I just quickly scanned the thread. I failed to see where anyone has accused Obama of participating in a Senate seat auction. (As for my original post, I totally discounted it.)

But it is ludicrous to deny the grotesque level of Chicago/IL political corruption that exists, and that these are the very waters that Obama has navigated for years now. Obama and Emil Jones are tied at the hip. And Emil isn't exactly Mr. Smith going to Washington.

The only valid point right now is that the media version of Obama the Fresh is childlike and silly. Grow up - Obama is a skilled operator in the slime filled waters of IL, which probably means he's picked up a few ethical scars along the way. That's the Chicago/IL political reality. But that's all, no one has called him a crook.

The to-be-determined point was made by Mr. Austin, noting the amazing disappearing act of Mr. Emanuel. Perhaps Obama needs to have a talk with Rahm. '...but you had to have a drink first. So now you've had your drink. Do you want to tell your Don what everyone else seems to know?'

Remember folks, Blago isn't going away quietly, this is going to linger for awhile. Rezko is still singing....and Emanual may be in his dressing room practicing the scales. It would be surprising if this didn't have a few plot twists remaining.

Oh, and musings that none of this matters because, oh, you know, there are hungry people in the world, is ridiculous.

That only works, Anjin, if you're saying eth Saudi government had it's hands on the button.

Not really skippy, try to think it through. See, thats the thing about guilt by association. You can just tar people with it, rightly or wrongly. The Bin Laden family are part of the Saudi elite. Bush is very tight with the Saudi elite. You can argue, quite unfairly that they all must somehow be involved.

Now do I actually think Bush, or the perfectly respectable and responsible folks that run Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 9-11? Of course not. This is something called a hypothetical argument. Look it up on Google bit, so you can attempt to sound informed.

So far you have not produced a thimble full of evidence that Obama in in any way, shape or form in the wrong in the Senate seat for sale case. You just want to use guilt by association to support your political agenda. Its the kind of gutter-sniping we have come to expect of you, and you never disappoint.

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?s=house+nigger

Would Bit ever say something like this to a black man's face? I am calling CS...

And if Obama was a Republican, would you be quite so inclined to assume he managed to make out out of that cesspool without getting crap on himself?

Let's extend your "logic" a bit. Think about how tight Bush is with the Saudis. He friggin' walks around holding hands with their ambassdor.

He must have know about 9-11 ahead of time. Maybe he was even involved. Guilt by association, you know...

Buuuullshit.

And if Obama was a Republican, would you be quite so inclined to assume he managed to make out out of that cesspool without getting crap on himself?

If the evidence against the Republican was as flimsy as it is now against Obama, yes. I would have no problem at all giving the Republican pol the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Sorry, Eric. No sale.

You are correct, Eric. I concede to your superior logic.

Blago has a higher purpose. These bribes were intended to be directed to the defeat of world evil, followed by the cure of all diseases known to man.

How silly, and conspiratorial, of me.

See, the problem with you clowns is this. Here you are making--nay, pronouncing--all sorts of untoward suggestions about how Obama must have known this, is part of the Illinois machine that, and is therefore somehow in some way connected with Blagojevich's dirty dealings. Yet you lack one scintilla of real evidence that this is the case. Just because Politician A is dirty, doesn't mean Politician B must also be dirty. It is all innuendo on your part.

Yet, when Ted Stevens was indicted, even after he was convicted; when Scooter Libby was indicted, and even after he was convicted; when Duke Cunningham was indicted, and even after he was convicted, you fell all over yourselves defending those guys, saying that the charges were untrue, or it was all a liberal conspiracy, or mere political retribution, or whatever. There was no end to your defense of these guys who had more provable things against them than what you are asserting against Obama now.

Now, reasonable people can ask serious questions of Obama's involvement; indeed, I think James above frames the issue more or less accurately. Serious questions can--and are--being asked. That's because *reasonable* people only go as far as the available facts can suggest.

But you guys can't be satisfied with that. No, you guys have to have all sorts of conspiracy theories about Obama's culpability. For example, Bitsy up above brings up the whole Jeremiah Wright thing again--as if that's proof that Obama must've known about Blagojevich. Bitsy has no problem using as an example something that wasn't proved *then* as proof *now* that Obama must be culpable for something dastardly. But, of course, you never applied that same standard of evidence to your own boys Stevens, Libby, and Cunningham (to name only a few).

I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn that I think they got Blago dead to rights and he should go down if any of what Fitzgerald alleges is true. Same thing with "Dollar" Bill Jefferson. And Spitzer. You see, that's because I have zero tolerance for corrupt politicians, while you bozos only seem to have zero tolerance for liberal politicians, but give your own boys a free pass.

And of course I can be totally amused that you throw in "global warming nut."

Yes, science bad. Zero-sum politics good.

At this juncture, there’s no evidence or reason to think Obama did anything wrong.

Indeed. A number of commentators want to make a lot of hay about the Blago/Rezko/Obama "connection"... Let's see: The Clinton Campaign could find nothing there, the McCain campaign (and the RNC) could find nothing there, not 1, but 2 Federal investigations have found nothing there... I think if Patrick Fitzgerald says there is nothing there, maybe it's because... there isn't? And until he says otherwise, I will take him at his word.

The most damning suggestion is that Obama had reason, beyond press accounts, to think Blagojevich was dirty and remained silent.

I live in MO, so I follow IL politics a little closer than maybe somebody in SC, but I can tell you that the stench out of Springfield has been so strong that even I could smell it a hundred miles west of the Mississippi. I should call the FBI and give them a tip? EVERYBODY knew he was dirty. But that does not make Obama culpable in any way shape or form.

The FBI: "Do have any specific knowledge of illegal acts?"
"Uhhhhhh..... No. But I have heard LOTS of rumors."

Otherwise, we’ve got mere guilt by association: they were part of the same political machine.

Yes, the IL political machine. And yes, I have said before that Obama plays politics the "Chicago way"... he won his first state senate election by "eliminating" his opponents (from the ballot). What is the point for those who want to smear him with this fact? He is not "pure and innocent"? Who is being naive now? Politics ain't tiddlywinks. Name your politician, and I can come up with at least as much dirt on them as you can on Obama. Get over it. They are NOT Little-Bo-Peep any more than he is.

That’s mighty thin gruel.

I am starving.

"I personally think the nomination of a Nobel Prize winning physicist for Energy Secretary is vastly more important."

You say you would 'care' about hypothetical pre-pardons (a silly, obviously diversionary and ethereal straw man) but avoid the substantive and real point: gross and demonstrative political corruption by Obama's associates.

The fact is, you are focused on a Global Warming nut.

Pathetically weak argumentation, odo.

Your prostrate submission to corrupt government has been duly noted.

The guy's arrested, I might be upset if Obama had pre-announced a pardon or something ;-)