I didn't have enough room in the question for this additonal input: Chicago is a combat zone. Who is in charge? The leadership in Illinois. And they are: Senator Barack Obama (Democrat) Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat) Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (Democrat) Governor. Rod Blogojevich (Democrat) House leader Mike Madigan (Democrat) Attorney. General. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),(Democrat) Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley) (Democrat) And who is to blame? Of course they're all blaming each other. Why? They can't blame Republicans, there aren't any! State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) Sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look it up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he says he is going to 'fix' Washington politics? I don't know how much Obama could have done to change any of this but it's for sure that the democrats are the only ones who could do anything because they don't have any elected republicans. So, I agree with the question, "If these are all democrats and Obama is (apparently) their number one guy, what can he fix anywhere else when he can't even do anything to help Chicago or Illinois?" And, there's my question.

As a fellow Illinoian, Illinois is in bad shape. Has been for a while and will be for many years to come. If Illinois got a honest politician (and i use honest liberally) it may turn around in a couple of terms if we are lucky. I too think that Obama is full of *explicit* and wouldnt vote for him if it meant my life depended upon it.

In all fairness, Mr. Obama is now a US Senator, no longer a State Senator. He and Senator Durbin help run America, not Illinois. You are correct that Chicago is ran by all Democrats, and your list seemed to omit Cook County Board President Todd Stroger, the man who has stealing an election down to an art. And let us not forget about their Superintendant of Police. I forget his name, but what a bang up job he's doing. I am no Senator Obama supporter, and many on this board may be surprised if they read my comments here, but it would be unfair to blame Senators Obama or Durbin for a mess they didn't create, not for the violence in the Chicago borders, anyway. One could easily blame the voters for them voting the same guys in over and over again, though they did get rid of Alderman Tillman, so they ain't all bad. ;-) And, while we're at it, there really is nothing wrong with Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and if a Republican can't unseat Governor Blagojevich this nexy election, I hope she pulls a Governor Palin and unseats the governor of her own party.

Oy. A US senator has no, zero, jurisdiction over the city of Chicago, and no influence on its politics.

1) Where did you get your figures for Iraq? Does it include Iraqis? 2) Governor Blogojevich and Mayor Daley are in charge of Chicago. I think both are corrupt. 3) A US Senator may have some political "clout," but it is not his place to tell the governor or the mayor what to do. It is his job to represent me in the Senate. 4)This question is just an Ad Hominim attack against Senator Obama.

I am amazed at this information and the numbers compared. If this is true, i completely agree with you.

Im pretty sure if you look for those stat every senator,and every other politicans have areas that are just bigger then them. Trying to pin a whole epidmic in Illionis on Barack Obama would be just idotic beacuse it's not Barack Obama job to police the streets he's not a police officer he's a senator all he can do is be like a coach and pass laws or call plays and hope those under him do what it takes to achieve his desired goal. So what im saying is even if Barack said we're going to make it a no murder zone it would be up to those under him enforce it but still the whole situation doesn't fall on his lap alone.

As usual, it is transparent that this is nothing more than a carefully worded opportunistic attack on Sen. Obama. What really should be at issue here are the conditions that create the situation in which 292 Chicagoans feel the need to murder each other. Aren't there enough GOOD PAYING jobs for these people? OF COURSE NOT, they're all being "outsourced" to India and China. Can a person make a living at a minimum-wage job (and why is the minimum wage so low?). If a person can't earn a good living they will turn to other means to support themselves such as drug running and theft. You are correct in saying that we need to look at our state and federal leadership in these issues, but to only look at murder statistics and not the underlying causes only treats a symptom and not the disease itself.

Amorphous Blob AKA Bolbsu Ohproma “Oy. A US senator has no, zero, jurisdiction over the city of Chicago, and no influence on its politics.” Wow! There are only 2 US Senators from Illinois, to say they have “no influence on its politics.” Is beyond bizarre, why were they elected if not to represent their state, the people of it’s cities including the protection of its people, in other words “the politics of the state AND its cities.

by Dr.Toxic “What really should be at issue here are the conditions that create the situation in which 292 Chicagoans feel the need to murder each other. Aren't there enough GOOD PAYING jobs for these people? OF COURSE NOT, they're all being "outsourced" to India and China.” So why are we not seeing the EXACT same thing in EVERY city through out the USA? “feel the need to murder each other” that is.

He wasn't in charge of Illinois.

MrJosh “We "miss the point" because your argument is partially irrelevant and partially false. There have been problems in Chicago for decades, probably longer” Actually I think you missed the point. “problems in Chicago for decades” Yep true, and Obama has been involved with Chicago politics for decades as well. Community organizer all the way through to Senator. Considering nothing much has changed in Chicago, it would be fair to judge Obama as an abject failure for the people of Chicago and all of Illinois. “Having not fixed them is not an argument against him.” Uhm yes it is, unless you can convince me that “fixing” problems was not his job. BTW what do you think his job as a Community organizer all the way through to Senator was? To ignore problems? “Also, that bit about Senator Obama only voting "present" is false.” Are you claiming Obama NEVER voted "present" as an Illinois senator? BTW can you explain why on days when he was in DC he voted on something’s yet on the same day “missed” other votes? Votes that his fellow Senators did not miss? Kinda sorta like voting "present"

Look, I don't think Obama can fix America, and I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. BUT this data is completely irrelevant and tangental to that fact. Obama is a US senator, and those aren't SUPPOSED to be running cities in their states. They're supposed to be representing their states on a national level. It's NOT Obama's job to cut the murder rate in Chicago. That'd be the mayor, the governor, and the other local officials. Next time get SOME understanding of political mechanism before using irrelevant numbers to support your statements. It makes "our side" look bad. In fact, it makes "our side" bad. You don't have to be stupid to think Obama would be a bad leader, and using stupid-data to "prove" it makes people think you do.

Where are you getting the idea that a Senator has anything to do with leading the people of a state? A Senator is one of two representatives of a state in the US Senate, not a leader of said state. I have seen some pretty ridiculous political contortions around here lately, but this is a quite an absurd stretch. If you truly don't know that the leadership of a state resides with the Governor, you may want to brush up on your civics.

I was not aware that Barack Obama was the dictator of Illinois. **The More You Know!**

How many zeros are you missing on the Iraq figures? 221 may be the figure in one day or maybe even one morning but most certainly not in six months. You people are so willing to discredit the other side by any means that you show your malice, ignorance and lies just by opening your mouth. If you keep it shut, at least you won't hurt yourself

So, going by your logic you would prefer that 292 people die every 6 months rather then 221. Makes sense.

It would be better if we did a "Brain count", some seem to be missing theirs.

I don't think you have noticed that Senator Obama works in the State Senate and not in Illinois, he has no business in his home city and has a lot more work to do where he is. For your information the United States Generals in Iraq have said they do not do body counts, so there is no way of knowing how many US soldiers have been killed in that stupid war where my husband was also killed four months ago. Regarding the Iraqi civilians there is a press institution called "Iraqi Body Count" [IBC] according to them the amount of Iraqis killed between February 4th and February 17th was of 769 civilians this only in 13 days. So just imagine how many may have been killed to date. The problem with your data is that you have used Google to find the information which is fine, but you then checked the headlines and did not read the full articles so your information is incorrect. Never do that it only leads to misinformation. If we have all learned something from these elections is to research and make sure we post the right information including the corresponding link.

I got this same message in an email from a friend, who in turn got it from someone else. It's clear that it's in the process of being troweled around the Intarwebs, in all its badly formatted, poorly written, muckraking glory. In my email, it was originally composed in MSWord, with lots of pretty colors AND HUGE FONTS. Clearly, someone had help from our friend Mr. Clippy; all that's missing is a BLINK tag. Also, it's set in tables. GAH! The CSS/HTML in it is horribly crufty and... what's the word... pants. You're lucky you only have to see it in plain text. I live in Illinois, and I agree that this data is suspect, the conclusions it seems to be leading to make no sense, and the list of politicians mostly don't have anything to do with running Chicago, or with law enforcement or criminal justice in Chicago. Really, it's all about raising doubts in the minds of voters. Any old facts will do, so long as at least some of them are even partially true. It's based on a false premise, that the people of Illinois are miserable under Democratic leadership and want to "get rid" of Barack Obama. No, we're quite proud of him, because he's different from the usual kind of politician we produce (Lincoln excepted), and gosh darn it, we like him. Some of us long for reform-minded politicians who'll clean up the corruption that Illinois and Chicago is famous for - but with a couple of exceptions, most of the people named on this list are pretty decent, hard-working types. As stated correctly upthread, the list is missing Todd Stroger's name; he inherited the presidency of the Cook County Board in a scandalous and corrupt "election" and is probably the person most responsible for high Cook County taxes (either that, or his puppeteers). I voted for the reform candidate, Forrest Claypool. Claypool is still on the board, and there's a lot of reformist backlash in the Chicago suburbs, so it's probably just a matter of time. People are getting more and more fed up with "politics as usual" and the Chicago clout/patronage system... which doesn't officially exist, of course. It doesn't really affect me that much out here in the 'burbs, but it offends me, because I've always lived in states and cities where political corruption was something rare, or something from history books. As for the Chicago School System, it's in turnaround, and a recent article in the New York Times (believe it or not) described it as one of the most improved systems in the country. The great improvement is very much under the leadership of Daley. I think he runs a corrupt Machine, kind of like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, so no one can really see him working the controls. But on the issue of education reform, he's really made a lot of progress, and positive change is underway. That's about the only good thing I can say for him. The state pension fund is indeed in trouble for about that amount, or was in a recent article I found. A former Republican governor warned that it was headed that way years and years ago, but his Republican successor, George Ryan, did nothing and probably made it worse by inaction (and is now in prison for corruption and election scandals, but nothing to do with the pension fund). Blago is indeed a huge disappointment. He was elected mostly because people wanted to boot Ryan, otherwise known as "Official A" while under investigation. Blago's also kind of a do-nothing, though he's got in-law problems; one of his bill-blocking opponents in the legislature is his father-in-law or something. There probably is an ongoing investigation: situation normal, Illinois governor is always called "Official A." I'd be open to voting for Blago's opponent of whichever party, so long as they were A)reform minded, B)moderate and C) a reality-based life form. An ability to write official state memos using valid CSS/HTML coding would be helpful, but not necessary.

I don't support Senator Obama, but I dislike messed up information. 292 murders in Chicago is a drop in the bucket for Iraq. The 221 mentioned are troops. That would be more equivalent to 292 cop killings in Chicago. That would be war, and the civilian death toll would be as insane as it is here.

Could it be that you forgot the Iraqi death? 1) "While estimates on the number of casualties during the invasion in Iraq vary widely, the majority of deaths and injuries have occurred after U.S. President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations" on May 1, 2003. According to CNN, the U.S. government reported that 139 American military personnel were killed before May 1, 2003, while over 4,000 have been killed since 2003. Estimates on civilian casualties are more variable than those for military personnel. According to Iraq Body Count, a group that relies on Western press reports to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase, while more than 60,000 civilians have been killed as of April 2007. In November 2006 Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqis have been killed. Al-Shemari based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total. The Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, estimates much higher civilian casualties, but does not differentiate between the invasion phase (March-May 2003) and the occupation phase (post May 2003). The Lancet survey estimates that over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the conflict, with the vast majority of these deaths occurring after May 2003. The Lancet study, however, may be based on a biased (intentional or accidental) sample. The Iraq Body Count analysis of the Lancet study shows glaring inconsistencies in the survey's findings. A September 14, 2007 estimate by ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent British polling agency, suggests that the total Iraqi violent death toll due to the Iraq War since the US-led invasion is in excess of 1.2 million (1,220,580). Although higher than the 2006 Lancet estimate, these results, which were based on a survey of 1499 adults in Iraq from August 12-19, 2007, are more or less consistent with the figures that were published in the Lancet study. On January 28, 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Death_toll 2) ""According to the Defense Department, 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period." Death only affects soldiers? What about the Iraqi's? Dont they count when making a death comparision?" "As usual this article totally ignores the Iraqi casualties. But I guess they really don't matter. I think this basically defines what the real problem in Iraq has been, as well as the broader problem of global terrorism. The measure of success in Iraq shouldn't be the number of US deaths. Whilst there remains such a callous disregard for the pain and suffering of non-americans I don't think the problem of terrorism is ever going to go away." "Since nearly 3 million people live int he City of Chicago itself, comparing exact numbers of dead is erroneous. We have less than 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, so that means 150/3000 = 5% of the population of Chicago, so the death rate is still far higher (about ten times as high) for the soldiers. I wonder how both rates compare to Iraqi civilians." Source and further information: http://digg.com/world_news/Chicago_death_toll_double_that_of_Iraq 3) "Chicago Police Department Monique Bond claims that gang violence is to blame for the spike in violent crime. "The department's been focusing on targeting gang hierarchies, which have been dismantled over an extended period of time. [That's] causing gangs to now operate in smaller crews that compete against each other for narcotic turf, which leads to deadly violence...Law enforcement is having to adapt to that and looking at different kinds of ways that are outside the traditional ways that we've been using to attack gang violence."" Source and further information: http://chicagoist.com/2008/08/07/chicagos_murder_rate_up.php 4) "In a city that has improved by almost every measure -- from infant mortality to public education, from calmer race relations to the broad diversity of its economy -- one civic failure stubbornly defies conquest. Not since 1967 has a year concluded with fewer than 600 people being murdered here. Last year's total was 665, up from 631 in 2000. As of Friday, this year's toll stood at 571, with 10 percent of the year yet to go. Chicago's murder total topped those of all U.S. cities last year. More significantly, Chicago's murder rate -- total homicides divided by the population of 2.9 million -- was the highest of the nine U.S. cities with populations above 1 million. Some smaller cities (including Detroit, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore) had higher rates. Still, last year was the seventh of the last eight in which Chicago's rate was the highest, or tied for highest, of the cities with million-plus populations. If raw numbers were the only measure, Chicago could brag of some success. The number of murders here last year was 29 percent below the 1992 total. That's not so dramatic as the drop in murders for the entire country, which last year totaled 15,980, or 35 percent below a 1993 peak. Still, Chicago's numbers are much improved from an era in which fear of crime was America's obsession. Yet there's an insidious element beneath the surface of Chicago's murder statistics, a relationship to race and class that keeps many Chicagoans, like citizens of other big cities, from becoming too exercised about the terrorized neighborhoods where toe tags on young bodies are as predictable as winter winds from the north. Put short, the murder rate here isn't the outrage it should be. One reason is that, for many Chicagoans, murder is about "them," not "us": Fewer than 7 percent of last year's homicide victims were white. And 65 percent of the victims previously had been arrested by Chicago police (although most often for nonviolent offenses). As the map at right suggests, the disparity is geographic as well, with most murders taking place in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods. " "As this discussion opens, each of us should accept one truth: Nothing will change if only people in terrorized neighborhoods care deeply about the carnage. Those who don't have to live in those neighborhoods -- whether they're part of City Hall, the business community or the surrounding city and suburbs -- understand that they are relatively safe. Yet if Chicago is ever to cut its murder rate, cracking that self-satisfied attitude may well be the greatest challenge of all. " Source and further information: http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.19727/content.content_view.htm

Good question! +5 :D

If Obama is responsible for the crime rate in Illinois then I suppsect that McCain is responsible for the increasing crime rate in the state of Arazona...Right! Commission says Arizona has the Highest Crime Rate by Associated Press An organization called the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission said Arizona once again has the highest crime rate in the nation. That's despite a national trend toward less violent crime. "Auto thefts, we're No. 1 - property crime overall, we're No. 1," said John Blackburn with the commission. The commission said the state is second in larceny rates, fourth in burglary rates and fifth in homicides. According to a report, criminal justice commission also noted substantial increases in murder and rape. In the last decade in Arizona, the murder rate increased by about 11 percent and the rate of rapes increased by about 13 percent. http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=64924 Bullfrog-What say you?