Liberal Media, really?

Well, it is the WSJ.

But, as you have noted before, if Obama had released last week, they would be screaming about impeding an ongoing criminal investigation (Damned if you do, damned if you don't).

They just want to scream, and more importantly, 'taint' Obama as an 'ordinary politician'. Apparantly the idea that Obama means to bring a 'new kind of politics' to Washington scares them silly.

Of course, getting a Conservative to 'silly' is not much of a move.

"and that the transition team really didn't over Blagojevich anything,"

Offer maybe?

"Regardless of how clean the Obama camp is, the release of the report isn't likely to be clean."

Although it's probably not what Weisman meant, the release of the report, no matter how clean, will give further details that Obama's opposition can blow out of proportion and use to create uncertainty.

DUH
There was never any truth at all to the "Whitewater" either. Republicans and their minions look for any vehicle that they can use to undermine progress and ride it until something better comes up.

It is well past time to admit that many reporters and pundits in the media are either liars, incompetent, or just insane.

I have it on good authority the new White House puppy will be force fed CAT FOOD! It will have to wear a pink bow in its hair and be made to slurp wet tuna from one of those wimpy little pull-top mini-cans! "Morris" the dog. Oh, the shame, the shame...........

MSNBC is already pointing out that Obama's report will not include taped recordings of Rahm's conversation with Blagojevich. Someone needs to explain to them it wasn't Emmanuel doing the recording, and Fitzgerald isn't obligated to give evidence to the unaccused for the purpose of exonerating themselves from baseless claims.

They love this stuff. It's all they know, and it's high time drama.

It's going to go on for a good long while, with all sorts of guilt by conversation and guilt by proximity (Corrupt Chicago) cards that will come to be played to the hilt.

And then there is the literal analysis/ whining we will hear ad nauseam re:

"He promised us Transparency".

Well, Hello?!

Transparency doesn't necessarily mean "Quickly", naturally.

Interesting that no-one is making that point.

Yeah, don't these people know they should stop wasting their time talking about Obama and Blagojevich and focus more on Rick Warren? Get your priorities straight!

Mike

No, Obama can have officially authorized leaks to folks like Stephanopoulos, with a NON-pro forma call, but still can’t break Fitz’s cone of silence for the record.

Anyway, as for hanging Blago’s head above his fireplace mantle, I predict no Fitzmas for Fitz; getting an Indian fundraiser — connected not only to Blago but also to The One and Triple-J doesn’t change that.

Shortstop, when you get here, I'll write something simple in crayon for you.

i hadn't realized that the wsj had picked up weisman, who was a cretin covering economics and politics in the wapo.

historically, wsj journalism has been way better than the level weisman is capable of, so i suspect this is another of the murdoch "improvements" to the product.

Man alive is this "story" getting tiresome! And besides, do they really think that this kind of guilt by association is going to switch anyone over from "supporter" to "opponent"? Especially when those who supported Candidate Obama already rejected two pretty huge guilt by associations (Wright and Ayers)??

What's the matter? There isn't a store somewhere saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to get all twisted out of shape over?

As Weisman put it, Obama could have "easily" ignored the wishes of law enforcement officials in the middle of an investigation, and "reassured" the public last week, instead of this week. For support, Weisman quoted Karl Rove's lawyer.

Good lord. This really is the way that these cretins and scumbags think politics is done, and not just by them.

"Why doesn't Obama just break the law like we always do?" Really, what else needs to be said?

problem with pool journalism- it becomes a game of telephone- so the poor shmucks at the end of the wire get it half-baked, and you get WSJ.

Shortstop, when you get here, I'll write something simple in crayon for you.

Cool! In green, please! Don't forget to hire some editors to clean up your constantly atrocious syntax, spelling and punctuation! And be sure to repost your deep thoughts here, because no one's been to your blog for...well, ever.

I have it on good authority the new White House puppy will be force fed CAT FOOD! It will have to wear a pink bow in its hair and be made to slurp wet tuna from one of those wimpy little pull-top mini-cans!

I caught the 30 seconds of the Barbara Walters interview (cannot bear one second more of her) in which Obama says they are absolutely not getting a little girly dog. Cracked me up.

I'm sure the WSJ will find a way to work Vince Foster into this.

These guys are asking for Obama to prove a negative. No amount of non-evidence can prove that no evidence exists. That is why this will be the gift that keeps on giving for those who want to "keep Obama honest."

We need a new category of journalism to distinguish it from investigative journalism. Maybe "confessional" journalism or "speculative" journalism.

Jonathan Weisman is an excellent journalist, recently
transplanted from the WAPO. He was under intense fire from the McCain campaign for his reportage. Please hold your animus until you've researched the type of reporter Weisman is. He is no shill.

He is no shill.

Prove it.

"He is no shill."

Then he's a moron. Does it really make a difference?

tim flagerman, being criticized by the mccain campaign cuts no mustard with me: i've followed weisman quite a while (prof delong has devoted many a post to weisman), and, while not rock-bottom, neither is he admirable. he's just one of these cretins who thinks it's all a game and being clever is the object.

Methinks he doth protest too much already. A virtuous man does not fear the G-men and organize a counter campaign.

It's the Wall Street Journal. Everything in the next 45 months will hurt Obama slightly, until you wonder how in the world his approval stays over 50% with the million and one cuts he takes. Obama's emphasis on science leads to a total cure for all cancers: hurts him slightly because older voters trend Republican.

(Of course, if older people tended to be Dems then Republicans would do everything possible to prevent a cancer cure so there wouldn't be more Democratic voters, but that's what happens when you completely sell your soul for politics).

Hey, it is the WSJ after all, and like most conservative analytic-iness when they have nothing they make nothing-ade.