Really pulling for Rahm (yes, we're all on a first-name basis with him here in Chicago) to get on the ballot. In case you hadn't heard, his residency is being challenged because he rented out his house after he went to Washington to run the White House. I've been told it's "not a frivolous issue," but . . . it is, really. It's not like he tried to sell his home; he just rented it out. And since he pays Illinois taxes and has an Illinois driver's license (and votes in Illinois politics absentee), I'd say he pretty much meets the standards for residency. A person who does all those things and sublets an apartment to take a semi-permanent job in a different city would still qualify as a resident. Why is the residency requirement suddenly at a higher bar? It's like we're saying the candidate has to meet a higher standard of residency than a voter would. That doesn't make any sense.
Granted, I'm no lawyer—just a Chicago voter who wants the candidate who is by far the most qualified. To be honest, if he doesn't get on the ballot, I'd say we're pretty much screwed. No one else has the administrative experience he does (and he's proven to be an excellent administrator), and after 20+ years of Daley, the last thing I want is to turn Chicago over to some newbie. Also, this whole thing about him "not being Chicago enough" is more nonsense. In a way, I think it's great that he left for a couple of years and ran a clean administration. Because, no matter whether you agree or disagree with President Obama, he's not had the scandals we've seen from previous presidents. I think it would be great to have someone who's not quite so "inside" to be the mayor of Chicago. Might just get us out of the rabbit hole for a while.