Illinois

Pat Healy notes that Hillary is for capping the number of troops going to Iraq, but not for capping the funds that pay for them.

Eliot Spitzer has a new DOT Commissioner.

Spitzer's promise to ease driver license access may help terrorists, argues a critic.

Larry Littlefield doesn't like Spitzer's tuition tax credit deduction.

Errol and Bill are taking predictions in tomorrow's special election in Nassau.

As of Saturday, Democrat Craig Johnson held a small lead over Republican Maureen O'Connell.

A candidate in Brooklyn's special election wants her money.

City building permits are down from 2006, but still way, way up.

ReformNY defends public financing for presidential candidates, which is notably out of vogue this time around.

Mike Bloomberg dared state workers to play solitaire when he swung by the capitol today.

The Illinois state Senate president who called for black voters to unite behind Barack Obama doesn't always practice what he preaches.

An imam who spoke at the DNC meeting thinks there's a Jewish conspiracy behind the Iraq War, according to Karol.

Dan Abrams predicted that his network will beat CNN. Soon.

Get ready to hear some Scooter Libby tapes.

And pictured above is Hillary Clinton at this morning's press conference on health care spending.

-- Azi Paybarah

Now that Hillary Clinton is expanding on her Iraq position by advocating a cap on troop levels and setting new conditions on funding for the Iraqi government, the burden of detailing an Iraq plan should logically shift more towards Barack Obama, who yesterday took his first official step towards a presidential bid.

Yesterday, a couple of reporters and I caught up with Obama outside a meeting room on the third floor of the Senate building. On the way down to his car, the conversation progressed from political mechanics ("We are starting to have conversations with staff and hiring staff, we are starting to raise funds,") to what he would do on Iraq.

I asked Obama if he planned to articulate a comprehensive Iraq policy before Feb 10th, when he says he is likely to announce his final decision to run for president.

Here's what he said:

"I think Iraq is one of the central questions that we face, not just between now and '08 but post-'08. I intend to be vigorous participant in that debate and have an affirmative policy."

And what will that affirmative policy be?

"I put forward a statement three months ago how we should pursue it and it ended up being quite similar to how the Iraqi Study Group viewed the issue as well as many of our military experts. There is a more specific strategic question about how we should proceed in terms of votes given that the president is determined to take what I consider to be a completely wrongheaded approach."

That policy he was referring to, delivered in a speech on November 20th in which he famously declared "there are no good options left in this war," specified an opposition to sending additional soldiers, and advocated "a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces," and "precise levels and dates" for a redeployment from Baghdad.

But Obama left it unclear in that otherwise detail-rich speech what those levels and dates should be.

"I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid," he argued. "We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels. Moreover, it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger."

When one of us pushed him yesterday as to whether he enjoyed an advantage over Clinton as a result of not casting a vote for the war (he criticized the war from his post in the Illinois legislature) Obama refused to answer directly.

"People want something new," he said, "and what is most important for me is to figure out what I actually believe on an issue and say it clearly and forthrightly and let the politics sort themselves out."

I followed up by asking him if he had completely figured out his Iraq policy.

"I have arrived at a position in terms of Iraq. I know what we should be doing. What we are now figuring out is institutionally what levers do we have to stop the president from taking what I think is the wrong approach."

--Jason Horowitz

There's a new biography about Rudy Giuliani coming out by a publisher called Wiley.

The president of the National Institute for Latino Policy went to hear Herman Badillo speak at the Harvard Club and found himself "in the midst of the 'Other New York.'"

Eliot Spitzer's former campaign manager Ryan Toohey is getting involved in the special election in Nassau.

So much for Joe Bruno's warning that he doesn't want Spitzer getting too involved in that race.

The Republican candidate in that race, Maureen O'Connell, is on the radio.

Robert Stein, the former Chairman of the American Society of Magazine Editors, wonders if Joe Lieberman will defect from the Democratic Party.

Larry King has been on the air for 50 years.

Dov Hikind's ad demanding the resignation of the Israeli Prime Minister may have violated the law.

Illinois may move the date of their presidential primary, which would be good for Barack Obama.

And pictured above is a chart from The Albany Project showing a slight discrepancy in spending on member items in the state Senate. The long red lines are for majority Republicans, the stubby blue ones are for minority Democrats. (Their chart for spending in the Democratic-held Assembly is in the works.)

-- Azi Paybarah

Screams could be heard echoing across Brooklyn on a clear day this past November, when news of 24-ye  read more »

Post-trial motions will be filed in the next few weeks in Thomas v. Page, the Illinois libel case decided yesterday to the tune of $7 million for former Chicago Bear place-kicker and current chief justice of the Illinois State Supreme Court.

A jury decided, in a bit under 8 hours, that Bill Page, a former writer for the Kane County Chronicle, defamed Judge Page in columns that relied upon confidential sources.

"From what I understand from talking with the jurors afterwards was that they found there was a 'reckless disregard' because the paper did not adequately investigate the confidential sources" used by Mr. Page in his columns about Justice Thomas, said a lawyer for Mr. Page, Steven Rosenfeld, of Mandell Menkes LLC.

"Reckless disregard" is a standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964. The jury had to agree, as the Supreme Court wrote in that opinion, that Mr. Page had acted "with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that [his statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

"I think that is an extraordinary finding with regard to reckless disregard," Mr. Rosenfeld said.

A lawyer for Judge Thomas, Joseph A. Power, Jr., of Power Rogers and Smith, PC, said that opposing counsel approached him for settlement prior to the verdict. "They offered cost of defense," he said. The offer was not accepted.

Among the trial's oddities is having as plaintiff the state's top judge. The case was originally filed in the second district--that district, whose seat is Elgin, recused itself, as Justice Thomas both came from that district and has supervisory authority over it.

Mr. Power would have prefered that the case be conducted in Chicago, in the first district. Instead, "we were in a conservative Republican jurisdiction not known for returning awards for plaintiffs," Mr. Power said. Lawyers for the defense "were happy to be out there, believe me," he said.

Lawyers for Mr. Page and his former employer have 30 days to file post-trial motions, such as asking to vacate the decision, or to move for a new trial. Post-trial motions are a normal prelude to an appeal. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that a motion would be filed in "a couple weeks." After the judge rules on post-trial motions, the legal team then has 30 days to file an appeal.

"They can do whatever they wish," said Mr. Power. "They're entitled if they want to--but they'll have to pay 9 percent interest while it's out on appeal."

— Choire Sicha

Conquering adversity is the common theme in the autobiographical accounts of American politicians fr  read more »

The Washington Times, which mounts even less of an effort to mask its partisan leanings than the Fox News Channel, is an occasional source of amusement with its breathless adherence to the GOP message machine. Like this morning's if-we-keep-repeating-it-maybe-we-can-make-it-so headline and story: Kerry gaffe loses independents for his party

Here's the problem with this story, a one-note GOP talking point turgidly dressed up as a formal unveiling of news:

First, it is written off of a Pew survey that has the distinct look of an outlier - easily the closest (i.e. most GOP-friendly) generic ballot poll available on the market. To mention, for instance, that a Gallup poll (also conducted post-Kerry) actually has the Democrats ahead by 20 points would undercut the already flimsy legs of this story.

But that's not all.

From the Pew poll, one statistic of nebulous value is then- that 18 percent of independent voters had "serious doubts" about voting Democratic because of Kerry - and the story then proceeds to beat us over the head with its earth-shattering relevance, cluing in the brain dead among us that independents "are considered pivotal in today's congressional elections."

In a related development, it is considered likely that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning before setting, sometime later in the day, in the west.

The statistic about independents tells us little because - much in the way prosecutors are supposedly able to get juries to indict ham sandwiches - pollsters can always find 18 percent of independents troubled by just about any development in any campaign. And, if you read the fine print in the Pew poll itself (which the Times, of course, ignores) you will see that the 18 percent figure includes anyone who said the Kerry comment raised only "a little" doubt about his or her willingness to vote for the Democrats.

But a good Washington Times political story is never about facts or details. It's about a headline that hews to the GOP's message of the day, which in the run-up to the Election has been that Republicans are surging thanks to last-minute doubts about the Democrats. Hence the Times' assertion that this data - one broadly-worded question from one of the 62,000 or so polls now in circulation" - represents "a potentially significant shift of 'voting intentions' and raising speculation of further erosion among independents for the Democrats." Oh, and bonus points for tying it all to Kerry, a top-5 GOP bogeyman.

Also,

Hey, if it's in the paper, it must be true.

All of this makes us wonder how the paper will handle what will probably be very bad news for the GOP today. Suppose the Democrats win, say, 35 seats in the House and take back the Senate - essentially the doomsday scenario for the GOP. What will the headline read on tomorrow's Washington Times front page? Some suggestions:

Lugar, Hatch cruise in Indiana and Utah; Hastert easily re-elected to Illinois seat

or maybe:

Democrats take control of Congress - Pelosi yet to rule changing flag design to hammer and sickle.

The Washington Times, which mounts even less of an effort to mask its partisan leanings than the Fox News Channel, is an occasional source of amusement with its breathless adherence to the GOP message machine. Like this morning's if-we-keep-repeating-it-maybe-we-can-make-it-so headline: Kerry gaffe loses independents for his party

It makes us wonder how the paper will handle what will probably be very bad news for the GOP today. Suppose the Democrats win, say, 35 seats in the House and take back the Senate - essentially the doomsday scenario for the GOP. What will the headline read on tomorrow's Washington Times front page? Some suggestions:

Lugar, Hatch cruise in Indiana and Utah; Hastert easily re-elected to Illinois seat

or maybe:

Democrats take control of Congress - Pelosi yet to rule changing flag design to hammer and sickle.

A few days ago this pro-Giuliani blog laid out an intriguing blueprint for the former mayor to follow as a way of getting around his inconvenient position on abortion rights and make it through a Republican primary.

One of the basic ideas (and Rudyblog has a much lengthier explanation here) that Giuliani shouldn't try to hedge on his pro-life position, but could seek to find common ground with social conservatives on abortion by advocating for strict constructionist judges. If those judges happen to find Roe v Wade unconstitutional, the thought goes, so be it.

In the course of reporting for the paper this week, I asked Tony Carbonetti what he thought of the idea. As it turned out, he approves.

"He has a record of supporting conservative judges and appointing conservative judges here in New York," said Carbonetti, a senior Rudy advisor. "As with any chief executive he already has a record and anyone can look at that record."

Carbonetti also said that Giuliani has never stopped being himself -- "What you see is what you get" -- no matter how conservative the crowd he addresses.

But of course, if Giuliani can keep the focus on security issues and away from abortion, as he did during his trip to Illinois last week, so much the better.

--Jason Horowitz

You’re not likely to hear a Sufjan Stevens song floating out of the tinny hidden speakers next tim  read more »

1953: Civil rights organizer Bayard Rustin serves 60 days in a California jail for "sex perversion," AKA, consensual sodomy.

1977: The National Socialist Party of America tries to march through Skokie, Illinois.

1995: The men's movement.

"People who make doughnuts or lattes or S.U.V.'s do not get to consume their products freely." —David Carr, The New York Times.

Between the years 1987 and 1994, The Transom worked at: Al Gelato, Evanston, Ill.; Espresso Bongo, San Francisco, Ca. (underground in the Montgomery Street BART station, no less); Johanna's Wine Bar, Chicago, Ill.; World Coffee, Los Angeles, Ca.; The Bakery on Melrose, Los Angeles, Ca.; and at least a few other cafe/bakery/restaurant/bar-type places. At each and every one of these food service jobs, The Transom can confirm that it was common, even daily, practice for the entire staff and management to consume the workplace's products freely. "Freely" in this instance has both its orginal meaning of "abundantly, gratuitously" and the added half-pun meaning of "for free." —Choire Sicha

It's almost December, and many New Yorkers are probably dreaming of a white Christmas.  read more »

It's the new economy, stupid.  read more »

In 1881, raising capital on the strength of his name alone, Villard took control of the Northern  read more »

I haven't done a lot of pronouncing upon political issues in this column (although I want to point o  read more »

Hillary, we hardly know ye.As you carpetbagged your way through New York, we had you pegged as a qui  read more »

The New York Post , which gets off on Grand Guignol , did itself proud the other day with a front-pa  read more »

New Yorkers may take a justifiable pride in knowing that throughoutAmerican history their state legi  read more »