Assuming that the question truly was "How likely is it that President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal?" It is not an "awkwardly-worded question", it is a horribly worded question. It's a question of probability asking people to prove a negative, because who can be certain with 100% probability that neither President-Elect Obama nor his staff was involved in the Blagojevich scandal. This is a question that a student taking his first course in statistics would be embarassed to ask.

I understand that the MSM has a lot of space to fill and so jumps on this story but you are in a different position and you don't have to spend so much time/ink on their stupidity.

Nobody ever won a Pulitzer for writing, "President Elect Not Involved in Scandal."

Steve Benen wrote: "It follows a week of inexplicable media reports about Obama's non-existent role in the matter, reality notwithstanding."

The reports are only "inexplicable" to "sensible liberal" bloggers who are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious: that the so-called "news media" in the USA is nothing more or less than the wholly-owned propaganda arm of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

The corporate-owned mass media does not operate in the public interest, out of the goodness of its heart, to impartially inform the American people about facts and issues.

The corporate-owned mass media operates in the interests of its owners, i.e. a handful of giant corporations, by relentlessly propagandizing the American people in furtherance of the corporate elite's ruthless, rapacious class warfare against everyone else.

And that's why the corporate media is already working overtime to manufacture nonexistent "links" between Obama and the Blagojevich scandal. That's why CNN and NPR are busily "reporting" that "some people are saying" that the Blagojevich scandal is "casting a shadow" over Obama's administration -- when the only "people" who are "saying" such things are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the rest of the openly partisan Republican right-wing extremist media.

This is a textbook example of how the corporate-owned, so-called "mainstream" media works in close collaboration with the right-wing extremist media to attack and undermine Democratic candidates and Democratic politicians who, if they have strong public support, might actually govern in the public interest instead of the corporate interest.

It is really inexplicable to me that you find the media's behavior inexplicable. What do you expect from a bunch of bought-and-paid-for corporate propaganda shills? Journalism? Give me a break.

Tpmelectioncentral is reporting that Obama has finished his review. However, Fitzgerald's office is requesting that they not release it until next week, so that it won't impede the investigation. Tea leaf reading tonight at five.

The use of the word, scandal, is very telling as to the motivation of the pollster. My perception of the response is that people disregard the use of the word, scandal, and interpret it as the Blagojevich issue or controversy. It would weem inconceivable that someone in the Obama transition team was NOT in some kind of communication with the Governor's office. To offer no input into the selection of a new Senator for Obama's vacated seat would be irresponsible, and that would be subject to more suspicion than having some involvement.

I find that the consistent failure of this site to actually present the questions asked by the pollsters is irresponsible. In this case, the questions is quoted because it is telling on the motivation of the pollster. I'd like to see the actual questionnaires posted somewhere as part of the survey results of all polls sited.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

I had trouble figuring out what "very likely" would have meant in response to that question. Plus, top aides? That could be, like, 20 different people. Why not just ask if I think it is very likely that someone, somewhere was involved in a scandal?

Shorter Steve Benen: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

It was after yet another half-hour of "why-won't-he-answer-these-questions-so-we-won't-be-FORCED-to-keep-asking-them" coverage on "Morning Joe" today that my daughter asked me why I kept watching if I was just going to yell at the TV. She has a point. Poor Joe - he so wants to talk about the auto bailout, Afghanistan, and the economy, but Obama forces him to go on and on about Blagojevich. I dodn't see it myself, but I understand the panel finally got around to talking about the need for a special prosecutor. Imagine that, a bunch of Republicans calling for a special prosecutor.

Imagine that, a bunch of Republicans calling for a special prosecutor.

I guess they think Fitzgerald was only special enough to go after Libby and Rove. By the way, is special just a euphomism for slow?

Obama, a campaign aide, or a friend of a second cousin of a campaign aide's form spouse.
There are "some" who still have questions about all this.

I find that the consistent failure of this site to actually present the questions asked by the pollsters is irresponsible. -- st john, @15:23

All you have to do to find out how, exactly, the question was worded is follow the link, which Steve does provide (in this particular case, it's in the words "a new Rasmussen poll"). Once there, you'll find that, although a full analysis of the results is the main feature, the original question and raw results are available somewhere on that page also (in this case, upper right-hand corner).

I find Steve's snippets and general analysis a useful shortcut, when time is scarce. If I have the time and the interest, I follow the links (and, perhaps, links from the links, etc. Which is why, for obsessives like myself, Steve's shortcuts
are a gift from heaven)

that should read "former spouse". I can't even get a snarky comment right.

Of course they were involved. Blogojevich tried to cut a deal with them, they declined and then put in a call to Fitzgerald, who lowered the boom.

How hard is that to understand?

Seems to me that this is about the media trying to gin up a few ratings points or newsstand purchases by making the story bigger than it is. Theoretically, more people will care about the story the more they tie it to Obama, so that's what they're going with. It would be nice if they had a greater sense of professional ethics, but apparently they dont.

This is fucking perfect. Fitzgerald says Obama and his people have ZERO to do with this crap.ZERO. Thus, there is nothing to 'believe' to the contrary. Yet, according to Rasmussen, that is exactly what has happened: 'believing' that there is because of the Evil Corporate Media so perfectly described by
SecularAnimist above he nailed this whole fucking deal.

Thanks, exlibra. I was too lazy to follow the links, so made an assumption. I do think it is significant how the questions are phrased. The biases of the pollster may be clearly identified in how the questions are phrased. I am rarely polled; when I am, I usually do not complete the session because of the way the questions are phrased.

Obama is an amazing man and his team, while not always the people some of us progressives would choose, will be managed by him and not allowed to wander far off message.

peace,
st john

I figure most of those who answered "likely" or "very likely" were the Republicans who voted for McCain and wouldn't give it a minute's thought as to whether Obama or his team were really involved, or not.

I do think it is significant how the questions are phrased. The biases of the pollster may be clearly identified in how the questions are phrased. -- st john, @16:22

Oh, indeed. In fact, it'd be also nice to know not just what the question was, but also who paid the pollster to ask it (and, sometimes, it's possible to find out, though I'm not 'puter-savvy enough to do it). And, agreed; my own reaction to most polls mirrors yours; I get ticked off midway, once I figure out what their slant is. But I thought my anger at being manipuulated stemmed from my upbringing/education; we were never given "multiple question" tests, always "say it in your own words" :)

pol, @17:35,

Not necessarily; for me, it would have been, as Steve says, an issue of: define "involved". Does it mean "presented a list of Obama's preferred suggestions"? Does it mean "heard the demands and ran, screaming, straight into Fitzgerald's arms for protection"? Does it mean "heard the demands and said he'd take it to Obama for consideration"?

Actually, this is great news. THIS should allow the Obama administration see EXACTLY what they will be dealing with for the next 4 years, even before they're in the White House. It's object lesson #1 for just how clean and above the waterline they must operate every minute of every day, and how fast they must close ranks. They will be under attack every second, and they must find new weapons against the plutocrats running our wonderful news media. I have hope given their record of finding new weapons to fight in elections.