Who cares, though? Johan Q. Public isn't paying any attention to this shit- he's worrying whether he'll have a paycheck next week.

Just another example of the Liberal media going after innocent Conservatives.

We can't let a scandal-free vacuum go unfilled, can we?

Some are speculating that Abe Lincoln may be tainted as a result of Blagojevich's actions. In support of this conclusion, I note that Lincoln has not yet made a public statement denying involvement in the scandal.

"Obama Failure To Report Blago Raises Questions"

"Is Obama Openness First Sign Of Coverup?"

"Lack Of Evidence Rouses Suspicion"

"Is Obama Presidency D.O.A.?"

If, in Napoleon's army, there was a marshal's baton in every private's backpack, in today's journalism ithere's a Pulitzer in every Obama campaign stringer's laptop case, and Jeff Gerth is Napoleon.

Paul Wolfowitz once blocked a door to a room in Baghdad so Rumsfeld could personally "interrogate" some female prisoners.

Spread it around.

Ahhh, the blatherings of a retarded national media. After 8 scrutiny-free years of the media ignoring raging infernos of scandal and malfeasance in the Bush administration, they suddenly see fire where there is no smoke.

It surely will not go unmentioned that both Blagojevich and Obama have in common the same characteristically brown color of their feces.

The country has had enough of the Jefferson, Obama, Blogovich types in power!

The links are clear: black(ish), from Illinois and scandal plagued! Tied together nicely!

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for reporters to completely fabricate news stories and deny their readers the objective truth. I'm so glad such unethical behavior is contained to this one incident.

Or maybe I'm being sarcastic and think that what goes around comes around.

ckelly nails it. After all the Abramoff stuff--including Bush denying he'd ever met Abramoff only to have photos surface of them together on numerous occasions--the press politely declined to ask any questions of anyone at all. Indeed, coverage was muted of what should have been one of the biggest, most wide-ranging corruption scandals in American history.

But, now we have a Democrat as president elect. Any relationship--or even no relationship at all--to anyone even vaguely suspected of something impolitic or illegal during the last half century will be enough to prompt headlines about how Obama's presidency is dead because of the overwhelming taint.

You're being disingenuous. The passage means that circumstances -- gov of his home state, selling his seat -- causes questions to be raised, and that's bad, even when you get a clean bill of health from the prosecutor. Since prosecutors typically refuse to discuss details outside the charges, Fitzgerald did go out of his way to discuss something he would normally have no commented. Which means he recognized the danger of the circumstances to Obama.

The best blogging does not usually come from being intentionally dense about the shorthand some other reporter has used so that you can criticize it.

Why do I get the feeling the reporting isn't going to get any better?

An Obama presidency in which everyone sits down, works out solutions, and actually solves problems in a grown-up manner... man, you couldn't dream up a scenario more threatening to mainstream media.

Steve Benen wrote: "In what universe does this make sense?"

In the universe of the handful of giant media corporations that want to preemptively undermine public support for the Obama administration, which might raise taxes on corporations and their ultra-rich CEOs a teeny tiny bit, or roll back the Cheney-Bush policy of radically deregulating media ownership to enable those corporations to gobble up the few remaining independent TV and radio stations and networks in America.

Steve Benen wrote: "Why do I get the feeling the reporting isn't going to get any better?"

Because it won't, as long as America's mass media is nothing more than the wholly-owned propaganda arm of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. in its ruthless, rapacious class war against everyone else.

Show me PROOF or SHUT UP!!! Otherwise, you are speculating and GUESSING. Let the facts come out (yes, it will take time so be patient).

Part of this has to do with Obama being so available to the press. I can count on both hands how many press conferences Bush 43 had in his 8 years as President and most of those were in the beginning before someone realized how stupid, incompetent, and unable to address 'real' issues/questions that Bush was.

So then it became his press secretary's job and other administration official's jobs to do his work. Bush would only do speeches in controlled non-questioning environments. Don't you remember the fiascos that would happen every time Bush tried to answer real questions from the press? It was embarassing.

Give Obama some credit for his willingness and ABILITY to answer questions directly and articulately.

Bush wishes he could be like Obama. Obama will not have to resort to passing out Talking Points of his Presidency to correct the truth about what he did as president.

Fitzgerald did go out of his way to discuss something he would normally have no commented. Which means he recognized the danger of the circumstances to Obama.

?

If he "no commented" about Obama, that would have been VERY VERY bad news for Obama because it would have caused endless speculation and made Fitzgerald's job less about the actual task at hand: Blago and all about what the President-elect potentially had to do with it.

By saying the MUCH BIGGER politician had no involvement in this mess, Fitzgerald was doing a public service, his job and clearly laying out where his investigation was centered.

You, like the clueless media, have it exactly opposite.

I'm sure Obama was watching the press conference thinking, "Damn, why does he keep clearing me? Is he trying to f@#$ing destroy my career?!?"

Obama's from Chicago, therefore he must be implicated. By the same logic, every New York politician must have frequented prostitutes, since Eliot Spitzer did.

If anyone wants to check out a fever-swamp on this topic, mosey on over to Hillary is 44. I swear, those people get more and more delusional with every passing day.

The whole Whitewater investigation was premised on a "guilt by association" with Jim McDougal, who was corrupt...

That's all the media moguls want with this so-called connection between Blago and Obama... a little "guilt by association" to titilate viewers and help out the opposing side.

The TIMES _reaaallly_ did a number on Jesse Jackson Jr. this morning, too. Headlines contradicted over in column 4, line 12. That sort of thing. Their headlines are getting into Batboy territory.

It isn't going to get any better in corporate print media.

I no longer read Time Magazine because they allowed Ann Coulter and Andrew Sullivan to pen articles.

Politico is the smaller, newer version of Faux News (google "Glenn Greenwald"+Politico) to see his blog entry about who finances them.

The Washington Post is polluted by Kurtz, Will and Krauthhammer (sic).

The NYT has Brooks and Kristol.

And don't get me started about AP (remember Nedra Pickler?).

With these kinds of individuals, who needs actual facts in one's reporting. It's not surprising to me that this kind right-wing echo chambering will filter into the actual news reporting.

I think in many of these cases, the new reporting and opinion columns are funneled through a similar (if not the same) right-wing editorial slants.

The only solution that I can think of to stop this kind of twisted faux journalism is to stop reading it.

You have to keep in mind that the Republican party has lived in a parallel universe that they define and explain and spin daily... and for many, many years, it worked.

I hope that now, as reality is around the corner, people will never believe what they say again. Ever notice how they really don't ever explain their motives? They have to spin all the decisions they make regarding policy to make them appear appropriate for the American People, because the truth behind their decisions is always tied to greed. They even have to rationalize greed, for that matter, as an earned right for being "industrious", when in fact, it is basically insideous and well-thought out plans to screw the lower class and make more money. No productivity or work is really involved - there's nothing to show for their time, but they have all the money anyway. Until they have an honorable cause, they are going to get roasted in this evolving economy, and starting right now, conspicuous consumption is going out of style.

Blago was the freakin' governor of Illinois. A lot of people had dealings with him. A whole lot of people. That doesn't make everyone who dealt with him corrupt or tainted by corruption or any such thing.

Obama is working closely with Bush, Paulson, and the Republicans in congress on the economy. His association with these guys is ongoing and much closer than any association with Blago. Does that make him a Republican?

Calabresi is obviously filling text space with sloppy blather. Case in point: "But for politicians, it's never good news when a top-notch prosecutor has to go out of his way to distance them from a front-page scandal." WTF does this reporter even mean with such an unqualifiable assertion? The use of "never" is idiotic and the rest is shear drivel (20 additional words taking up text space, but offering the reader nothing substantive).

As far as the rest of our media, their behaviors will reveal whether they believe in the nobility of their profession and give us the story in a timely, non-speculative manner that first ensures the reporter gets it accurately and fully; or if they are just a bunch of hacks looking for a paycheck by out-doing their "news" coverage with fluff, innuendo, titilation or in any other irrelevant way just to make a name for themselves. -Kevo

In what universe does this make sense? -- Steve Benen

In the not-so-parallel-anymore universe of an authoritarian State.

Back in Poland, whenever a rumour surfaced, we waited for the official denial. If it came, we knew for certain-sure that the rumour was true. If the government ignored the rumour instead of denying it, we ignored it too, knowing it was just a rumour. Up was down and down was up and we had to read tea leaves to figure where the truth was. And, since over the past 8yrs US has been inching ever closer to those "good old days", I'm not surprised that some of those practices are spilling into the "journalism" too. If Fitzerald denies Obama is in any way involved, then, ipso facto, Obama must be up to his neck in the mess.

But for politicians, it's never good news when a top-notch prosecutor has to go out of his way to distance them from a front-page scandal.

I think the reporter just phrased it inelegantly when what he of course meant to say was "But for Democratic politicians, it's never good news when a top-notch prosecutor has to go out of his way to distance them from a front-page scandal."

Obviously, in the case of a Republican politician such as, say, George Bush, the above rule does not apply when he is connected to a front-page scandal concerning corruption (Abramoff), treason ( Libby), obstruction of justice involving a shooting (Cheney) and gay prostitution (Jeff Gannon nee Guckert) -- even assuming that such scandals are deemed front-page worthy when Republicans might be discomfited.

Truman was accused of corruption by the press and by some other Democrats, even though he was not corrupt in the least. Get used to it. Your guy is in the spotlight now, and every little detail looks like a blemish.

The Obama team continued their campaign practice of telling little white lies when the simple truth would have been better. Of course Obama discussed with Blagojavich some possible replacements for Obama, just as Axelrod said. Why change the story? Obama was non-committal, and had no idea that Blagojavich was auctioning the seat. What was wrong with saying it that way?

Where have you been for the last year? Liz Sidoti was one of mccain's base and she never changed. She works for Ron Fournier out of the D.C. AP bureau, which should say volumes about her treatment of Obama if you have been paying attention.

I saw a post (in Serbian) blasphemously commenting on what that person thought of Blagoyevich and what his behavior did to the standing of Serbs in the US. Calabresi just did the same thing for the Italians.