My experience (limited as it is) with journalists in the Peoria area has been that, when you state that something is off the record, it’s off the record. I haven’t experienced personally or heard from others that journalists in this town have deliberately printed any off-the-record remarks. So I just thought that’s the way it works with all journalists. Then this quote from The Scotsman was published recently:

“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms [Samantha] Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Power is a Pulitzer Prize winning author for her book “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” and a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama. She has now resigned due to the publication of her comments.

There has been quite a bit of outcry against the paper for publishing her remarks when she very clearly asked them to be off the record. The paper and other journalistic sources I checked defended the paper. Typical is The Scotsman’s official response, which basically says that an agreement to be “off the record” must be reached in advance — it can’t be invoked retroactively to take back unguarded comments. The Scotsman’s editor Mike Gilson:

[W]e are certain it was right to publish. I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on-the-record quotes after they have been made. The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.

Doesn’t he sound pious? Of course, the purpose of the interview was to promote Power’s new book, “Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World,” so all the Obama campaign talk was off the subject, and may explain why she forgot to request that her comments about American politics be off the record until it was evidently too late.

So, did the Scotsman break any ethical rules? Most, though not all, of the sources I’ve consulted say no. Were they jerks for publishing it? Yes. Does it make their reporters look like predatory journalists and their paper look like a tabloid fish wrapper? Yes. Will candidates, aides, and advisors agree to any more interviews with The Scotsman? Not likely.

It’s official. Colleen Callahan is the Democratic opponent to Republican Aaron Schock in the 18th Congressional District race to replace retiring Representative Ray LaHood. One of Callahan’s big strengths is name recognition — something she’ll need to battle the name recognition Schock has by virtue of his position as State Representative. Callahan did agriculture news for WMBD radio for many years. She now owns her own communications company. All of this broadcast and communications experience means she should be able to come across well in interviews and debates — an area where Schock has also excelled.

On substance, it will be interesting to see what issue differences emerge. One place where I know they’re on the same page: They both favor increasing ethanol production. My guess is that their biggest points of divergence will be on social rather than fiscal issues.

If Barack Obama wins the Ohio and Texas primaries today, do you think Hillary will drop out of the race, or do you think she’ll keep fighting to the bitter end?

I’m sad to report that I’ve run into more than a few people who apparently believe that Obama is a Muslim, took the oath of office on the Koran, and doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance. These allegations have been debunked for quite a while now, but I’m still hearing them, and I still occasionally get an e-mail about them. So, for all those who haven’t heard, here are the facts, in Obama’s own words (and from a Christian news source, just in case you’re still skeptical):

This is obviously a systematic political strategy by somebody because these e-mails don’t just keep coming out the way they have without somebody being behind it.

Basically the e-mail falsely states that I’m Muslim, that I pledged my oath of office on a Koran instead of a Bible, that I don’t Pledge Allegiance to the flag. Scurrilous stuff. I want to make sure that your viewers understand that I am a Christian who has belonged to the same church for almost 20 years now. It’s where Michelle and I got married. It’s where our kids were dedicated. I took my oath of office on my family Bible.

I lead the Pledge of Allegiance when I open up the Senate. I’ve been saying the Pledge of Allegiance since I was three years old. I think it ‘s very important for people not to buy into the kinds of dirty tricks that we’ve become so accustomed to in our politics and people need to understand I’m not and never have been of the Muslim faith.

I think that those who are of the Muslim faith are deserving of respect and dignity, but to try and feed into this fear-mongering and try to question my faith commitments and my belief in Jesus Christ, I think is offensive. And I want to make sure that people are absolutely clear about what’s going on with this, and if they get another one of these e-mails that they’re deleting it and letting their friends know that it’s nonsense.

It was Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that had his swearing-in picture taken with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible. And the picture of Obama without his hand over his heart was taken while the national anthem was being played, not when the Pledge of Allegiance was being recited.

Also, here’s a similar statement he gave to Christianity Today magazine.

Yes, yes there are. While all the drama has been on the 18th Congressional District and 92nd Legislative District races, there’s one race from which we’ve hardly heard a whisper: the U. S. Senate race. Dick Durbin’s latest six-year term is up, and he will have a Republican challenger. Three Chicago-area Republicans are running for the chance to face Durbin in November. They are Steve Sauerberg (pictured), Mike Psak, and Andy Martin.

The Chicago Daily Herald has a good rundown of their positions and vital statistics. They also endorse Sauerberg, albeit unenthusiastically. They complain that all the candidates are pretty weak (not to mention woefully underfunded), and will likely be slaughtered in the general election.

Sauerberg is also endorsed by the Chicago Tribune and the Peoria Journal Star.

Peoria’s only daily newspaper has endorsed Jim McConoughey for Congress. They said he had a slight edge over Schock because “there have been too many red flags regarding [Schock’s] readiness.”

I, of course, think they made a wise choice. Tazewell County Board Chairman Jim Unsicker also endorsed McConoughey.

Jehan Gordon recently announced that she was convicted of shoplifting in 2000. What she didn’t mention was that she just paid the fines associated with that crime this past week.

According to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Champaign County, Ms. Gordon’s theft charge from June 29, 2000, Case #00CM00657, was paid this past Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008, via credit card. The fines totaled almost $400. All those court costs have been outstanding for over seven years, including time she was running a campaign for the 92nd district seat.

Here’s how it appears on the Circuit Clerk’s website:

RECEIPT #	DESCRIPTION	AMOUNT	DATE PAID
170628	CLERK	25.00	2/27/01
474682	AUTOMATION FEE	5.00	1/22/08
474682	DOCUMENT STORAGE FEE	5.00	1/22/08
474682	COURT FINANCE FEE	25.00	1/22/08
474682	STS ATTY	10.00	1/22/08
474682	ARRESTEE’S MEDICAL	10.00	1/22/08
474682	LOCAL ANTI-CRIME FEE	5.00	1/22/08
474682	FINES	100.00	1/22/08
474682	VIOLENT CRIME VICTIM	12.00	1/22/08
474682	SUR CHARGE-OLD 8/40	12.00	1/22/08
474682	LEADS MAINT FUND	3.00	1/22/08
474682	COURT SECURITY FEE	15.00	1/22/08
474682	CR CARD CONVEN FEE	15.00	1/22/08
474682	COURT SERVICES FUND	30.00	1/22/08
474682	ATTY FEES P D	100.00	1/22/08

Ms. Gordon was also cited for operating an uninsured motor vehicle in Champaign County (Case #04TR11478) on May 12, 2004. She didn’t appear at her court date on June 24, 2004, and was fined $200. Those fines were paid just two months ago, on November 26, 2007. That was more than three years after the incident and after she entered the race.

While I was willing to write off her youthful indiscretion of seven years ago, the fact that she left that judgment and at least one other unpaid all this time is very troubling. Essentially, she didn’t finish paying her debt to society, so to speak, until just this week. Unless the circuit court is wrong in its dating of when the fines were paid, this is pretty damning to her candidacy. She should immediately withdraw from the race.

Incidentally, she also shows up in the McLean County Circuit Court system for a traffic violation (Case #2007TR025410) from Sep. 20, 2007, that they describe as simply “UNLICENSED” (all caps in original). Not sure what that means — driving without a license, perhaps? Her last court appearance was Dec. 17, 2007, and the case is now listed as “closed.”

Jehan Gordon held a press conference today. She didn’t announce any new policy ideas. She didn’t announce her stance on any controversial matters in the 92nd district.

No, she announced that she was once convicted of shoplifting:

“As a teen I was charged with a misdemeanor for attempting to take a bracelet from a store,” Gordon said. “This life experience taught me a lot. It is one of the reasons why I work so diligently with young people today because I know what it’s like to be young and impressionable.”

The article says this happened in Champaign county when she was 18; she’s now 26.

What possible reason could there be for her to announce this? Was someone threatening to reveal it to the press, and this was a preemptive confession? Or is this a campaign strategy designed to endear her to voters for her transparency and openness?

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, should we care? Is this piece of information relevant to her candidacy? It was a misdemeanor, on par with a traffic citation. Should we be questioning candidates about their speeding tickets, too?

The graduation issue was pertinent because she made a claim in a campaign ad that was false. The shoplifting conviction, on the other hand, happened eight years ago. I can’t help but think this was a tactical error. She didn’t need to reveal this information, and it would likely have backfired if someone else tried to make an issue of it. By calling attention to it herself, it gets everyone talking about her faults instead of her virtues or her policy initiatives. It’s a distraction that she’s brought on herself.

I think this revelation, despite her attempt to go on the offense with it, and despite the fact that it’s arguably irrelevant, will end up hurting her candidacy more than it helps.

My wife told me she heard this on Glenn Beck recently and thought it was funny. It is. If you haven’t seen it yet, enjoy:

I’ll be pulling a Republican ballot in the primary, but I’m still a little undecided on who to vote for. Who do you think is the best candidate? This thread isn’t limited to Republicans — if you pull a Democratic ballot, I’d like to hear who you favor in that primary as well. But more important than who you favor is why you favor them. I’d like to know what it is about the candidate that made you decide, “that’s the person I want to vote for!”