AP sucks donkeys? Hold on -- I'm getting the vapors!

Looks like the AP is still living in the Solomon Era. Let's recall who owns the AP - a man named Murdoch.

Of course, the question media pundit types will now ask is, why didn't Obama just come out on Tuesday or Wednesday and say that Emanuel had talked to Blago? (Ed Rendell all but said he should have.)n

It could just be that Obama wanted to make sure that this was the ONLY contact there had been about the matter.

But it also may be that Obama and Rahm were trying to avoid what is likely now to happen: immense pressure from those same pundit types not to say GOPers for Fitz to release the transcript of the Rahm-Blago conversation and for Obama to press Fitz to do so.

Apparently Obama and Rahm really don't want that to happen, not because Rahm was guilty of any illegality or impropriety (Fitz said there was none, and for that matter so did Blago on the tapes), but because that conversation probably contained some frank (not to say profane) observations on Rahm's part on other politicians, such that would if made public at least be tremendously embarrassing, and might perhaps even preclude Rahm from serving as WH chief of staff.

I'm sure Obama and Rahm hope that before it comes to that, Blago ends the story (or at least the feeding frenzy) by stepping down. Late word is he may do that as soon as tomorrow.

It seems all too clear the AP is a bit challenged staying on story these days. If its empirical misjudgments continue it may find itself going the way of the dinosaurs of yesteryear!

Or rather, the AP is beginning to serve as the departure point for the blogosphere to do the investigative reporting we all deserve, but are not obviously getting from AP's dispatches as of late. -Kevo

Not to mention the fact that Blago himself was quoted as having said on tape, to paraphrase: "Obama won't play. Fuck him." Isn't that proof of no openness to deal-making by anyone in the Obama camp? As to whether not reporting the attempt at deal-making was a sin of omission, we don't know for sure that reporting the Blago overture did NOT take place nor do we know how 'graceful' Blago may have been in his overture, making the reporting of such a sticky question. In any case, given the real political world, I'm just glad the Obama camp refused to deal. That's good enough for me.

Oops. I see my comment was a bit off-thread as well as being simplistic. As Steven Berke says, having tapes released could be embarrassing for other than legal reasons.

The issue for me is why Obama can't just come out and say "Of course, we spoke to the Governor about the seat. Filling this vacancy would be of great interest for me and my staff as it would be for any incoming President. The staffers who spoke to him were X and X. But we certainly didn't and would never engage in any fraudulent behavior and were unaware of any taking place."

Instead it looks like they're playing close to the vest about what transpired. And that leads people to think there's a story there.

The AP should, however, try to get its facts straight.

It's only natural wingnuts would find this outrageous. If no one from the Obama camp had talked with Blago, it would be a sign of the incompetence that the far right has come to celebrate. Every missed opportunity for incompetence is an attack on their values.

Obama's bind here is that there's not much he can say without the story becoming about who he suggested to fill his seat. At this stage of the transition, that's a can of worms any competent president-elect would rather avoid.

So, what have we learned?

Oh, wait. We already knew that.

As mentioned in the first comment. We've learned that the AP is run by hacks.

The story here is the AP bias. The AP got its facts just as straight as they want them to be. What they're doing is building their own narrative with a thousand nudges of the truth.

What happens with Blagojevich means little. What happens when one news source becomes the feed for every major paper in the nation means a lot. We're on our way to becoming Venezuela, where 90% of the media propagandize incessantly on behalf of 10% of the population, but we have no Chavez.

What's that you say, you don't want any Chavez? Congratulations, you have been nudged 10,000 times by unsupported allegations that Chavez is a 'demagogue', a 'thug', etc etc.

What will determine whether we become a nation like Venezuela was before the election of Chavez are other trends and events, almost all of them well below the frothy surface of what you see in your daily paper or on the "news".

You and I don't think much about this, people like Murdoch do. We can't afford to purchase regulators or influence Senators who will vote on anti-trust legislation, Murdoch is.

But there are things we can do. If you know the real story, and vote with your feet by moving close to rail transit, so the next rise in gas prices won't affect you so much, you create your own reality that actually benefits you.

Just don't wait for "the media" to tell you to do it.

So, this time, it’s Obama himself, and not Ax that made a statement that would seem to be “ inoperative ,� to use a Nixon-era term, with the communications issue serious that even Ed Rendell is saying he effed up, and B.O.’s Essence mag flak is caught as part of the misstatement as well, and …

The best spin MSLBs (MainStream “Liberal� Blogs) like WM can come up is, “move along, there’s no story here�?

Puhleeze.

I guess you’re still not tasting the bitter almonds in your Kool-Aid.

Glad I voted Green again this year.

I'm not saying anything Obama has done is criminal, but he and his staff have already fast-tracked a pattern of "misspeaking" on several issues, not just this.

Umm...socraticgadly

huh?

i love concern trolls but pleaze, given the options and the previous 8 years, i'll take my kool aid, straight no chaser

Isn't the key fact here that Rahm provided "a list" of possible candidates?

When you provide a list, you are not really going to the mattresses for anyone, in fact, you are actively insulating yourself from responsibility for the final choice.

You also make it more difficult for any quid pro quo as the list grows longer. Invariably some on the list will have other supporters who are all in for a single candidate. You can't extort the party who isn't invested in a single result.

Damn Liberal press!

Why can't they at least be as entertaining as Bill O'Reilly having a heart attack?

The misstatement comes from AP. Enough said. It had to be either them, CNN or Fox. Those three have so lost their way that a good journalist wouldn't recognize them anymore. Remember that it was someone from AP that gave us the concept of tire swinging. And that the head honcho for AP was a major McCain supporter and worked for his campaign.