The AP's report added, "The brief statement left several issues uncovered. It did not say whether Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, was heard on a wiretap providing the governor's top aide with a list of names that the president-elect favored..."

The article continues, "Nor did the Obama statement reveal whether or not the president-elect has in fact stopped beating his wife."

Don't ever change, Ron Fournier!

This matter will not rest until Obama confessess to murdering Vince Foster.

I think the indictment papers made it pretty clear that while Blagojevich spoke boldly with his inner circle, he was very cautious with others. He also didn't trust Obama or his people. So there would be exactly zero chance that there was an improper discussion directly between Blago and Emmanuel. And I don't think the aides were taped in calls that didn't include Blago. Am I wrong about that?

The question I have is why would Obama's staff confer with Fitzgerald about what they could or couldn't say, or when they could say it? I'm guessing someone tipped off Fitzgerald before the wiretaps, and it wasn't about conversations with Rahm. It might have been conversations with Andy Stern of SEIU.

Steve, it would be easier to just have a quick-pick blurb after mention of a given news agency, what their conflict or bias is. For AP, a little piece about Fournier, for Faux an entire link. Of course Rahm and/or staff had to talk to Blago, he was the Governor of IL and officially charged with making the pick of replacement Senator and had to be in play until something like the current blowout happened.

What I think people are wondering, and needs to be cleared out: If Blago asked anyone connected to Obama for favors, what did they do? Even if they refused (I'm assuming yes but sadly Mr. JJ Jr. looks in some trouble) were they supposed to tell on on it, did they, are they allowed to admit that or not considering legal issues, etc.

Poor AP... They're so used to quoting "sources" who have to remain unnamed, because they had not been authorized to speak... So what, if Fitzgerald specifically asked Team Obama to keep mum for another week? Couldn't they have leaked *anyway*??? Just to please AP?

Oh, and not only will Obama be in Hawaii when Fitzgerald's ban is lifted... If he stays true to form, he'll be taking half of the staff/friends with him, so they, too, will be incommunicado for any follow up AP might want to pursue. *Very* suspicious.

I've become conscious over the last year that AP's coverage has drifted far to the Right and apparently has gone out of its way to paint Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, in a negative light. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're beating this particular drum.

One thing the Press such as AP forgets is that the public really does not want to see Obama mired in scandal. They want Obama to be able to, you know, FIX THE ECONOMY if he possibly can. This covers not only Dems and Indies, but a good many GOPers as well.

Clinton came in as a plurality President after 12 years of GOP rule, the first eight under a President that many people evidently liked, then his VP. Even so, it took quite a bit of ginning up to get the public interested in Whitewater and then impeachment.

Obama was elected with a significant majority and is wildly popular. Plus the country faces deep problems and many people are really scared about their future. In that kind of climate it is no wonder no one is interested in this non-scandal.

AP is on its way out, and will be gone in a couple of years.

Who owns AP? Who are the people behind it?

Right. After eight years of Friday night news releases from the White House, the WEEK the president-elect releases the information is a problem.

Mr. Fornicator probably wants Team Obama to sit on the information so he can throw a few more tantrums.

Last week, Barack Obama announced that his transition team would review all of its communications with Rod Blagojevich and his office, and in the interests of transparency, release the information. There's no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the transition team anyway, but this would (ostensibly) put the matter to rest.

I don't see how that's the case. If you implicitly trust the transition team, you weren't worried about their involvement before the review, and if you don't, their own internal review isn't going to reassure you.

Note lack of byline on the linked ap story.

AP puts the ASS in associated propaganda.

And, as far as how Obama himself has handled communications on this issue, there's still no NOT THERE not there, either.

Y'know, it could be that AP is merely anxious to cover up their cozy relationship with Blago the Hutt and all the other Bush-era petty criminals. Maybe we should start pushing THAT meme.

You never know---it just might accelerate AP's extinction event....

It is almost sickening to hear comparisons of the Obama Transition team's response to their involvement in a "hit and run" to the typical political stalling and evasiveness we have become used to for many years.

If Obama is actually pushing off disclosure of bad things, his approach is sure to lead to short term disaster.

Why? He is giving out way too many facts which can be easily disproven by one insider.

Did they do an internal investigation?

Did they produce a report?

Did the AG request he delay release of the report?

Did anyone attempt to withold information?

Was there any stonewalling?

The habit of Obama to give out facts instead of promises is the hallmark of transparancy. There will be cases where you can't reveal all interesting facts, but if you substitute this inability with facts which are easy to disprove, you go a long way along that path. In essence you put up a large deposit in credibility against facts which are easier to disprove than the original hidden or ambiguous facts.

One example of this is providing an alibi.

Let me get this straight. You're telling me that when the Obama people say they're not releasing information because they don't want to impede on ongoing investigation, their motivation is actually ... not impeding an ongoing investigation?

Wow. What a strange concept.

Next thing you know, their budget numbers will add up and the EPA will base its decisions on science.

I remember when the AP used to be the journalistic equivalent of Joe Friday: "Just the facts, ma'am..."

Of course, these otherwise-unemployables are looking at their chosen career field shrinking faster than ice in the Arctic Ocean, and they're giving the orcs who own them what they want.

That's certainly the case with the Murdoch Associated Press. The kids in the Washington bureau were well-trained by Herr Obrgruppenfuehrer Solomon.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in this situation that properly should evoke curiosity, if not skepticism, from any serious news organization:

-- The Obama team says it reviewed the nature of contact between the transition staff and the governor's office, but never even mentions any review of such "contacts" between people who might have served as go-betweens -- several of whom were explicitly described, although not identified, in Fitzgerald's affadavit. Does Obama have anything to say about these contacts or not, and if not, why not?

-- The Obama statement clearly and others -- that there were, in fact, contacts between the transition staff and the Governor or his office. The Obama statement characterizes these contacts as not "inappropriate," a vague word that can mean anything to anyone and different things to different people. The public gets to decide whether they were "appropriate" or not, and Obama promised just last week that he'd put out all the facts so that we can decide. But he hasn't, so we can't.

-- Obama's reason for keeping the information secret for another week is that Fitzgerald asked him to do so. On the surface, that suggests that Obama is justified in going back on his promise of transparency, because he wouldn't want to "interfere with and ongoing investigation." But we don't know the context of Fitzgerald's request, how or why it arose, much less why Fitzgerald wants it that way. A few possibilities: it might be that the Obama team pressured Fitzgerald hard to agree to a quick release and give it his blessing, and he wound up asking his soon-to-be boss for another week; it might be that has not finished interviewing everyone involved in these "contacts," so he can't compare their stories with others and make a judgment about who did what; it might be that Fitzgerald does not want other people he is interviewing -- such as those go-betweens -- to know in advance what Obama's staff people have to say.

In short, the delay could mean a lot or nothing. One thing is sure, though, we still do not know anything, and Obama may tell us something next week, but then again, maybe he'll come up with another delay then.

There is precious little reason to give him a pass on this.

In short, the delay could mean a lot or nothing. One thing is sure, though, we still do not know anything, and Obama may tell us something next week, but then again, maybe he'll come up with another delay then.

"Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to."

Looks lik Republicans are trying to play their Greatest Hits album for us again -- Clinton Years, Part II: The Obamanation!