If Barak Obama does get elected to the presidency of the United States, what spin-off effects do you see happening for his adopted hometown and the location of its presumptive Hyde Park/Kenwood White House?

Through his Chicago links and through media exposure, how do you see this affecting our city? Will that Hyde Park/Kenwood connection have an effect on how the South Side is preceived and how it may develop?

I think an Obama presidency would do a LOT for Chicago. It would help in getting the Olympic Games, as well as steering federal money towards transportation initiatives. It would possible help Chicago's exchanges as they face greater antitrust scrutiny in upcoming years. On a subtler note, an Obama presidency could also turn the world's attention towards Chicago, just as the Bush (father/son) legacy has done for Texas.

self edit.

not to mention a possible presidential library in chicago

not to mention a possible presidential library in chicago


I like that Idea.

see The Lincoln library in Springfied

Since its opening in April 2005, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum has ranked as America's most visited state-controlled presidential museum. In about six months the museum generated about $1,000,000. In less than twenty-one months, the museum received its one millionth visitor.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_Presidential_Library_and_Museum

This is great for tourism and the physical structure of the modern ones can cost 500 million dollars to construct and furnish.

Getting back to topic. I think an Obama presidency will do wonders for Chicago. If he can only do one thing for Chicago, i hope its to rehabilitate and revive Chicago Public Transportation.

I also think he'd be wonderful in promoting Chicago as an olympic venue. Obama has a very international history with his father being from Kenya and him living a portion of his childhood days in indonesia. Its something IOC officials can really appreciate.

Yeah - an Obama presidency would definitely help to neutralize any anti-Americanism on the IOC. I'd also expect to see quite a few Chicagoans in his administration. Secretary-of-State Oprah, anyone?

They only thing Oprah would be good for is press secretary!

not to mention a possible presidential library in chicago

U of C would be a no brainer on that one.

On a subtler note, an Obama presidency could also turn the world's attention towards Chicago, just as the Bush (father/son) legacy has done for Texas.

It's already happened to a certain degree. Anyone watching CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX News notices how often reporters are in Chicago now.

It's already happened to a certain degree. Anyone watching CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX News notices how often reporters are in Chicago now.

with an obligatory backdrop of the river and towers on both banks near Michigan Ave.

It's already happened to a certain degree. Anyone watching CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX News notices how often reporters are in Chicago now.

Yeah, it totally has. People are learning about Chicago now.

I wouldn't get my hopes up. An Obama administration will bend over backwards to avoid showing favoritism to Chicago over other cities, and Limbaugh, Kass, Republicans and the press will constantly watch for any perception that he's paying back his "Cook County cronies."

I agree. Kass has already started being his ugly wannabe-Royko self about Obama.

It might also further entrench already unshakable forces in Chicago/Cook County/Illinois government to have Obama's endorsement, and in my opinion, that single-party rule has never been a good thing. I also wonder what effect it would have on corruption trials here. Does anyone know any similar examples of what happens when a president comes out of a place of such dirty local politics?

Surely you remember the "senator from Pendergast."

http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/d/d7/Hs-Truman1922-flier.jpg/350px-Hs-Truman1922-flier.jpg


Politics don't get much dirtier than that, except in Louisiana.

I wouldn't get my hopes up. An Obama administration will bend over backwards to avoid showing favoritism to Chicago over other cities, and Limbaugh, Kass, Republicans and the press will constantly watch for any perception that he's paying back his "Cook County cronies."

I was just thinking that today. If Obama starts looking for Chicago pork, then he endangers the whole image of "change" that he is constantly pushing. To seem overly greedy and self-serving would put him in the same category as Hillary, who represents an older generation of politicians and political thought.

Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be some level of benefits for Chicago. The city is the USOC's nominee for 2016. Obama had no hand in the selection of Chicago, so by promoting Chicago's bid, he isn't exactly showing favoritism. Also, Obama as president might well cause a warming of international attitudes toward the United States, and Europeans/Africans/Asians might actually stop hating us. Such a "warming" can only benefit Chicago's Olympic bid, which if won has the potential to set up infrastructure for another 50-60 years of development.

If he keeps his house here in Hyde Park, will it be like the Bush ranch? If it is, that means anytime he is on break the President of the U.S. will be chilling in Chicago, with that will certainly bring a large media circus.

Also, Obama has a lot of friends here, including his brother - CEO of Loop Financial - an investment bank that is pretty small right now, but will probably get much larger if he is elected president. Ariel Capital - CEO John Rogers is a close firend of Obama, his mutual fund might see a lot more business. He has a lot of base here that will see the perks of knowing the president. Maybe there would be some of that Chicago base in his cabinet.

Maybe there would be some of that Chicago base in his cabinet.

I'd much rather see really qualified people in the cabinet than even more cronyism - I don't care where they're from.

Maybe one day our license plates will say Land of Lincoln-Obama.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28525

Obama vs. Clinton: What's in it for us?


By Greg Hinz and Paul Merrion
March 09, 2008

For Chicago and Illinois, a lot more is at stake than the futures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Such matters as Chicago's Olympics ambitions, funding for key capital projects, the tenure of pol-busting U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, and the health of local exporters and Chicago's financial exchanges will get a push up or down, depending on which senator gets the nod and how that nominee fares in November against a third senator, GOP candidate John McCain.

...

"The person who's president is going to take care of his home state," says former Illinois Democratic Party Chairman Gary LaPaille, who now heads a Washington government relations firm.

LOCAL LARGESSE

An Obama White House "can mean an enormous amount, politically and in terms of money coming to the state," says U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria.

...

^^ Interesting. I must admit, i feel better after reading that Hilliary would probably be supportive of the CME, given her relationship with Duffy. This makes me like her much more (however, I am still pledged Obamakin). I really hated the idea of her presidency because I was sure she would favor Wall Street banks. Now I doubt that would be the case, which gives me a sigh of relief.

One thing that's not being discussed: a possible Clinton presidency and Obama vice-presidency could still bode well for Chicago

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28525

Obama vs. Clinton: What's in it for us?


By Greg Hinz and Paul Merrion
March 09, 2008

For Chicago and Illinois, a lot more is at stake than the futures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Such matters as Chicago's Olympics ambitions, funding for key capital projects, the tenure of pol-busting U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, and the health of local exporters and Chicago's financial exchanges will get a push up or down, depending on which senator gets the nod and how that nominee fares in November against a third senator, GOP candidate John McCain.

...

"The person who's president is going to take care of his home state," says former Illinois Democratic Party Chairman Gary LaPaille, who now heads a Washington government relations firm.

LOCAL LARGESSE

An Obama White House "can mean an enormous amount, politically and in terms of money coming to the state," says U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria.

...

I would have to point out that Illinois is the home state for both Hillary and Obama. You can take the girl out of Park Ridge, but you can't take Park Ridge out of the girl. So Obama roots for the White Sox and Hillary roots for the Cubs, either way a Democratic victory would be good for Chicago.

^^ Obviously, it's not that simple. But there may be a tiny bit of truth to that. I think it really comes down to lobbying and connections. And this whole thing of Obama making that much of a difference in the Chicago election bid is nonsense. Chicago will win or lose the olympic bid based on merit.

I'm sure that somebody has studied the benefits the president's state has historically achieved. Putting presidential libraries aside, how much has the president's home state received, over and above what was typical, during the last several administrations?

And this whole thing of Obama making that much of a difference in the Chicago election bid is nonsense. Chicago will win or lose the olympic bid based on merit.

Maybe, but say McCain gets elected. Then we have a president who would oppose any sort of large federal spending on the Chicago Olympics, for infrastructure needs and other purposes. That makes the Chicago bid a lot weaker.

Also, the international attitudes toward the US may soften if Obama is elected, potentially creating support for the Chicago bid amongst an international community that would be loath to award anything to the US.

As far as Obama vs. Clinton - I think both would strongly support the Chicago bid, and be in favor of some level of infrastructure spending. Since Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, a victory by either will signal to the international community that bigoted US attitudes are subsiding.

Maybe, but say McCain gets elected. Then we have a president who would oppose any sort of large federal spending on the Chicago Olympics, for infrastructure needs and other purposes. That makes the Chicago bid a lot weaker.

Also, the international attitudes toward the US may soften if Obama is elected, potentially creating support for the Chicago bid amongst an international community that would be loath to award anything to the US.

As far as Obama vs. Clinton - I think both would strongly support the Chicago bid, and be in favor of some level of infrastructure spending. Since Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, a victory by either will signal to the international community that bigoted US attitudes are subsiding.

Why would McCain oppose the American bid for the Olympics? and why should Chicago expect more federal spending on the Olympics than Los Angeles or Atlanta received?

As far as I know, neither Atlanta nor Los Angeles had any sort of detailed plan for transit improvements. Chicago has several definite plans for how to extend the city's mass transit (Circle Line, Yellow Line Extension, Red Line Extension, O'Hare Express, Carroll Street Transitway) that really only need politicians to stand behind them to become reality. A need for better Olympic transportation could provide the needed impetus for one or more of these projects, which would be an investment with benefits far beyond the two Olympic weeks.

Also, Atlanta is really not a model to follow.... an Olympic tradition is for the Olympic president at the closing ceremonies to refer to the games as "the best games ever". Atlanta was the first and only city where the chairman has not bestowed this honor. Also, don't forget that it was funded entirely by private money, $1.8 billion in total.

LA is a better model, I suppose.

My point in the above statement is that McCain is not likely to support much Federal spending on transit (he may not even support highways). This poses an obstacle to Chicago's growth, regardless of whether we win the Olympics, unless alternate funding sources are found.

My point in the above statement is that McCain is not likely to support much Federal spending on transit (he may not even support highways). This poses an obstacle to Chicago's growth, regardless of whether we win the Olympics, unless alternate funding sources are found.

^ I guess, except that Chicago doesn't really need new transit infrastructure to host the Olympics. The infrastructure is already there.

If the Olympics can't provide the necessary impetus for transit funding, what can? Once the CTA finishes the Brown Line renovation in 2009, it won't have any major capital projects on its plate for the forseeable future...

Do you think the CTA needs to expand in order to strengthen Chicago's position as a world city, or do you think the current system is adequate (if it is managed properly?) If you believe that expansion is necessary eventually, then the Olympics presents Chicago's best chance at receiving money for said expansion.