his fellow Pakistanis can resist both the Taliban and refuse to serve as the Americans’ “instrument”:

Pakistan must find the will to fight the Taliban…. Pakistan is an Islamic state falling into anarchy and chaos, being rapidly destroyed from within by those who claim to fight for Islam….This is no clash of civilizations. To the Americans, Pakistan is an instrument to be used for their strategic ends. It is necessary and possible to say no. But the Taliban seek to capture and bind the soul and future of Pakistan in the dark prison fashioned by their ignorance. As they now set their sights on Peshawar and beyond, they must be resisted by all possible means, including adequate military force.

Here’s hoping Obama has Ahmed Rashid’s Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia on his bedstand reading list.

No to Nunn

There are no perfect running mates out there for either candidate (although I certainly preferred one for Obama until it became evident that he was out). Obama’s needle is a bit trickier to thread than McCain’s: the Democratic Party has been defined by sets overlapping, but distinct, interest groups, and each of its presidential nominees since Humphrey, at least, seem compelled to try to please them all. Though his sheen has faded for some over the last few weeks (“New Yorker article et al have me a bit disillusioned about Obama,” a friend wrote on Twitter today. “Didn’t stop me from buying another t-shirt,” she added.), Obama’s promise is that he transcends the confining boxes of the identity-driven post-1968 Democratic Party. Sure, the drawn out primary season complicates his task (to the advantage of Govs. Sebelius and Napolitano, perhaps), but for the most part Obama should have free range to pick a second banana who does not fit into the traditional PC pantheon. Thus, folks like Webb, Chuck Hagel, and former Sen. Sam Nunn have all sounded good to me, despite the disagreements I have with each of them on many issues–for starters,  immigration, abortion, and school praryer, respecitvely. This month it’s become evident that neither of the former two Senators is likely to make in onto the big stage at Mile High Stadium next month, but Nunn appears to be in play, and I’ve become more creeped out by the prospect. Via BlogActive, we find John Norris’s Nunn detailed deep dive. The highlight, or lowlight, of his list:

In 1993 Nunn said he believed the heterosexual lifestyle was “morally superior to the homosexual lifestyle,” followed by “American family deterioration is one of the biggest problems we face in our culture.”

Norris also notes that  “Nunn voted with Jesse Helms to reduce funding for AIDS research and to ban HIV positive immigrants.” (Yesterday we learned that, apparently without irony, Sen. Libby Dole wants to rename an AIDS relief bill after ol’ Jesse.) Yesterday, the HIV travel ban that Helms and Nunn supported, came closer t dying after the Senate passed the PEDFAR bill. How would Nunn have voted?

Flint Trumps Gore

The Gore endorsement rally (with a special appearance by Detroit Piston Chauncey Billups), but Obama’s speech in Flint, in which he detailed his economic plans, plans the Wall Street Journal describes as “a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces.” From his Journal interview:

“Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,” he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably….The heart of Sen. Obama’s spending program is his plan to spend $15 billion a year for 10 years on energy technology. It would be funded by revenue collected from a separate Obama proposal to cap greenhouse emissions through a system of trading pollution permits. Sen. Obama would auction those permits to producers of carbon dioxide, such as electric utilities, and figures the sales would yield about $100 billion a year. Most of that would go to consumers as rebates on utility bills, he said. He also would fund an “infrastructure reinvestment bank” that would finance $60 billion in high-speed railways, improved energy grids and other projects over a decade. He would double spending on basic research, subsidize investment in high-speed Internet hook-ups, and offer $4,000 a year in tuition credits for students who later perform public services.

The focus on his economic stimulus reminded me of earlier chatter in The New Republic and, more recently, by John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books about Obama’s ties to behavioral economists. the Flint speech tilts Obama towards Cassidy’s argument that Clintonian-style working around the edges of the economy will not suffice.

Obama continues to offer the promise of “green jobs,” planning to spend $150 billion to “create up to 5 million jobs,” offering as examples a Pennsylvania wind turbine factory and the manufacture of “hybrid or electric cars.”

My energy plan will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades. Good jobs, like the ones I saw in Pennsylvania where workers make wind turbines, or the jobs that will be created when plug-in hybrids or electric cars start rolling off the assembly line here in Michigan. We’ll help manufacturers — particularly in the auto industry — convert to green technology, and help workers learn the skills they need.

(On the Media looked at the rhetoric of “green jobs” last month.)