He has neglected the needs of pretty much the whole city for the sake of making downtown a big, loud, obnoxious showplace. This is a city that's been in a recession since at least 2001--this new one was just a dip in what was already the case. I suffered through it for 5.5 years(my second time living there--the previous time was Daley's first seven years) and got the hell out before it collapsed altogether. When I first came to Chicago, it was Washington's last year in office, and I remember it being a vastly different place. Always corrupt, but liveable and still a working/middle-class place. Daley let the city go condo-mad more than any other, pushed the working class to the west, tried to make Chicago into a yuppie city--basically trying to fill anything visible near the lake up to about North Ave. with the demographic of Lincoln Park, yet still neglecting it. He has sharpened the divide between rich and poor more than any other mayor since, well, his dad, and I don't remember it originally being as predatory and vicious as it was the last time I lived there. I mean, I actually felt(for good reason, unfortunately) under threat, just as a single person trying to make a living. (Of course, that might have had something to do with having been two floors down from a notorious office shooting a few years ago this December; that leaves you jittery)

So I also can't say I would feel too sorry for the financial ruin of the city that would result if they got it. They're the ones who've let him stay in office all this time.

It's not that I don't think Obama's a fine person and all that. It's that he hasn't accomplished anything yet, and in particular we're still in two wars, so how has he engendered peace? And this cannot possibly help his credibility, to get such a huge honor when he hasn't really done anything to earn it. That's setting him up for failure and looking foolish. If I were him, I'd respectfully decline it; that would be the smartest thing to do. This only feeds opposition charges that he's all hype.

Granted, it's not as egregious as Henry Kissinger murdering thousands of people and then getting the Peace Prize. It's an award many have gotten for iffy reasons and the most political of the Nobels. But it seems like a very bad idea and I don't think he should accept it.

It just looks so bad.

I notice there's an effort to make people who think this is weird look like they're all cons. Look, I'm very left, and I think this is inappropriate. It just makes him look like someone who keeps getting unearned honors without actually paying any dues.

That's all.

...then good. We're all well rid of the weasel, so long as it results in the seat not reverting to the Republicans.

Nuggets th' size of yore haid!

Oh wait, different crazy old coot with a mustache.

But you can use it to pay people to kill each other, and then you can eat their food.

L&O already has a sizeable conservative audience. It plays well to their paranoias(who do you think eats up all the true crime on cable?) and it wouldn't surprise me if they were choosing to play more deliberately to that audience. Because if Fox has proven anything, while they may or may not vote, they certainly watch plenty of TV.

"no good, very bad" in SALON titles.

Seriously. Enough with that. It's not even close to clever anymore.

The rise of Miramax as a mainstream-marketplace phenomenon was as much a death knell to indie film as Geffen snapping up alternative bands was to "alternative rock." Sure, there was more of an outlet for an indie sensibility. But that also created the concept OF the "indie sensibility," which led to a series of strangely homogenous tropes(on a spectrum, perhaps, of Solondz to Tarantino) you can see any time you randomly turn on IFC. People call the twin breakthroughs of film & music in the early 90s a victory, but I'd just call them marketing corrections. They realized what people wanted to buy and adjusted.

...why you in the media consider her worthy of serious attention?

You do realize that if you all stopped writing about her, given that she is nothing but a media figure, she would go away. But by giving her the attention she craves, you are in fact making it more possible that she might end up a candidate again.

Have any of you considered this?

I know you won't stop. She drives page hits, ratings, and more.

But she's a monster that you're creating. You, and no one else. This person who could destroy the country once and for all.

The internet: it really DOES make you stupid.

I've always thought ALL politicians and lobbyists, male and female, were whores.

So I have no problem with it either way. It just shouldn't be used only as a pejorative for women, that's all.

>>It's like liberal media is trying to get the Republicans re-elected.

They will. It's easier to write about thank wonky policy.

Why do you think they promote(even with negative press it's promotion) Sarah Palin, the very symbol of the celebritizing of politics?

Salon disgusts me now. As most of the media do. I think I reached my limit when they started taking Twitter seriously.

>>Both of these women had no problem exploiting their looks to further their respective careers. That my friend is sexist.

No, it's taking advantage of sexism.

Which isn't any better, but that's what it is.