Learning On the Job.

Sounds like Chicago's new mayor was shamed into knowing his role:

Emanuel, facing criticism from Republicans, on Monday cancelled a planned appearance at a Chicago fundraiser for a super PAC backing Democratic house candidates and suspended his fundraising on behalf of Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

“Everything is on hold at this moment,” Tom Bowen, head of Emanuel’s political operation, told POLITICO in an email.

There are “no plans at this time” to reschedule his scheduled appearance for House Majority PAC, said Andy Stone, a spokesman for the super PAC. The fundraiser, reported last week by POLITICO, will proceed Monday at a Chicago steakhouse without Emanuel, Stone said.
...
“Chicago families deserve the mayor’s complete attention this week,” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady said in a statement. “Mayor Emanuel should put aside his Obama Super PAC fundraising work and put Chicago issues first.”

The funny thing is,
I suspect many of us believe Barack Obama -- with his multi-racial background and community organizing skills, plus his dedicated wife --  might have made a perfectly effective Chicago mayor in the post-Daley era. 

Where better to tackle the crime, education, health and welfare issues on a smaller scale, rather than the nation-building/foreign policy package which has so eluded the president's people?  (Yes, I include Hillary here.  Nevermind her boosters, aside from the hairstyle changes and worldwide carrot/dollars delivery, what exactly has she accomplished abroad again?  For the country, not in building her own career, I mean...)

But when the political games ended,
Chief of Staff Daley was out a job;  Mayor Emanuel sits on Chicago's golden throne; and the president is fighting to keep his job.

If competition is key to these folks,
why not consider a run for local office, if nationally the voters decide such progressivism is not a good fit for the country as a whole?  Mayor Emanuel v. former President Obama for the right to decide Chicago's future.

Is the job not big enough, or the people not important enough, to risk working in a smaller setting?  If so, that seems a shame.  Instead of manipulating the system, it would be nice to see these allegedly skillful political players compete against one another to produce something long-lasting for the people they claim to want to empower.

Education is key, and crime is something that must be addressed, not simply "contained" to gang-infested neighborhoods.  It's a huge job, sure, but once you get past the message manipulating, the fundraising "work" and the high-pressure tactics of running a successful election campaign, surely you'd want to put your skills to use to actually accomplish something for the good of the people?

(and no, I don't count forcing insurance on the formerly uninsured -- plenty by choice --as some grand accomplishment for the good of the people...)