"I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening. ... And as I said, it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment." -- Barack Obama

Complicit media?

Is the media now being forced to confront their slavish fawning over “The One” and their demonstrable left leaning bias to confront facts and circumstances which should have been brought to the attention of the American people during the past election cycle?

Is it possible that the media will attempt to save face by covering up key details of the growing Blagojevich scandal or blurring the lines of distinction when it comes to reporting on Obama’s friends and supporters?

Even now, we are seeing instances when Blagojevich is not mentioned as being a democrat and that Rahm Emanuel, who is part and parcel of the Daley Chicago machine, is mentioned as a Clinton backer.\

I cannot believe that the media is downplaying the situation by claiming: "it's only Chicago-style politics" when they should be screaming to the rafters: stop the corruption, jail the bastards!

Above it all?

The central question is simple: How did Barack Obama work effectively with the Chicago machine, apparently voting for every major democrat initiative and supporting corrupt Chicago politicians – in addition to spending 20+ years listening to Reverend Wright and his anti-American, racist rants; in addition to working with unrepentant domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; supporting the corrupt community activist organization ACORN – and still walk away clean?

Plausible deniability?

Like all major political players, it is subordinates who make contacts and do the preliminary negotiation. The principal is almost never involved to create an air of plausible deniability should the media question the matter.

Someone from the Obama entourage had to be talking to Governor Blagojevich, otherwise he could have never made that statement that Obama would only respond with “gratitude” in return for appointing Obama’s hand-picked candidate for his recently abandoned Senate seat.

Lawyerly “parsing” …

Watch the extremely careful manner in which Barack Obama answers media questions. There is no doubt that he is a lawyer in the party of lawyers, but sometimes his answers are absolutely Clintonian. And how is it that the widely-hailed orator stammers and stutters when deprived of his beloved TelePrompTers and must respond in a real-time environment. 

The damning evidence: quid pro quo…

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the investigation was cut short by the precipitous media announcement of the investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Or maybe that this was the intent. To prevent the actual deed from being done and causing further embarrassment – perhaps to someone in the Obama Administration.

The Eric Holder issue …

While it is no surprise that the incoming Attorney General will demand the resignations from all U.S. Attorneys –- that is unless you work for George Bush – Holder is uniquely positioned to quash any major fallout in the rapidly expanding Chicago scandal.

How can Obama name Eric Holder as the Attorney General of the United States since he was complicit in somewhat skirting the Department of Justice in arranging pardons for Marc Rich and the FALN terrorist bomb-makers. He is a hyper-partisan democrat who is likely to channel Janet Reno’s slavish attention, not to the law, but to the White House.

In the case of the FALN terrorists, it is believed that Holder worked behind the scenes on behalf of  the Clintons … “methodically spearheading the clemency—despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the FALN.” <source>

Halos and Hosannas …

I am tired of hearing that Barack Obama represents hope and change. He has not even entered office and members of his staff and administration are already deemed suspect in tales of corruption and wrong-doing. What change? As time goes on, Obama looks more like a cross between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Everyone surrounding him is a hyper-partisan and his administration’s employment questionnaire speaks more to protecting the “Chief” from adverse comments than it does to competence.

How can the media and democrat politicians continue to portray Barack Obama as a reformer – a pristinely clean new-style politician – when all evidence points to the stinking corruption in the Chicago political scene from whence he came?  There is no evidence that Barack Obama, at any time, tried to clean up the corrupt cesspool that he called home. There is no evidence that Barack Obama ever had a major disagreement with the Chicago machine over ethical issues.

So before we anoint him as Saint Obama, let him be further vetted by the media and viewed in the harsh light of reality.

Bottom-line ...

Barack, how do you live in the political whorehouse that is known as the Chicago Machine and emerge a virgin?

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “When it is a question of money, everyone is of the same religion.” --Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius