Originally Posted By vbdad55 Add another Chicagoan to the White House list - this time the woman who first hired Michele into a city job: Not saying she doesn't bring skills but what I said about owing people here is starting to come true. And the biggest one hitthe rumor mill this morning - the one person I really warned you all about - Emil Jones Sr - who was retiring supposedly from his Presidentof the Illinois Senate job ( to be replaced by his son - LOL ! ) - is now suddenly rumored to bein the running for Barack's vacated seat - challenging J Jackson Jr. The sparks are flying here on this battle -- Emil is Baracks ' political godfather here ( and a bad man ) - and it appears maybe the godfather has decided it's time to collect that favor...... ------------------- Valerie Jarrett gets key White House spot as Obama senior adviser SENIOR ADVISER | Obama names campaign insider his liaison to other officials, interest groups Recommend Comments November 15, 2008 BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON — Friday night, President-elect Barack Obama and wife Michelle headed toward Chicago’s Gold Coast to attend a birthday party for Valerie Jarrett hosted by another pal, Desiree Rogers. Earlier in the day, she got her gift: In Obama’s White House, Jarrett will be a senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernment relations and public liaison. Jarrett, who turned 52 Friday, gets a portfolio that will allow her to advise the Obamas while overseeing the administration’s relations with other elected officials, traditional interest groups and the “movement” that Obama nurtured during his presidential campaign and wants to keep alive during his tenure. Valerie Jarrett worked closely with Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. (AP) In tapping Jarrett — the official announcement comes Saturday — Obama keeps in the West Wing a close personal friend who played a key role in his presidential campaign and his quick political rise from the Illinois Senate to the presidency in just four years. Currently one of three Obama transition co-chairs, Jarrett will join Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming chief of staff, and David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist expected to become part of the administration, in making 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. a “Chicago White House.” While Jarrett’s national profile has skyrocketed because of her association with Obama’s presidential campaign, Chicagoans have known her for years because she is one of the best-connected people in the city, a fixture in the city’s elite corporate, civic and social life. She is an early-morning regular at the East Bank Club. Jarrett, once a summer tour guide at the Museum of Science and Industry while a kid, is now a trustee on the museum board. Once a clinic coordinator (a clerk) at the University of Chicago Medical Center — another summer job — Jarrett is now the chairwoman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees. During the campaign, in which she frequently traveled with Obama on his plane, Jarrett continued as president and chief executive officer of the Habitat Co., one of Chicago’s largest real estate firms. Jarrett played a hybrid role in the campaign: She was one of Obama’s South Side pals, along with Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker, who cheered him up and kept him loose and lunched with him before a debate; she was also a member of the inner campaign circle, a troubleshooter without portfolio, trusted by Barack and Michelle. She was also the highest ranking female and African American in the Obama campaign, a roaming firefighter dousing political flames around the country. She enters the White House battle tested as a veteran of eight years in Chicago’s City Hall, most under Mayor Daley, rising to planning and development commissioner. Between October 1995 and August 2003, she was chairwoman of the CTA. As a survivor of Chicago’s brutal political culture — Jarrett has had her share of personal clashes — Obama’s “no drama” campaign operation, even with its obvious higher and more significant stakes, may have seemed sedate. “Valerie cut her teeth on policy and politics at City Hall,” said Paula Wolff, a friend and colleague on a variety of boards, who lives down the street from the Obamas’ Kenwood home and the house where Jarrett spent much of her youth and where her parents, Barbara and James Bowman, still live. Jarrett has her own unusual biography. Divorced, her former father-in-law is the late Vernon Jarrett, who was a venerated Chicago Sun-Times columnist, one of the few highly visible African Americans in the Chicago media establishment. Jarrett’s daughter, Laura, 23, is a Harvard Law School student. Jarrett was born in Shirz, Iran and lived there until the ago of 5; her father, a physician, was working with U.S. and Iranian doctors. After a year in London after Iran, the Bowmans settled in Chicago, where on her mother’s side, she has a storied pedigree. Jarrett’s grandfather, Robert Taylor, was a pioneering Chicago Housing Authority chairman for whom the infamous high-rise projects were later named In Chicago, Jarrett attended the U. of C. Lab School — where the Obama daughters go now, transferring to the Northfield-Mount Hermon prep school in Massachusetts for the last two years of high school. From there, Jarrett attended Standford University, earning a law degree from the University of Michigan. For three years, between 1981 and 1984, she was an associate at Ballard, Shepard and Pole Ltd., moving on to a real estate practice at Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath and Rosenthal. But Jarrett “wasn’t happy with private practice,” Judd Miner recalled Friday, “. . . and she wanted to get involved in the Washington administration.” The corporation counsel under the late Mayor Harold Washington, Miner recruited Jarrett to the city’s Law Department. A few years later, back in private practice, Miner would make another recruiting coup: a young Harvard Law School graduate named Barack Obama. And back at City Hall, Jarrett, Daley’s deputy chief of staff, would hire another lawyer fleeing corporate life, Michelle Robinson, Obama’s then-fiancee.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Not saying she doesn't bring skills but what I said about owing people here is starting to come true.<< No, it's not coming true at all. The fact that someone is from Chicago and then gets into the Obama administration doesn't necessarily equal a quid pro quo. Despite all your predictions of back scratching and doom and gloom, I have yet to see any evidence of it. It reminds me of jonvn saying Obama would never be elected because he was black. We all know how that turned out. Your references to the "the godfather etc., reflect your bias far more than they reflect reality.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'll ask this again. What makes this different than any other first-time President who assumes office? They all bring their cronies. Both Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, on and on, all bring people along they're familiar with. I just don't see the big deal here. Granted, I haven't lived in Chicago in some time. But I do get back there as often as I can, I still have friends there, I try to follow along. Why is this such a big deal?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Jarrett is an impressive "crony". From that bio above, she's born for this kind of role. And her role seems more like an unofficial gate-keeper and pre-emptory problem solver. The people who are going to be closest to the president understandably are going to be people that he knows and trusts. Jarrett and Gibbs and Axelrod have already been "vetted" by years of friendship. They move to the front of the line.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The people who are going to be closest to the president understandably are going to be people that he knows and trusts. Jarrett and Gibbs and Axelrod have already been "vetted" by years of friendship. They move to the front of the line.<< But the fact that they're coming from Chicago clearly means that Obama's motives are suspect. Somehow.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Your references to the "the godfather etc., reflect your bias far more than they reflect reality.< no - it reflects your lack of knowledge of Illinois politics and naivety -- that term has been used here for along time and for good reason... sorry...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But the fact that they're coming from Chicago clearly means that Obama's motives are suspect. Somehow< of course not - he is God ( according to you) and would do nothing suspect. No amount of moves would convince you - however I believe I may know just a little more about politics here than you do -- but go ahead - just blowoff whatever I say-- It shows you unwavering support - you know - the kind you ripped Bush supporters ( what few there were) for
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I still have friends there, I try to follow along. Why is this such a big deal?< because I kept telling people how much he'owes' people here and how they all have their hands out right now. Some are deserving and I have noissue with that - some of ruthless patronage politicians and some of them are going to get theirs also -- that I DO have an issue with - and so will you over time. Not only do I live here -I worked for the Dem machine for years, inside. So I may just know a little something. Many ofthe people I talk about it notjust because I read the papers here. Oneof my closest friends is the head legal council for a high level state Democrat. but then - I read how I somehow are just prejudiced somehow against Obama -which just doesn't stick. No, he was not my first choice, but I have already stated I want him to do well- it benefits all of us, and my concern over his ability to do so is to include too many people in power here that have this state totally screwed up.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sigh. These childish references to some of us thinking Obama is God grew tired long ago. You made a very specific accusation and provided zero evidence to back it up. I questioned you. Therefore, that means I think Obama is God. Yes, that makes a whole lot of logical sense. You'll forgive some of us for hoping for a little bit more evidence than "Aha! They're from Chicago!" and "I'm from here, you guys just trust me." Some of us are just so irritating with our need for those pesky things called "facts" when clearly assumptions ought to be all the evidence we need.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^ the lack of facts belongs to you. I have provided plenty of facts time and time again inmultiple threads about the politics and the players here. You either don't read them or choose to ignore them. What grows tiring is me having to repeat them every time you want to claim - show me AGAIN. All the facts are in the archives here- go read them. Read all the details on people like Emil Jones. I actually have been involved with Chicago politics -as a precinct captain and a city worker - but of course you know better.. the deification comes from heaven help anyone here who questions ANYTHING about Obama - and once again you prove that point.
Originally Posted By ecdc What remains absent in any of your many, many posts, is the link that ties Obama appointments to a quid pro quo agreement. Whether or not you're familiar with the players, the past city politics,or any other number of details, is irrelevant. I want the evidence that 1) There was a prior agreement of quid pro quo, 2) That such an agreement is uniquely problematic in Chicago politics, since it happens in all politics, and 3) That the quid pro quo agreement will result in a detrimental outcome for the American people. For example, let's say it came out that Colin Powell, horrified by what he's seen happen to the Defense Department, approached Obama and said, "We need to fix our military. I'll endorse you if you appoint me Secretary of Defense." We'd have evidence of the quid pro quo, but no evidence that it'd be bad for America. And yes, you can criticize Obama around here. Some of us supporters have already done it. But people will continue to believe they alone see the problems and the rest of us are just starry-eyed buffoons. Your logic goes something like this: I say, "My dad knows George Bush and he told me that Bush went to Iraq just to give Eric Prince and Blackwater a no-bid contract." You respond, "Wait, I find it hard to believe that Bush went to Iraq just to funnel Blackwater money." I respond, "You just think Bush is God! My dad works in Washington for the Republican party! He told me! You're just so naive about government, you don't know how it works! But you just won't hear any criticism of Bush!" Pretty silly, flawed reasoning, i'd say. But not that far off from what you're engaging in.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney No offense to the OP, but Bush and Clinton did the exact same thing. Obama doesnt look to have any more 'cryonism' than hiring the people he trust and depended on to get him into office in the first place. That seem to be the way it's worked for a long time now. He hasnt done anything differently than his predecessors in this regard. Understandable you may not like them personnally, but the process is the same. Honestly, I dont see the big deal. *shrugs*
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<In tapping Jarrett — the official announcement comes Saturday — Obama keeps in the West Wing a close personal friend who played a key role in his presidential campaign and his quick political rise from the Illinois Senate to the presidency in just four years.>> I skimmed through most of that because I already know about her from her appearances, but isnt this someone you would WANT in the White House?? How is that not any different from when Bush asked Rove to be his WH advisor? Again, I dont really understand what you are trying to say here? She's a close friend who OBVIOUSLY knows what she is doing and had a huge role in getting Obama elected in the first place. Those are the type of people you bring with you--not shut out. I mean, how would THAT look?? And she looks like a tough cookie, I wouldnt mess with her lol.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "because I kept telling people how much he'owes' people here and how they all have their hands out right now. Some are deserving and I have noissue with that - some of ruthless patronage politicians and some of them are going to get theirs also -- that I DO have an issue with - and so will you over time. Not only do I live here -I worked for the Dem machine for years, inside. So I may just know a little something. Many ofthe people I talk about it notjust because I read the papers here. Oneof my closest friends is the head legal council for a high level state Democrat. but then - I read how I somehow are just prejudiced somehow against Obama -which just doesn't stick. No, he was not my first choice, but I have already stated I want him to do well- it benefits all of us, and my concern over his ability to do so is to include too many people in power here that have this state totally screwed up." But again, what makes this so different than any other President? I get what you're saying- I'm familiar with Chicago politics too. Is because it IS Chicago? Does that make it worse than say Reagan's California Kitchen Cabinet or Clinton's Arkansas Mafia? To me, this all seems like business as usual.
Originally Posted By Mr X If anything, it seems to me more than President Elect Obama is stacking his deck with former Clinton aides. Whether that's good or bad I'm not sure. As Helen Thomas said, if you're going to make "changes" why would you hire back all the old people? On the flip side, if he DID decide against a Clinton 2.0 administration, where would he go to find people he trusts? One would think he'd go to where he knows..his home. In which case VB wouldn't like it. Either way, not much to see here on this Jarrett choice. She was a no-brainer for a top position, she's been his close friend and advisor for years and worked heavily on the campaign. If she WEREN'T offered a job it would be a huge surprise. Now, if we start seeing Chicago folks who AREN'T close to Obama getting cherry picked (we have NOT, so far), that will be an interesting topic for discussion. But so far VB, I really haven't seen it. One thing that you haven't mentioned though VB, is that Hillary is also from Chicago is she not? Why is it that you were less concerned about her "bringing Chicago politics to Washington", and far more supportive of her to boot. I don't get the disconnect on this one. It seems to me that you just don't care for Obama (which is fair enough, nothing wrong with that but you don't have to stretch to make up reasons why).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "One thing that you haven't mentioned though VB, is that Hillary is also from Chicago is she not? Why is it that you were less concerned about her "bringing Chicago politics to Washington", and far more supportive of her to boot." Well, she's originally from Park Ridge, a northwest suburb of Chicago. She's not been involved one bit in Chicago politics her entire life. She met Bill at Yale, and if anything, she'd be part of the Arkansas crowd that he brought in back in the early 90's.
Originally Posted By hopemax Obama has 2 fronts to fight. 1. Enacting Change 2. Fighting lack of experience. So to answer #2, where should he look? Bush people? Numerous problems with that...Democrats...last one in the White House was Clinton. Or should he be looking at Carter people? So the question is, can cherrypicking Clinton people enact an agenda of change? The right people, with an Obama leadership, I think can. And Obama picking some Chicago people, I don't know why he wouldn't. Would we feel more comfortable with Obama picking people he hasn't worked with, doesn't know if he can trust them to work for him or on their own agenda, keep secret what needs to be kept secret, etc. Especially, in the positions closest to the President. Since the Valerie Jarrett pick bothers vbdad so much, where should he be looking to select his advisors?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Since the Valerie Jarrett pick bothers vbdad so much, where should he be looking to select his advisors?*** I think this complaint is disingenuous at best. VB wants to find something to complain about so he points to this and exclaims "ah HA! Told you guys!". But, no. It doesn't jive. Can anyone point to a President in the past who DIDN'T take his close advisers and top campaigners along with him to the White House? Seems like a strange argument to be trying to make. Obama should hire only strangers, and make sure none of them are from Illinois to boot?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Look, I know what vbdad is getting at. Chicago politics is an animal unto itself. To clarify, Hillary has nothing to do with Chicago politics in the sense it is being discussed here. She was born near there, but that's as far as it goes. But the thing is, they all bring the friends/people/cronies they trust with them to Washington. If he appoints the Chicago Superintendent of Police to be Defense Secretary, then I'll get worried.
