Hillary Clinton: Herstory in the Making

When Hillary Clinton secured the Democratic presidential nomination this week, she not only did a historic first for the United States, as a woman, but she stood on the shoulders of those before her; women such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Fannie Lou Hammer, Jane Addams, Margaret Sanger, and those far less known. Their courage lent them, not the laurels of a presidential campaign, but the accolades of their cities, towns and communities, and defined success in the manner of Emerson, if not a national political party.

While in no small measure, can one say that her victory does not belong to her, but it has sprung not just from the pages of history, but also has led to America’s coming of age. Let us remember that In the beginning of our foundling nation, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, the illustrious John Adams, to “Remember the ladies!”

History has shown that Mrs. Adams had to wait longer than she expected, and while no longer in Braintree, she must be looking down in approval, from her Olympian stool, and smiling approvingly.

With the assistance of the superdelegates, Clinton now faces the long hard slog of battling Donald Trump who, much like Scrooge, seems determined, if not to put children in orphanages, to build walls, take the money and run. With a disaffected minority backing him, his rise in the primaries and caucuses has also earned him the enmity of fellow Republicans, and that erstwhile duo,the Koch brothers. His latest diatribe against the Mexican-American judge handling the case of his eponymous university has earned him the ire of even the staunchest Republicans.

As oft has been said, “Which Trump do we get today?” and the path for Clinton (aided by a chastened Bernie Sanders) is going to be at times, like fighting the comic book villain, “The Joker.”

Someone once said that women “are like tea bags, the more hot water they are in, the stronger they become.”  In Clinton’s case, the waters were boling, and she survived, stronger than ever, be they Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi, or even Emailgate. But, it's safe to say that things are going to get ugly between she and the Republican presumed candidate after their respective conventions.

What she will have, as a “first” is the ability to harness like-minded others who also were primary figures to fine tune, not only her battle plan, but to define, and then redefine herself as someone who can transcend the boundaries of others traditionally shut out of mainstream political life. And, with the African-American community behind her, this forms the initial bulwark of her campaign.

WIth the intensity of the campaign (which seemingly began five years ago), is the spectre of violence that has already sparked in some cities, and Trump has used this fissure, between the factions, to his advantage. What once was seen as a joke, a throwaway campaign, like an Elvis impersonator, is now serious,and dangerous stuff. And, this is where the coolness, some say the hardness of Clinton will come in, and show her mettle in dealing with bullies, brawls, and beyond. Sic Semper tyrannis!

From bombs in the Kremlin to billionaire bullies: Donald Trump and American extremism

Nearly seven months away, the American presidential election looms large, like a dirigible balloon over a sports stadium on a balmy afternoon on a city afternoon. While naysayers abound, the inevitable face off for the nomination seems to be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as they pile up delegates on their way to what might be the greatest show on earth, come November.

Then again, there are the anti-Trumpites who are determined to not see him gain the nomination of the Republican party, but instead are looking at a contested convention in Cleveland. Once there, they can either give a nod to the uber establishment hero, Mitt Romney, or give a rebirth to Paul Ryan, whose dash to the top might mean more than a trip to the gym.

While all sorts of scenarios abound, the likelihood of Trump and Clinton on the stump seems a reality, and one fraught with anticipated scenes of Trump scowling and snarling and making obstreperous comments about Clinton, with no holds barred. Clinton will, undoubtedly, stick to the facts and battle-scarred from previous campaigns like Whitewater, will try to keep her dignity, while husband Bill will call in every chit, to defend her against the rhetoric and the rancor, that he can muster.

Trump has earned the enmity of many women, racial minorities and immigrants, and if the scenes of the clash between his supporters and those who loathe him are to be repeated, then television cameras and social media will have a field day with the fracas, all of which is a marked departure from the decorum of the past, even without the angels of our better nature with the exception of the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968.

While those who oppose Trump, are quick to point out his defects, the fact remains that his meteoric rise in the primaries and caucuses, are not without the support of the millions who cheer him on. The “divisions of the past” that Cokie Roberts alluded to in a recent  NPR interview are more present than she so graciously allowed. Bearing a large placard, one Trump supporter, was pictured wearing a construction vest and tool-belt said that he is ready to build the wall. Before that a young Muslim woman is heckled and abused, blacks are escorted out of his rallies, and Trump himself says - though later retracted - that he would pay the legal bills of a supporter who punched a protester.

Just this week, when discussing abortions, an area that he once supported, he noted that women who receive abortions should be punished, thus earning him the enmity of women around the country, even those opposed to abortion. And, earlier, he defended his campaign manager against a charge of a female reporter being manhandled. He later denied the first assertion, and said, despite video evidence, that nothing had occurred.

So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with the lingering, yet persistent, actions of previous generations, and their progeny, possessing a durable nativism, racism and xenophobia, that lay under the social revolution of the 1960s.  Some were previously or perhaps their parents, were Reagan Democrats. Enter the candidate who is ready, willing and able to play to their fears and prejudices.

For the most part these, the American south excepted, these seem to be people that live outside large metropolitan areas and whose residual thoughts and beliefs have lingered under the surface.

Their list of grievances is strong: Obamacare and its tentative, but mostly successful steps toward universal health coverage; “gay” marriage, women in the workplace, (for those evangelically inclined),  affirmative action, climate change, a black president.

If the roots of their discontent is embedded in working class whites, (those deemed as not having a college degree), then there might be legions waiting to anoint Trump as The Great White Hope, which each day seems more fact than fiction, as his images and messages blaze across social media.

What this portends is more mudslinging and misogyny, even taking potshots aimed at Heidi Cruz, the wife of his rival. The future enmity seems unlimited, but also gives pause to not only the most jaded of pundits, but also makes one shudder at the coming months, as we contemplate how low can we go. Can the diatribes lead to one of the nastiest presidential campaign, the United States has ever known?

Some of Trump’s pronouncements have echoes of the past: Barry Goldwater saying that the way to deal with the Russians was to throw a bomb into “the men’s room at the Kremlin.” A direct hit on what he, and others perceived as President Kennedy’s weakness in the Cold War. Yet, Kennedy’s cool head kept us, and the world between us, from being incinerated; an all too real prospect in 1961.

Even a quick glance in the historical mirror reveals a resurgent nativism that has never died out, where only real Americans need apply. It seems to have morphed into a reality that shows that the revolution will indeed be televised.

Some Americans are thinking that Canada might be the best place to flee from the madness should “The Donald” be the leader of an increasingly less free world. The prospect for those that oppose him might not be as dramatic as that, but for those who feel that Jericho’s walls might take more than a few hurrahs and trumpet blasts to fall, November might be the D-Day.

While Clinton has been criticized as holding too firm to the center, history has shown, even with the Goldwater’s of the past, that extremists may get good play, they won’t reach the Oval office. It is a safe assumption to say, note historians, had there been no Dallas, Kennedy would have won hands down, as Kremlin bombs, and billionaire bullies don’t work for the United States.

Clinton and Sanders battle for the soul of the Democratic party, Republicans just want to win

Last week’s victory by Hillary Clinton, in the Iowa caucus - however slim -- was the first salvo in the battle for the souls of Democrats, as they attempt tp traversed the path that led them to the history making election in 2008. .And, in that effort they elected a Black American to the executive office, a first for the country.

Now  there is a new race dominated by an electorate that wants change, needs change, but has not adopted who the new standard bearer will be -- shall it be Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, whose radical call for systemic change,  is the new path, or is it the pragmatic realism of Clinton.

Voters, many of whom do not know much about President Clinton, only know of Hillary what they have gleaned from the latest dish from the latent email scandals that emanated from her private server. Many of them have aligned themselves Messiah-like behind Sanders, who offers a new version of government.  Yet for many seasoned observers, his devout following lacks a core platform that can deliver both the bacon, as well as the pig.

This new direction seems to be born of the contemporary frustration with income inequality, whose shadows are those of Wall Street chieftains,and their derivatives, and whose acolytes, notably Elizabeth Warren have voices that seem lost on the ears of the establishment,and those that support them. So, in these times, their mantra seems to be, “Throw the bums out.”

For some taking all of the bums out of the game is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, an endeavor destined to take us down, to use the vernacular, faster than another silent storm. So, the question of survival for the Democrats is essential to their existence.

That said, the opposition in Iowa, and the winner, Ted Cruz, ran a good show, a traditional “boots on the ground” campaign, clearly well designed, with a strong commitment to “retail politics,” that had him outperforming than the polls predicted, and that beat back the bluff and bluster of Donald Trump, whose self-effacing speech after his poor showing seems to have given him pause.

Cruz also reintroduces the role of Evangelical Christianity into the mix, something not seen since the 1980s where everyone seemed to spout a Bible verse, or talk about personal conversion, as a way to get points in the ballot box.

In his victory speech Cruz gave several clues to his campaign, and that will be seen along the path to a possible nomination:references to Washington lobbyists, and a battle charge that he will not be defined by the media -- in this case, not simply polls, but that age old nemesis, the “liberal media,” a hangover from the Richard Nixon years, but also used by the George W. Bush administration.

A new twist, not simply the “nattering nabobs” that Nixon’s vice-president Spiro Agnew railed against, but those that forgot that the nation is governed by the Constitution, and as Cruz noted “we the people,” a not too subtle jab at President Obama’s efforts to use executive control after being hamstrung by the Republican majority on every legislative effort he has ever attempted, or endorsed.

In true reform tradition, the call is out to return to the founding fundamentals the nation was built on, ergo the references to the constitution But reaching beyond the text Cruz’s call to “take back the country” has the definite racial coding of old-school politics ago --- take the country back not only from the liberals, but the black man that is president.

To mask the code, Cruz cleverly encircles it with the words, “all men are created equal,” to give political cover to the none too subtle race bait.

Clinton on the other hand is not giving a direct response to these statements, but rather running on her strong and solid record as secretary of state, senator, and more traditional, but equally active policy affecting  roles as first lady of both the country, and Arkansas. This past underscored her commitment to education, children's welfare and working families. Shrewdly, she only gives direct responses to the more egregious statements of her opposition, leaving her energy for the fight.

In the quest for the nomination, she wisely stressing party unity, and gives a subtle jab to her opponent, Bernie Sanders, who is running as an independent, for the Democratic nomination. But, in recognition of, and to court his base, she rolls out a laundry list of areas that she has strengthened, in the past: affordable college education, “making education work for all,” decreasing student debt,and the goal of universal health care. and finally, “going to the White House to push forward on issues that unite us.” The latter is to show those that voted for Obama, that his legacy will be continued, and as she stressed last week, against the Republican moves “that would pull us apart.”

For Thursday’s debate in New Hampshire, Clinton has to drive her points home, but in a manner suggestive of a legacy, and a lifetime of achievement, and not as a cult figure, like Sanders, and not shrill like Howard Dean whose campaign weary voice made him seem, to his critics, hoary and wildeyed.

Traditionally, there is no carryover from Iowa to New Hampshire, and some are saying that a Cruz victory is not a certainty in the Granite State, and some go further, that he should go right to South Carolina where his evangelical message will be more favored than the rock ribbed mainline protestantism of New England.

Another scenario is that divisions between other candidates, Messrs. Christie, Rubio and Kasich, to give a split vote and garner  Cruz a plurality, says Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush.

Hillary and team have acknowledged that they don’t expect a victory in New Hampshire, but a solid second, but even Sanders admits that the state helped propel Bill Clinton to a victory, after a tarnished rep, and gave his wife an unexpected nudge in 2008, when she admitted to the rigors of presidential campaign. So, it might not be a done deal for the lady in the pantsuit - say some; despite a recent NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has her getting 38 percent of the vote, and Sanders with a double-digit lead of 58 percent.

Sanders meanwhile, in his own geographical backyard says that not only is she out of step --- a generational appeal, but that she voted for the war in Iraq, a bugaboo for war weary voters of a certain age. But, what Clinton has not said is that she and others based on what can be charitably called erroneous information from President Bush, but lies, about weapons of mass destructions that even the esteemed Colin Powell believed.

Another hurdle for Clinton is that she took money from Wall Street, and is therefore in their debt --- a specious position that does not reveal that the business community has directly and even indirectly supported Democrats, as well as Republican candidates.. But, the point has been made, and is enshrined in the Sanders briefing books.

How New Hampshire will work for both sides of the political aisle may be less of a nail biter than Iowa, for the Democrats, but for the Republicans the big tent may get just a little smaller than thought. Stay tuned.

Rahm Emanuel on the tightropes with federal probe of Chicago police

The release of the video of the shooting of Chicagoan Laquan McDonald, that showed police officer Jason Van Dyke shooting him 16 times as he walked away from he, and other police, after calls that the seventeen-year-old was breaking into cars, and armed with a folding pocket knife, has thrust Chicago into an unwanted spotlight, as politicians, pundits, and citizens condemn the actions of the officer.

Most significant are the allegations that Mayor Rahm Emanuel, State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, and former Chicago Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy participated in a cover up of the crime that prevented not only the release of the tape, but charges against Van Dyke, which has resulted in televised protests of marchers against police brutality, along the city’s main downtown thoroughfares, including a Black Friday demonstration that resulted in a blockade of sales along posh Michigan Avenue, a street lined with expensive shops such as Chanel and Tiffany; preventing shoppers from beginning their Christmas shopping.

Monday’s notice by US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as a result of a request by Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, that a federal probe into the actions not only of the McDonald case, but the Chicago Police Department, has made national headlines, along with a Dept. of Justice Civil Rights division probe.

It’s been well established that police departments across the country have used excessive force against young black people that has resulted in their deaths, most specifically Freddie Gray in Baltimore, among others.

The McDonald case has also brought presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton into the fray with Sanders suggesting that all involved resign, and Clinton saying that there should be a federal investigation by Justice.

Last week, the so-called “top cop” McCarthy was out when reluctantly fired by Emanuel in the face of mounting public criticism,and calls for his resignation.  Voices have also been raised that Alvarez should resign for her 13 month delay in charging Van Dyke, but, she, so far has refused.

Much of the anger - especially that of Chicago’s black community has centered on Emanuel, who in 2013 closed 50 schools in the city’s black neighborhoods forcing grammar school students to cross gang-infested neighborhoods to get to their new schools, a move that prompted the hiring of citizen guards to protect them.

Adding fuel to the fire was an increase in crime during McCarthy’s  four year tenure, with shootings appearing almost daily in the local media, again mostly in black neighborhoods, but which also spread to downtown, affecting tourism. Then the local city magazine,Chicago, accused the police of lying about the number of crimes committed.

Taking most of these events -- many of them racially motivated -- into the city’s long history of segregation has meshed the problems of Chicago’s impoverished blacks with a seemingly endemic racism, that has resulted in a lack of quality education, access to employment and economic disinvestment onto the head of the mayor, whose responses often only feed the anger.  For example, when a federal probe was first suggested he called the action “misguided.” But, in the face of mounting criticism, now says that he welcomes it.

Emanuel’s mayorship was seen as fractured, before his reelection, and carried many of the hallmarks that he has despised in his predecessors: rubber stamp city council, a refusal to listen to conflicting opinions, resulting in a near kingship, versus the rule of law.  And, then after failing to gain a 50 plus one majority, a first in Chicago mayoral elections, had to face a contender in a runoff election, and which some are saying to ensure reelection, did not release the McDonald video, a charge that his spokesperson, Kelley Quinn, says is “patently false.”

Forced by a federal judge to release the tape, many city hall observers have accused him of “backing and filling” with his responses, and increased their calls for him to step down.

In other areas, most prominently city finances, Emanuel has been at odds with the severe issues that Chicago faces, notably, the pension payment hole that he plugged, primarily with a $588 million property increase, and a host of nickel-and-dime fees, that public finance attorney, David Fernandez, said in our interview for my Examiner column, was like the little boy putting his finger in the dyke to stem the flow of water, in the oft told children's story.

His failure to grasp the importance of a true budget may make the city even more vulnerable to financial distress, and even greater costs in high interest loans and more taxes for residents.

Adding to the mayoral woes are a possible teacher’s strike after protracted negotiations between the Chicago Teachers Union and the school board, but an action that belies years of mutual distrust between the city and the union, but which was further accelerated by the school closings. The vote to strike by its 27,000 members, will take place this week. It requires a 75 percent vote of approval and in 2012, the last time they struck, 90 percent of the teachers approved.

The spotlight on Emanuel has made the fifty-six year old mayor look far less stable in his role, despite a reputation, as a scrappy ingfigher with claws, much of it garnered from his time as chief of staff to President Obama.  At the helm of the nation’s third largest city, he cannot afford the ill will garnered by recent press headlines, many of whom now, make him seem defensive, hostile and ineffectual - especially with the McDonald case which makes his earlier campaign promises of transparency seem hollow. Combined with votes of no confidence in he, and his team, the outlook appears dark.

Alvarez, herself, has now faced a lack of support from two Cook County Board Commissioners, one of whom is Garcia, the other its president, the highly regarded board president, Toni Preckwinkle. She has also lost the support of the esteemed U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, whose support, along with the Hispanic vote, is critical for her keeping her job, with the upcoming March primaries. Close on the heels of these losses Alvarez also faces a rival contender for her office, who once worked for Preckwinkle.

With the increased vigilance by DOJ on the national epidemic of police misactions, the McDonald case also forces many to look at previous Chicago police confrontations, and a long history of abuse stretching back to the 1968 Democratic Convention where protesters were beaten in Grant Park, to the 1980’s where suspects, many of them black, were tortured by police commander, Jon Burge.

Most damaging are, as I also reported, accusations of a black hole detention center run by CPD on the city’s West Side, where even lawyers cannot find their clients.

The call now, from DOJ, and others, is an end to not only police brutality, but excusing bad behavior, long standing cronyism, and instead replacing them with lawful and effective policing; actions that have now resulted in the appointment of a special prosecutor.

For Emanuel, the question for many is two-fold: first what does he know and, secondly when did he know it; but most importantly how can Chicago best serve all its citizens, in fairness? Both of which seem in jeopardy, with its reputation in tatters, its economy increasingly fragile, and its leadership beset by federal probes, now CPD, but also former school superintendent Barbara Byrd Bennett, who was charged with kickbacks after a cooked $20.5 million no-bid contract for a suspect school principal training program. But, also the 2014 federal conviction of city comptroller, Amer Ahmad, who was handed a 15-year prison sentence.

Also, on Monday, Alvarez refused to convict another police officer, George Hernandez, accused of killing Ronald Johnson, in an altercation, who she says had a gun, in his hand, a charge vehemently denied by the Johnson family attorney. Increased calls for her resignation are sure to increase, along with more protests, and even more damaging, national media attention.

Many residents are now asking themselves if Emanuel can stay the course, or is this the darkness before the light? When asked if the release of the McDonald tape would have affected his reelection chances, he testily replied, “That’s a hypothetical.”

Kim Davis is freed from jail and claims victory for religious freedom

In what has perhaps become the face of fundamental Christian resistance to  a seemingly un-Godly society, Kim Davis the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of the recent Supreme Court decision, which said that not granting them is unconstitutional, was freed from jail on Tuesday, after being held in contempt of court, to the cheers of thousands of her supporters as she thanked God for her release, but would not say after her five day sentence, whether she would continue to block those licenses, once she returns to work.

"Thank you all so much. I love you all so very much," she said. "I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied, and you are a strong people. We serve a living God who knows exactly where each and every one of us is at. Just keep on pressing. Don't let down, because he is here. He's worthy."

Davis’ opposition rested on the principle, not only that she answers to a higher power, but that her resistance was based on religious freedom, a concept that many seem to misunderstand, or have misapplied in this case. Simply put, the concept rests on the right for freedom of thought, worship, conscience, and no restrictions, or abridgments of those expressions, and public assembly for those behaviors.

Many people have cited the First Amendment in this case, yet that amendment  - known as the establishment clause - says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For Davis, that line of defense is inapplicable, but it underscores a weak understanding of not only what religious freedom means, but how it is defined and exercised. In her case, as an elected official she is charged with upholding the rule of law of a government whose laws she swore to uphold. As Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, said in the Huffington Post, she “simply cannot place her own religious beliefs above those of the constitutional obligations of the state and the constitutional rights of our citizens. Davis should have found a way to reconcile her personal religious beliefs with her official responsibilities, or she should have resigned.”

There are accommodations for religious dissenters, and conscientious objectors to military draft and enrollment, are an example; and during Prohibition, sacramental wine was allowed. But in this case, accomodations for a public official were not possible for the reasons that Stone emphasized. Davis enters the picture by not offering an accommodation, to have, for instance, her deputies issue the licenses,or even recuse herself from the job, based on her religious convictions and beliefs. Had she done so, this would have been in keeping with the history of religious accommodations consistent with our tradition of separation of church and state, enshrined not in the Constitution, but in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, in 1802, where they complained of the infringement of their religious freedom by their state legislature.

“The Founders understood religious freedom as freedom of worship, essentially a private affair. What's happened is that it's been expanded to include freedom of religious expression and public behavior, which in this case means invoking religious freedom in order to avoid doing part of one's job as a public employee. And, it seems to me one cannot discriminate on the basis of one's religious convictions when doing the work of a government agency,” noted Dr. Ralph Keen, the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation Chair in Catholic Studies, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The central core of Davis’ defiance to federal law is her belief that same sex marriage is contrary to God’s will, as expressed in the Bible. She is unequivocal about that, but placing her in a wider cultural context is equally important. Richard McCarty, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Mercyhurst University in Erie, Pa, who specializes in intercultural experiences of faith, said in an emailed statement, “That people like Kim Davis are religiously opposed to marriage equality for same sex couples is not surprising. The vast majority of conservative evangelical Christians define marriage very specifically as the union between one man and one woman. What is surprising is that Kim Davis is confused about the difference between religious belief and religious accommodation.”

Agreeing with Stone, McCarty stresses one, perhaps overlooked, aspect of the whole affair: “It appears that Kim Davis has been very selective in her enforcement of religious law. In particular: she draws on a very literal reading of the Bible to oppose legal marriage for same-sex couples, and yet the New Testament—if interpreted literally throughout—does not permit remarriage after divorce. One can only guess that Kim Davis has actually issued marriage licenses for those pursuing second, third, or fourth marriages.”

In fact, many of her detractors have pointed out her own varied marital history as proof of her “wrongness”  and accusations of hypocrisy. McCarty cautions that “We ought to be careful, however, not to shame Kim Davis for her sexual and relational life—by doing so, we participate in a very similar moral agenda that Kim Davis is using against same-sex couples. Instead, the issue ought to stay focused on matters of religious accommodation.”

This case also brings up a collison course of sorts, between rights and values.He also thinks that a reflection on other examples might help. Speaking hypothetically, he notes that “Because the issue at stake is one of sexual ethics—and a highly debated one at that—let's imagine another scenario to make sure that our moral and political sensibilities are not skewed by partisan preferences. Imagine, for example, if Kim Davis was a Christian pacifist who was employed as a government clerk who refused to issue "conceal and carry" gun licenses because her pacifist faith opposes the use of lethal force—and thus, her faith opposes weapons that are primarily designed for lethal force against other human beings. [And also] imagine that she did issue gun licenses for hunting animals—something permitted by her faith. Surely we would hear an outcry that she does not have the right to refuse Americans our Second Amendment rights on the basis of her religious ideologies. Surely we would hear a call for her to "step down," or at least for her to direct someone else to issue the licenses. In a similar way, those critiquing Kim Davis are simply saying that while she may have the right to her own religious opinions, she does not have the right to enforce them on everyone else.”

.

Hillary Clinton: Beyond the emails

Hillary Clinton has a resume that is impressive by any standard: first lady of Arkansas, where she developed her emphasis on education and families; first lady of the United States where she took those skills and enlarged them onto a world stage, developing a reputation as hard-working, capable and even tough, but where she also came into her own; weathered the political storms of her zeal to reform health care, and handle with grace the Lewinsky scandal that threatened not only her marriage, and image, but also the presidency.  

Next came her run as a candidate for the presidency, and where many assumed that she would win - we even heard comments, such as “Well, she was really the president anyway,” or “She knows how to get things done, because she already did them.” The unexpected upset  came from a junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. The defeat was notable, where she commanded the podium, when accepting defeat, and  the reality that the numbers were just not there to make her the nominee.

Then the glorious coda as Secretary of State, in the Obama administration, where she re-defined shuttle diplomacy and was warmly greeted, and seen as an international celebrity,one that had “Made in America,” stamped all over her, but who also was able to transcend geographic boundaries. And, now she runs again, rebranded as the defender of the middle class, (she tends to love crusades) and a populist hero with images almost re-cast from “Our Town,” and with entourage in tow, she traverses Middle America, as easily as she did the borders of Western Europe.

And, then, the recent poll drop after it was revealed that she had a private email server, installed in her New York state home. from 2009 to 2013, that she used, not only for private matters, such as the planning of her daughter’s wedding, but where she also, on occasion, used it for communication as US Secretary of State. When this was revealed, her critics, not all of them Republicans, had a field day, questioning her judgement. This has continued unabated.

Clinton at first denied that there was anything untoward and even said, “I did not send classified material,” but later she would be forced to release copies of emails, under a federal court order, that State, then later her staff, agreed to turn over the server itself for examination, totalling 60,000; of which some 305 might be considered to contain classified information. The results have been mixed, with some saying that there were confidential exchanges that should have been on the government account that she was given, and not her own. And, recent reports indicate that the server was maintained by a relative startup, in a laidback office in Denver, Colorado.

For many the question of judgment crops up again, and while no one wants to recall the lengthy and expensive Whitewater investigation, of yesteryear, there seems to be no evidence of malfeasance, just bad judgement, pure and simple. But,  considering that unrehearsed move, maybe unresearched, might well damage her standings in the polls, and her path to the Oval Office, that many have seen as inevitable.

Some have wondered whether this was a case of overkill, from a woman that has been battered and bruised by the media, who were relentless in the pursuit and attack of a vulnerable woman, but fortunately did not end tragically like that of her friend, the late Princess Diana. It also speaks reams to the way the world reacts to powerful and symbolic women, like she and Diana. But, that is another discussion.

For Clinton, the dichotomy is that of a whip smart woman, educated at our best schools, and universities, nourished in the Christian tradition, whose heart seems to be built on that resulting faith, but whose Achilles heel seems to be that she doesn’t always think things through, or at the least, seek the advice of others, with the result that she has to later waste precious time on damage control, and detract from her message. Much like her Whitewater investments - which in hindsight can be blamed on a simple desire to make some money and help out old friends, all quite innocent. But, without stepping back to assess the consequences before that decision was made.

Can this be blamed on a baby boomer’s undernourished understanding of technology, or is it the developed paranoia of a woman who had been, too long, on the receiving end of attack journalism. Whatever the case, questions remain, even this early out, if this lack of forethought could have an adverse effect on the newly minted President Clinton, in her own administration.

Lately her staff has stepped up the control efforts to contain the damage, but as one of them was observed as saying, in brief, at least, this is better handled in August of 2015, than in August 2016.

The message for Hillary is to stand back and see what might be the laws of unintended consequences, for her actions, now and later, so that when “Hail to the Chief” is played in January 2017, it ain’t Donald Trump wearing the pantsuit.

Chicago schools budget might force another teachers strike while Emanuel worries

Monday’s announcement of the Chicago Public Schools 2015-16 budget brought more than just the requisite accounting; it also brought an avalanche of criticism of teachers, their union, and their supposed overweening power by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, plus the reality of increased taxes, and lay offs, both in the classroom and the executive suite.

The $5.7 billion operating budget, relies heavily on $480 million dollars of state funds, not guaranteed, and which Rauner says he will only give if there are changes in collective bargaining - in fact in a recent press conference he said, “The power of the teachers union has been overwhelming. Chicago has given and given and given. It’s created a financial crisis that the Chicago schools face now,” and that the budget showed the need for change, especially the “union-weakening provisions” as they were termed by the Chicago Tribune.

Adding fuel to the fire is a $676 million payment for teacher pensions due at the end of the school year. Branded as unsustainable by school leaders, also in the budget “are also numerous fiscal wild cards in the mix, including budget adjustments,” that might be used if there is agreement with the Chicago Teachers Union on a new contract noted the Chicago Sun-Times in their budget analysis.

If the $480 million does not materialize then there would be deeper classroom cuts, thousands of teacher layoffs, and resulting in increased class sizes, although historically laid off teachers would find employment at other schools. At present there will be 479 scheduled teacher layoffs due to enrollment and budget cuts, and taxpayers will pay more property taxes to help fill the gap; for example the Sun-Times suggested that for a home worth $250,000, the owner would have to pony up an additional $19 more to the tax payment.

$137 million is to come from tax increment funding, a budgetary maneuver, where taxes are frozen for a designated neighborhood, and the proceeds designed to help low income areas; but it has faced controversy for years, because the monies, in many instances have been used to finance such upscale enterprises as the posh French Market, several years ago.

Local Chicago Reader columnist Ben Joravsky has been deriding the misdirection of the program for years and said in a recent column, after Barbara Flynn Currie, a close ally of Democratic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, was dispatched to the Chicago City Council after Mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted a status report on his plea for more state aid, reported that she said, “Many wonder whether Chicago is in fact over-TIFed, with negative consequences for school budgets.”

Emanuel’s response was to extend the TIF districts, until 2034, for more money, “none of it guaranteed to help the schools,” Joravsky said, but with no public intention of how much he expects, or how he intended to spend it. But, if Monday’s announcement is accurate, then the amount is a drop in the bucket to what has been collected.

The new budget also includes a cut of $200 million in spending cuts, and $1 million in the office of the CEO for CPS, Forrest Claypool, who is hoping that the state government - ergo Rauner - agrees to a bail-out. But, the latter was adamant when he said: “We believe the right answer is to empower: The people of Chicago, the voters of Chicago, the mayor of Chicago, the school board of the Chicago Public Schools should be enabled to decide what gets collectively bargained and what doesn’t so they don’t end up with the teachers union having dictatorial powers, in effect and causing the financial duress that Chicago public schools are facing right now.”

CTU president Karen Lewis has made a number of statements, including an appearance on local CBS radio affiliate WBBM, Sunday, where she noted that no one had taken a look at alternative funding, and that the proposal to make teachers pay more for their pensions is a refutation of an earlier negotiated agreement, in lieu of a pay cut and now, should be phased in as a compromise, if at all.. She also suggested, in later remarks, that another strike was not welcome, but would be considered if necessary, deeming the proposed change “srikeworthy.”

In a news conference, Lewis was asked if there might be another strike, based on the new request for greater teacher pension contribution, in reality a pay cut, she responded, “If they persist on a 7 percent, all at once like a pay cut - a 7 percent pay cut - I don’t have to call for a strike. I think that our members will do that themselves “

Many observers have noted that this is exactly what is intended by Rauner’s remarks and Emanuel’s frustration - an effort to force the issue with the teachers, and as part of the national Republican gubernatorial efforts, to bust a teachers union, especially in the country’s third largest school system, this would be a pyrrhic victory for Emanuel and a total one for Rauner.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown also noted on Monday, that “What really seems to have Rauner excited, though, is the possibility that Chicago Democrats, led by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, may be ready and willing to force this change on the teachers by law if they won’t go along willingly.” As Brown says Emanuel, needing the money from Rauner, is in no position to push back, and also helps the governor do the same to all Illinois school unions; but he also said that the current pension pay arrangement is more typical, in the state, than Claypool would lead us to believe.

In all of these budgetary conversations one thread is certain: Emanuel and CPS need the money, Lewis and the CTU stand in the way of negotiations with Rauner, and Emanuel will do whatever he can to get the funds, and Lewis’s only tool is another strike.

In a late development Wednesday Claypool announced that CPS will no longer pick up the pension of central office staff, regional and non-union employees, for a savings of $11.1 million. The reduction is to be phased in over a three year period, with 2 percent this year, then another 2 percent the next, and finally 3 percent the year after that.

Lewis who made an appearance on the local PBS affiliate, WTTW, on ‘Chicago Tonight” said that she was supportive, if her members were, but, in the absence of hard numbers, it was “nebulous right now, it’s out there somewhere.”