On its Web site this evening, ABC7 News Chicago reports on the new Illinois Democratic governor in "Who Is Pat Quinn?"  General assignment reporter John Garcia tells readers about the man who replaced former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich :

Quinn comes in with a squeaky clean reputation at a time when the past two governors have faced serious federal charges.

An Illinois Democrat with a squeaky clean reputation?  Now that is news.  It also conflicts with assertions made by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin in 1996, when he faced Quinn in the party's primary.  The (Springfield, IL) State Journal-Register covered a February debate:

CHICAGO -- U.S. Rep. Dick Durbin, D-Springfield, accused rival Pat Quinn of being a "ghost payroller" during a spirited radio confrontation Thursday.

The two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate tried to keep each other on the defensive during the 30-minute forum, which was taped at WMAQ-AM radio and set for broadcast at 9 a.m. Sunday.

Quinn slammed Durbin for being a political insider while describing himself as a political outsider.

Durbin, who participated in the debate by telephone from Washington, D.C., questioned Quinn's right to use the labels.

"Outsider Pat Quinn has been involved in government for over 22 years now," said Durbin, who has served in Congress since 1983. Durbin added that Quinn "started off as a ghost payroller in the Walker administration" before moving on to other posts, including member of the Cook County Board of Tax Appeals, revenue director for Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and state treasurer.

Durbin said Quinn was "carried on the payroll of an agency where he didn't work" while in the employ of Gov. Dan Walker from 1973 to 1975. "I guess he was working in another office," Durbin said.  "It could have been the governor's office.  I'm not sure."

Quinn denied the charges, accusing Durbin of "smears and name-calling."  He said he worked for taxpayers "365 days a year."

That wasn't the first time the charge had been made.  When Quinn ran in the 1990 Democratic primary for state treasurer, the (Bloomington, IL) Pantograph provided background on the ghost payroller allegation in a March article:

The charges of Quinn being a "ghost payroller" originally surfaced in 1976. At that time, Melvin Rosenbloom, former head of the Illinois Industrial Commission, told a House committee that Quinn was employed by the commission but didn't work full time.

Quinn denied the allegation and said he was never interviewed about the alleged improprieties. Rosenbloom's testimony was tinged by a personal grudge, he said.

There were additional details in an April, 2002 Chicago Tribune article on the state's "political culture:"

The practice of ghost-payrolling--the hiring of employees who perform little or no governmental work but do political tasks--has been pervasive in Illinois. A decade ago, federal authorities mounted a probe called "Operation Haunted Hall" to exorcise ghost payrollers from city government.

In the 1970s, then Democratic Gov. Dan Walker placed several political operatives in ghost jobs at state commissions. One of them allegedly was self-styled reformer Pat Quinn, now the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. Quinn has long disputed the allegation.

Pat Quinn may or may not have been a ghost payroller.  Regardless, it can't reasonably be claimed that his reputation is squeaky clean.  Just ask Dick Durbin and other Illinois Democrats.

Today on the New York Daily News's Web site appear a picture and story of President Obama having trouble getting back into the White House.  The article begins:

It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn't open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush's lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama's rookie mistake.

The Bush incident in Beijing received widespread media coverage. David Letterman used it to develop a Top Ten list.  Good Morning America's Charles Gibson intoned over the video of Bush struggling with the door:

"No way out. President Bush tries the wrong door on his trip to Asia and has fun for the cameras. But the big question now: Does he have an exit strategy for Iraq?" 

Such symbolism was noted in columns written by the Washington Post's Peter Baker and Eugene Robinson.  The New York Times printed a November 21, 2005 letter from author Bernard Goldberg that said in part:

On Nov. 21, The Times published a four-panel picture on Page 1 that extended over two columns and ran some 12 inches from the masthead more than halfway down the page showing President Bush trying to exit a meeting with reporters in Beijing -- through a locked door.

Get it? The guy can't even figure out how to get out of a room. What a dunce!

So will we see similar prominent coverage, editorial comment and jests aimed at the current president's embarrassment?  That would indeed be change from the Obama obsession of the mainstream media, but I don't see much hope for that happening.

For some in the mainstream media, fawning over Barack Obama - as pleasurable as it is - isn't quite enough.  Kicking George W. Bush around enhances the gratification.

Julia Keller, cultural critic, for the Chicago Tribune today contributes: "Of books and Obama: What does 'literary president' mean, exactly?"  At the end of the piece she happily concludes, "It's great to have a literary president of the United States."  Getting there, however, includes the obligatory Bush bashing:

But I'm being coy here. We all know what people mean when they say Obama is a "literary" president—and, sadly, it has less to do with our widely beloved new leader than it does with the apparently unloved man he replaced: George W. Bush. Bush became the poster president for the non-literary set, for people who not only don't read, but also seem to be rather proud of not reading. Reading, to certain people, is classified as a sort of prissy, fussy, sissified activity, equivalent to daydreaming or lollygagging. It's a sign of elitism. Of having too much leisure time and too little drive.

Yet shortly before Bush left office, his closest adviser—Karl Rove, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal—made a shocking revelation: Bush, it turns out, reads. He reads a lot. Two books a week, in fact. That, anyway, is the claim.

That George W. Bush reads would be a "shocking revelation" only to someone whose bias is so pervasive that he - or in this instance, she - spent little time researching the question.

In December, 1999 Rena Pederson of the Dallas Morning News reported:

Bill Minutaglio, who has put together the most insightful profile of Gov. Bush in his book First Son, said last week that the governor had recently read biographies of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt when he interviewed him.

Indeed, many times during his five years as governor, Mr. Bush has asked me what I was reading that was interesting. Once, I remember telling him I had just finished a fascinating book about Mexico called La Capital, written by a former Wall Street Journal correspondent named Jonathan Kandell, it is billed as a biography of Mexico City, but in the process tells the history of the country.

I didn't think the governor would have time to read it the paperback version is 640 pages. But about a month later, he made a point of coming over to tell me at a meeting that he had stayed up late reading the book and that his wife Laura was now hooked on it.

A January, 2000 profile by Washington Post staff writer Kevin Merida noted:

Much has been made of Bush's reading habits as a gauge of his light bulb wattage. According to both friends and foes, who cite books he has recommended, Bush reads more than he is given credit for.  Though his tastes tilt toward history and biographies, his wife, Laura, a librarian, says she has turned him into a fan of Robert Parker mysteries.

According to a January, 2001 (Madison, WI) Capital Times piece:

So it came as something of a surprise that, when reporters for the New York Times arrived at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch last week for the obligatory pre-inaugural interview, the president-elect volunteered that he was spending his mornings reading one of the finest pieces of nonfiction penned in recent years.

The book on Bush's bedside table - Paul C. Nagel's "John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life" - is a presidential biography of rare accomplishment.

Even Julia Keller's Chicago Tribune has taken note of Bush's reading habits.  From a February, 2005 article by Robin Abcarian:

As (historian Douglas) Brinkley hinted, there may be a gulf between Bush's consumption of culture and what is widely believed to be his consumption of culture. For instance, the president is often derided as a man whose reading runs to box scores and the Bible and whose knowledge of the world comes to him via highly condensed memos, or "memorandi" as he called them on C-SPAN. He does read the Bible every day, he said, but he is also a fan of biographies. He's recently read two books about Founding Fathers -- Joseph Ellis on George Washington and Ron Chernow on Alexander Hamilton (which he told C-SPAN is "a fascinating history of how hard it was to get democracy started in some ways").

Robert Draper, author of "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush." told Time magazine in September, 2007:

I remember when I asked him who he admired most as leaders he said Reagan. And when I asked him who he admired as jurists he said Thomas and Scalia. These are rather obvious choices and they indicated to me that the guy just simply wasn't deep into the history books. He is now. He's a voracious reader of them and can speak at length about the Khmer Rouge, the Algerian Revolution and certainly about people like Churchill and Truman about whom I think he knew very little back in 1998.

Earlier this month, syndicated columnist Linda Chavez wrote:

Much of the intelligentsia no doubt will be shocked to learn George W. Bush is an avid reader of serious books, but it simply confirms something I already suspected. During the first real discussion I ever had with then-Gov. Bush in 1998, he brought up a book written by a former colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute.

She goes on to mention that the author "is not a polemicist, but a serious scholar and elegant writer. Bush's reference to the book spoke worlds to me."

Keller's article is accompanied by a huge picture of Obama carrying "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria.  Perhaps if President Bush read books like that rather than ones about great American patriots and other historical figures, the mainstream media would have credited him as "a literary president."

On second thought, probably not.      

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips made no effort to curb her enthusiasm for Barack Obama.  She spoke with feminist author and Democratic activist Naomi Wolf about a recent cover of Ms. Magazine featuring Obama in a Superman pose.  Some feminists took exception to the cover; others, like Wolf, did not.  As the segment ended, Kyra Phillips summed up as follows:

PHILLIPS: Well, if anything, I think this just exemplifies how Barack Obama is going to be out of the box on everything, whether it's who he decides to have speak at the inauguration or what covers he decides to go on the front of or who he puts into his administration. It is all going to be about going out of the box and making people talk and bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is.

Thinking out of the box, that's Obama alright.  Mr. Originality's stacked his administration with loads of Clinton administration retreads.  In terms of magazine covers, it's doubtful that he decides which periodicals feature him.  Did he pose as Superman for Ms.?  Not likely.  That would have been a step down for his messiahship.

Then there is Phillips's belief that Obama is "bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is."  That's patently unrealistic.  The notion that any politician can bring everyone - regardless of life experiences, political views, values, opinions, and traditions - together is a liberal pipe dream.  And a selective pipe dream at that.  After years of bashing President Bush and other Republicans, it's expected that magically all Americans will suddenly, joyously unify as one big happy family under Obama.

Earlier this week, Phillips mentioned in an exchange with Tony Harris, another CNN Newsroom anchor, that she's attending the inauguration on her own time:

HARRIS: Good stuff. OK. We are one week, one day out from Inauguration Day. Look at that scene.

Kyra, can you imagine Washington, D.C.?

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: I'll tell you what. I mean, even though I'm not working that day.

HARRIS: Right. I know you're going to be there, right?

PHILLIPS: I am going to be there. I do not want to miss this moment in history. That's what it is. I mean, when's the last time we remember this kind of buzz over a president?

I'm sure that Kyra Phillips, with her starry-eyed prediction of Obama "bringing everybody together," is more than happy to keep amplifying the buzz.

We've seen the mainstream media afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome.  We've experienced the media in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Over at CNN, which modestly styles itself as the most trusted name in news, there's now an outbreak of Joe the Plumber Derangement Syndrome.

Last week CNN Newsroom anchor Kyra Phillips went after Joe.  Today, it was CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez's turn at bat.  Mustering as much blow-dried earnestness as possible, he relieved himself of an editorial on what's nominally a news program:

Meanwhile, something else to take note of today. I want to share with you the thoughts of Samuel Wurzelbacher -- you know, "Joe the Plumber" -- now Joe the war correspondent. Yes, he's been in Israel filing reports.

And here's his analysis, as reported by the Associated Press. You're going to love this: "I don't think journalists should be anywhere around war. I mean you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine. I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting, war is hell."

There you have it.

Samuel, let me talk to you directly.

First, I was born in a communist country, so I'm familiar with people like you -- and Fidel Castro, by the way -- not to name drop -- who also think "that media should be abolished."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Number two, I've covered wars. And while I can't speak for war correspondents who put their lives on the line every day, I can tell you, what they do is requisite -- essential to our democracy.

Whether you've insulted them is up to them to tell you.

But I will tell you who you have insulted. Forty-one journalists were killed last year -- two already killed this year -- while trying to practice their craft. They can't speak for themselves, because they're no longer with us, Samuel.

And their children, their wives and husbands, their fathers and mothers -- they don't have a TV show.

So on behalf of them, Sam, let's see, you're not really a licensed plumber. You're not really a war correspondent. And your name isn't even really Joe. I think we all do know, though, who you are.

You know that guy who lives down the street -- the guy who shows up at the backyard barbecue when there's free food?

You know that guy?

He knows everything about everything, but really knows nothing, hates everything and everybody. He can't understand why anybody would find any fault with him. You know, the obnoxious guy -- there's always one at every party or every gathering on every block. You know that guy. We all know that guy.

Well, that guy wasn't made famous by John McCain and Sarah Palin. You were, Sam. So we're stuck with you. But it doesn't mean that we can't call you out.

In fact, I just did.

Contrary to what Sanchez contends, Joe didn't say "that media should be abolished."  What he did express was his view that the media shouldn't report on war, with one reason being it can be detrimental to the troops' welfare.  Whether or not one agrees with that idea, holding it doesn't make Joe comparable to Castro.  In addition to the Cuban dictator, Sanchez used the opportunity to take a swipe at John McCain and Sarah Palin, who "made" Joe famous.

Sanchez's fixation with Joe the Plumber isn't new.  For someone who blames others for making Joe famous, he does his best to keep the object of his disdain in the public eye.  Yesterday his producer sent out a Twitter message that included: "Also 'Joe The War Correspondent'? Rick rips him."  For whatever reason, Rick didn't rip him yesterday.  He did, however, run numerous anti-Joe tweets across the screen for much of the program.  It's difficult to believe that not a single viewer conveyed a different opinion, but none was aired.  Not that Rick's journalistic integrity and commitment to fairness could ever be questioned.  He is, after all, a "professional."

Then last night Sanchez sent out a couple of his own tweets on the topic.  "spent life in news.covered wars,been shot at, almost died in hosp, nothing compared to real war corespondnts, joe plumber insulting," said one.  And the other: "he reminds me of the guy down the block who shows up at the bar b que for free food and knows more than everybody. obnoxious?"

There's no question that war correspondents place themselves in jeopardy and that some have died on the job.  Still, reporting isn't, as Sanchez apparently believes, brain surgery.  For some at CNN, it consists primarily of reading stories written by others.  So it's little wonder that when they try "editorializing" they can't even quote people accurately.

No doubt Rick's malady requires him to stay on Joe the Plumber's case.  Obsessively, incessantly, monotonously.  He's sorta like the guy who lives down the street, shows up at the backyard barbecue when there's free food, knows everything about everything, but really knows nothing, and can't understand why anybody would find any fault with him.       

So we're stuck with you, Rick. But it doesn't mean that we can't call you out.

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips let viewers know exactly what she thinks of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber.  On the 2:00 PM (ET) segment she teased the story:

PHILLIPS: Oh, Lord, Joe The Plumber's got a new gig. It's got nothing to do with the pipes, it's got everything to do with Gaza.

And later again:

PHILLIPS: You've seen the last of this guy? Not. Now Joe The Plumber wants to flush out the truth as a war correspondent. I know, there are just no words. Stay here for details on his Middle East trip.

Minutes later she reported:

Hey, Joe, what do you know? No, seriously, what do you know? Since that whole plumbing thing didn't work out, I mean. Now, Joe Wurzelbacher is decamping to the Middle East. That's right, the plumber slash author slash singer.

His latest career gambit? War correspondent. He's going spend ten days in Israel reporting for the conservative Web site pjtv.com. And he says he hopes to air Israelis' views on the Gaza offensive. Lord, help us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE WURZELBACHER, WAR CORRESPONDENT FOR PJTV.COM: And it's tragic. I mean, it really is. I don't say that in any little way. It's very tragic.

But at the same time, what are the Israel people supposed to do? I get to go over their and let their average Joes show their story, what they think, how they feel. Especially with, you know, world opinion. Maybe get a real story out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIPS: Get a real story out there. Just want to remind you that Joe the Plumber has no journalism experience. No war zone experience either. But he thinks he's, quote, "pretty well protected by God."

So, what's Joe been smoking, drinking?

Kyra just had to remind viewers that Joe has no journalism experience.  Unlike the Washington Post's Janet Cooke, the Chicago Tribune's Bob Greene, the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle, the New York Times's Jayson Blair and the many others who've shown how crucial that experience is.

I wouldn't think Phillips, who gained considerable notoriety in a restroom, would think "flush" jokes are all that humorous.  Apparently, Kyra didn't exhaust her invective on her "control freak" sister-in-law.  She's saved some for a guy imprudent enough to have challenged The One, a man so non-professional as to say something good about Sarah Palin. 

Lord, there are just no words, Kyra.    

Stop the presses.  After an exhaustive investigation, the Washington Post has exclusively learned that "some" conservatives believe that "some" advisers to Barack Obama are too liberal.  The newspaper's Web site yesterday included the article, "Obama's Team Rankles the Right: To Some Conservatives, Advisers Are Alarmingly Liberal."  The piece begins:

To some staunch conservatives watching President Bush relinquish the reins of power to President-elect Barack Obama, a few too many ardent liberals are now crashing the gates.

Some well-known Democratic activists are advising Obama on how to steer federal agencies, including a few whom conservative Republicans fought hard to keep out of power in the Clinton administration. They include Roberta Achtenberg, a gay activist whose confirmation as an assistant housing secretary was famously held up by then-Sen.  Jesse Helms (N.C.), and Bill Lann Lee, who was hotly opposed by foes of affirmative action and temporarily blocked from the government's top civil rights job.

So who are these conservatives disturbed by the liberalism of Obama's aides?  The Washington Post quotes one, Roger Clegg:

"The transition team as described to me was made up of nothing but people on the far left. Though Obama is more moderate, that makes you wonder what kind of advice the president is given, and what range of choices he'll be given when it comes time to make appointments."

And who else does the Post use to buttress its contention of conservative displeasure with Team Obama?  No one:

Besides Achtenberg and Lee, other transition advisers' past positions are sending off flares in the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. None of them responded to requests for comment.

It shouldn't be surprising that conservatives would be displeased with the people around Obama.  What is surprising is that the newspaper's staff could only find one conservative willing to voice his concerns.  How hard were they looking?    

There's just so much hope and change already taking place in America that it's hard to keep up.  The mainstream media is doing an exemplary job of keeping us up to date with news that really matters, such as articles like the Associated Press's "Web site lets women register their inaugural dress" and "Hairdressers Want Chance to Style First Lady."  Then there are the penetrating analyses like "Americans rush plans for Obama inauguration," which quoted a 97-year-old woman who had never voted or witnessed a presidential inauguration, despite living just three miles from Washington, because "I knew white people had the right of way here, you know."

In the sheer exhilaration of the impending Age of Obama, it's understandable that some stories are overlooked.  One that might not be considered newsworthy is the fact that last year homicides in Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago substantially exceeded the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.  As the AP itself reported:

According to a tally by The Associated Press, at least 314 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in 2008, down from 904 in the previous year.

And the Chicago Tribune reported today:

Chicago closed out the year with 509 homicides, an increase of about 15 percent over 2007. . .

Obama, of course, has characterized U.S. involvement in Iraq as a "complete failure" and advocates the withdrawal of our military.  If Iraq's a total failure, how does Obama view what's taking place in his own hometown?  Should America stop sending millions, possibly billions, of dollars in assistance to what is obviously a losing effort?  It'd be a good question for the mainstream media to pose.  If, of course, they could get over those pictures of Barry with his shirt off.

Parade magazine, a supplement to many of the nation's Sunday newspapers, claims to have over 72 million readers.  Today in the magazine's "Personality Parade" section, readers saw this question and answer:

Q Can you give us an update on Elian Gonzalez, the boy rescued off the coast of Florida in 1999, then returned to Cuba over the protests of his U.S. relatives?--Mark Larsen, Calhoun, Ga.

A Elian, 15, has been well taken care of by Fidel Castro. His dad was rewarded with a seat in Cuba's national assembly, and the family was given a spacious home. Says Ann Louise Bardach, whose Without Fidel will be published next spring: "Fidel has been known to forget the birthdays of his own children, but never Elian's."

Heartwarming, isn't it?  That Fidel is such a sweetheart.  So massive is his affection for the young man that he, with the complicity of the U.S. government, forced the terrified boy back to Cuba.  Just yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Cubans:

are preoccupied with staying afloat in a sclerotic economy where basics like toilet paper often disappear from store shelves and most people eat meat only a few times each month.

That's not surprising in a Communist country where, according to CNN, the average monthly income is around $15.  Economic privations are accompanied in Castro's Cuba with a long history of human rights violations.  As AP noted:

The last time Cuba carried out executions was in 2003, when three men went before a firing squad for trying to hijack a passenger ferry to the U.S. Their deaths followed a crackdown that condemned 75 government critics to long prison terms, dashing hopes of any relaxation following Jimmy Carter's visit, the first by a former U.S. president to Castro's Cuba.

In jails scattered across the island, Cuba holds 219 political prisoners, according to Elizardo Sanchez, of the independent Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation. In 1964 Fidel Castro acknowledged holding as many as 15,000 political prisoners.

Parade is correct about Castro placement of Elian Gonzalez's father into the national assembly.  Placement's the right word when, as pointed out by the New York Times: "Candidates for the 609 seats run unopposed. . . "

Readers of more substantial periodicals than Parade may well recall that two of the men who forced little Elian back to Cuba were Greg Craig and Eric Holder.  Craig has been selected by Barack Obama as his White House counsel and Holder's been named his attorney general.  Hope and change, anyone?

There was little hope for poor Elian who, kicking and screaming, was taken back to Cuba.  And for most of the country's 11 million residents, there's little reason for hope for change.  Castro and the other Communist thugs show no signs of leaving. 

If Castro genuinely wanted to take good care of Elian Gonzalez - and Cuba's other citizens - he'd release them from his prison.

Barack Obama is finding out that his honeymoon with the mainstream media may be considerably shorter than he had expected.  Inviting Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration hasn't endeared him to a core constituency and now Time Magazine has joined in the bash fest.  Its Web site carries the piece, "The Problem for Gays with Rick Warren — and Obama."  Authored by John Cloud, the article begins by citing Warren's criticisms of homosexuality and then clobbers Obama for his association with him:

Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proven himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the non-pedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, a campaign that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

NewsBusters managing editor Ken Shepherd has pointed out that Obama also extended an invitation to Rev. Joseph Lowery, who ardently supports gay rights, to give the benediction at the inaugural.  Obviously, that is insufficient atonement for inviting Warren.

Obama's action could well be a ploy, intended to modestly placate conservatives and moderates as he prepares to govern from the Left.  In the meantime, it appears as though he'll have to withstand some withering criticism from his temporarily spurned sweethearts in the mainstream media.  Perhaps he can take comfort in Shakespeare:  "The course of true love never did run smooth."  

On CNN Newsroom this morning, CNN White House correspondent Elaine Quijano discussed with anchor Betty Nguyen Barack Obama's pledge to disclose any contacts between his staff and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich pertaining to his naming a replacement to Obama's Senate seat:

QUIJANO:  But, Betty, the question remains, when is it exactly that the president-elect and his team will disclose what contacts there actually were between their camp and people within the governor's office? What is taking so long? The president-elect said yesterday his staff was looking into it and would release that list in the coming days. So we continue to wait for that -- Betty.

Hold it a minute.  Barack Obama didn't originally promise on Friday to supply that information.  He made that commitment on Thursday and CNN aired his statement live:

I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I'm confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.

I've asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor's office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.

So it's been two days of waiting for that disclosure, not - as indicated by Elaine Quijano - just one.  Others on CNN have also voiced mild frustration with how long it's taking to get the information out.  On Lou Dobbs Tonight yesterday, CNN congressional correspondent Jennifer Yellin noted that:

There are lots of questions at this point and frustration because Barack Obama has not revealed all that he could about who on his team may have had any contact. This really is Barack Obama's style and I guess something we're all going to have to get used to.

He collects the facts, he gets everything in a row, and he releases it on his timetable. They think they really do have one chance to take a bite at this apple, to get it all out there, and they want to have all the information when they do, so we, in the meantime, are left to wait, wonder, and feel a little frustrated. Lou.

For months we've heard how efficient the Obama campaign is, how perfectly it functions.  It was, we were told, quick and nimble in responding to any challenge.  The day after the election, NPR's Don Gonyea hailed Obama's "well-organized, well-funded and well-disciplined organization that always seemed to know how to respond to crises."

So why the delay and hesitation now?  It reminds me of another president who, a decade ago, started being asked questions about a possible scandal.  Said Bill Clinton:

We are working very hard to comply and get all the requests for information up here, and we will give you as many answers as we can, as soon as we can, at the appropriate time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations.

And that's not a dodge, that's really why I've – I've talked with our people. I want to do that. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you.

It's already been more than two days and Obama hasn't responded.  How long does it take to gather information from a relatively small number of trusted aides?  Longer than Elaine Quijano realizes, apparently.

Several mainstream media accounts suggest that about the only thing Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich have in common is they both live in Illinois. Today at the Washington Post's Web site, for example, we learn that "Obama Worked to Distance Self From Blagojevich Early On." The article begins by noting that the Illinois governor, unlike other major state Democratic politicians, wasn't allowed to address this year's national convention. There was at least one good reason for that, although it wasn't covered by today's Washington Post. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times explained it last August:

The Obama campaign on Tuesday afternoon released more speakers for the second night of the Democratic convention in Denver, a batch of Democratic governors. Missing from the list: the first governor to back Obama, his homestate Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich, who threw a heck of a party in Boston in 2004, has had no profile in the Obama campaign because of the scandals surrounding his administration, notably the Tony Rezko probe.

Because of Rezko, I never, ever expected Blagojevich to be tapped to speak.

Moreover, Blagojevich has for some time been quite unpopular. As Rasmussen Reports noted earlier this week after Blagojevich's arrest:

While this news will certainly further tarnish the governor’s reputation, Rasmussen Reports tracking in the state consistently has shown the Democrat to be one of the nation's most unpopular governors, if not the most unpopular.

Given that, it's little wonder Obama didn't want Blagojevich at the convention endorsing his candidacy. Especially since Obama - far from distancing himself early on - played a key role in electing the now disgraced governor.

Last July, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker wrote of Obama in 2002:

That year, he gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama’s, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich’s campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich’s victory. He and Obama “participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor,” Emanuel said. “We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two.”

In June of 2002, Obama said on a local-access program: " …right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor. . ."

The talk of scandals and Federal investigations of Blagojevich didn't diminish Obama's enthusiasm for his re-election in 2006. Chicago ABC 7 reporter Andy Shaw reported on August 16:

"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois and for that reason I am proud to stand behind him," said Senator Barack Obama.

If Obama were trying to keep his distance from Blagojevich, he did it in a most peculiar way. Or, as they admiringly say in Democratic precincts, perhaps he did it "the Chicago way."

Today's Chicago Tribune boasts an interview with Barack Obama.  Carried in both the print and Web editions, the latter version is headlined: "Barack Obama plans to reach out to Muslim world: In exclusive interview, he says he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama"

The article begins:

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

The problem with this is it's not accurate.  Not every president has taken the oath "using his full name" and the Chicago Tribune should have so informed its readers.  Of the last six presidents, three didn't use their full names: Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.

Obama's decision to use his full name is particularly interesting as no less an authority than Michelle Obama has, according to the Tribune's own Washington bureau, called using her husbands's middle name "the obvious, ultimate fear bomb."

Some observers will no doubt assert that what name Obama uses to take the oath is essentially inconsequential.  That's their right.  Regardless, the Chicago Tribune owes its readers at least some modest effort to report facts, not just unquestioningly regurgitate what their idol says. 

Reuters today went right to work on distancing Barack Obama from accused Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.  Its piece, "Obama seen untouched by Illinois governor charges," starts:

President-elect Barack Obama's decision to keep a distance from his state's governor, who was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday, should enable him to escape becoming tainted by the scandal, analysts said.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich stands accused of trying to sell the president-elect's vacant U.S. Senate seat for financial and other personal benefits for himself and his wife, among other charges.

And who precisely are these analysts expecting Obama to avoid the connection?

The first one cited is "political scientist Dick Simpson of the University of Illinois in Chicago."  Although it's not reported, Simpson is a former Chicago Democratic alderman who ran in two Democratic primaries for Congress and has been "an Alternate Delegate Candidate in Bill Bradley's Presidential campaign in 2000, Chairman of the Issues Committee for Carol Moseley Braun's Presidential Campaign and as a surrogate speaker for John Kerry for President in 2004."

The next analyst used by Reuters is also a Democrat:

"Obama had the good sense to stay far, far away from Blagojevich and all of his people," said Democratic consultant Dane Strother.

Exhausting its investigative resources, Reuters found yet another authority to quote:

Jay Stewart, director of the Better Government Association, a Chicago watchdog group, agreed: "This is all about Rod, it's not about the president-elect," he said.

Stewart, as it turns out, served for a year as general counsel to Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn.  Stewart's former boss was quoted two years ago as saying of Blagojevich:

"He's always been a person who's honest and one of integrity.  I have confidence the governor does the right thing all the time."

Gathering insightful analysis from unbiased, objective analysts, Reuters tells us Obama is seen as untouched by the latest Illinois Democratic scandal.

So now we can get back to important business, like thanking Obama for all that hope and change the Nation is reveling in.
 

Today's Chicago Sun-Times's editorial, titled "Gov. Blagojevich must go - right now," begins:

If Gov. Blagojevich does not resign immediately, impeach him.

This is the inescapable conclusion that comes after reading Tuesday’s 76-page criminal complaint against the governor alleging a runaway crime spree of political corruption.

Even if the governor were found not guilty of every accusation against him — and given the apparent weight of the evidence against him, we’re not taking any bets — the criminal charges would cripple his already limited ability to lead Illinois.

The newspaper's editorial conveniently overlooks that Milorad Blagojevich is a Democrat.  It also ignores that only two years ago the Chicago Sun-Times endorsed him.  Its October 20, 2006 editorial, "Blagojevich for governor," took passing note of ethical problems and decided they were of little consequence:

There's no denying the cloud of scandal over his administration. One of his chief fund-raisers, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, was indicted last week for alleged shakedowns for campaign contributions. More revelations likely will come right before the election when power broker Stuart Levine is expected to plead guilty. The governor said the charges against Rezko, if true, represent a personal betrayal by Rezko, and that he himself has never been involved in any unethical or illegal fund-raising. Our experience with Blagojevich prompts us to take him at his word. We've chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt and endorse him for a number of reasons.

So in 2006 the benefit of the doubt was extended to Blagojevich, but now, despite an accused person's presumption of innocence until proven guilty, he's got to go.  Now. Stat. Pronto.

Of course, it wasn't only the Sun-Times that backed Blagojevich just two years ago.  So did the AFL-CIO, the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, and the Service Employees International Union.  Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn described Blagojevich this way weeks before the election:

"He's always been a person who's honest and one of integrity.  I have confidence the governor does the right thing all the time."

Another Rod rooter was Illinois Senator Barack Obama.  As reported by ABC 7's Andy Shaw:

"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois and for that reason I am proud to stand behind him," said Senator Barack Obama.

He was proud to stand with Blagojevich then; now he wants to be about a million miles away.

This evening the Sun-Times printed an "eight-page special edition (that) will bring you the latest on the Blagojevich situation." OK, so it won't sell like all those "special" commemorative Obama editions did, but it may help keep the newspaper in business.  

And maybe the Sun-Times will even include an extra bonus:  An apology for urging voters to keep such an obvious crook in office.