Sally Quinn floated the news/rumor that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is considering a run for Mayor of Chicago.
Could we be so lucky?
It's in The Swamp:
Quinn writes today, "Emanuel is said to have told people that the chief-of-staff role is an 18-month job and that he is considering a run for mayor of Chicago."
And on HuffPo:
Quinn, who believes White House social secretary Desiree Rogers should resign over the party-crashing incident, wonders if it's Emanuel's political calculations that may be shielding her: Rogers is a major social and political player in the Windy City.
The Swamp points out that, "Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's term is up in early 2011. Daley has not said whether he will seek re-election [...] Daley's popularity has suffered with the privatization of parking meters, a tough economy and the loss of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. His wife also is in ill health. The question of seeking re-election is open to question, but he may well do so in the absence of a legitimate challenger."
I don't know whether Chicagoans would consider Emanuel a "legitimate challenger," but despite his sell-out of strong health care reform, he at least doesn't have a pesky parking meter problem. One wonders if he's ready to go local after being such a big shot on a National stage? The locals are musing, "Having been the man behind the curtain for two presidents now, as well as his stint as Fifth District Congressman, he's found power in the federal government. And is he really ready to step away from the White House already? He stayed with Clinton for five years. But maybe he's ready to step to the front of the stage on the civic level and run America's third largest city. And if Rahm were to announce his candidacy today, he'd certainly be the front-runner opponent to Mayor Daley, right?"
Personally, I can't feature it unless he figures he's gonna have to deliver Illinois like Daly Senior did[n't] for John Kennedy, come 2012?
Anyway, I wonder if he really would be a "front runner" in a Chicago race? Anyone have a thought on that?