Rahm has proven a poor choice for Mayor of Chicago.

[bemildred]

I can see this rhetorical strategy has a lot of possibilities, which makes up in some part for its total lack of content.

[gateley]

1. I thought he was a poor Chief of Staff -- but I didn't really come to that conclusion

until after he'd been at the job for a while.

I'm thinking I just don't like him much.

[tularetom]

2. I know you think you're going to start something

But I don't think you've picked a very controversial topic. There aren't many DU'ers who will disagree with your premise.

I will say this; he has proven a far better choice for mayor of Chicago than he was for WH Chief of Staff. Not that his replacement has turned out to be any better.

[bemildred]

5. No, I just wanted to say that.

Starting something would be a bonus, but as you point out, unlikely.

[Union Scribe]

3. Of course he was. nt

[Drale]

4. This is true but

I don't think any of the crazy people who ran for Mayor would have done a better job.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. You'd HAVE to be crazy to run against him ...

... he had the Chicago Democratic machine behind him.

Who in their right mind would run against that?

[dawg]

7. I'm just glad he's there.

And out of Washington.

Sorry about that Chicago.

[DCKit]

8. Me too, but I was hoping he wouldn't win, for the sake of Chicago.

He's FROM Chicago, and they didn't know he was an out-of-control control freak with a hair-trigger temper?

Sheeit, half the stuff he did in DC while CoS (right or wrong) was just to prove he had the biggest dick in the room.

The dude's got serious issues.

[hughee99]

9. Did anyone thing this wasn't going to happen?

Don't worry, I'm sure Rahm has cut all sorts of back-room deals that will continue to screw the people of Chicago long after he's left office. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[frazzled]

10. Do you live here in Chicago?

For that matter, does anyone responding in the thread live in Chicago?

I do. He's actually been pretty popular here so far: last approval ratings (end of August) had him at 52% approval, 16% disapproval (I guess 32% have no opinion). That's versus Governor Quinn (whom I like a lot) with a 24% approval vs. 37% disapproval rating. People's alderman get 35% vs. 23%. So for a politician who inherited a massive budget deficit in the city, he's not doing badly.

The OP gives no reasons why Rahm has proven a poor choice, so I have no idea what the conversation is here.

Just anecdotally, last week a friend flew in to visit from another state. When he arrived at our place he said, "Is Emmanuel doing well?" "I can't say for sure, yet, but he hasn't done any harm" I responded. He then explained that the African American cabdriver he got from Midway to our house downtown had talked his head off for the entire ride telling him how much better Rahm was than Daley--saying he actually cared about people and neighborhoods on the South Side, was doing more to bring down crime in his neighborhood, etc." My cynical friend was impressed that this was the attitude of the "average Joe" here.