by the MCM--it's whether and HOW some are covered and whether and how some are simply pushed down the Memory Hole.

Seems Obama is getting the "good" hactackular treatment right now. Whether the C part of the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) decides McCain or Obama will be better for them will determine how the MCM in general covers the election. MessNBC right now seems to be leaning toward pushing for an Obama presidency, but I'm totally sure of that yet. Timmeh seems to be keeping their options open.

Think also about how the MCM would be reacting right now to Sen. Clinton having won through votes of the SDs--MessNBC onscreen people would all have been horizontal, from fainting away in shock and anger at the backroom deals that must have been made. Pearls would have been rolling all over the floors, as they were clutched every more tightly and then finally broke. Oh my!

josh marshall's tpm made it's reputation on muckraking. that is their specialty, their self-ordained journalistic ministry.

go there this morning and tell me where you find even a headline mentioning tony rezko's conviction.

even when that headline does reluctantly appear,

tell me where at tpm site you have seen any discussion of the deals that earned rezko a room in the big house.

let alone rezko's connection to senator obama.

principled journalism is for suckers.

knowing repubs like I do...

they'll bring it up.

Just not now.

The 'switch' will be flipped eventually.

(Whether or not Tweety clues KO in on it, is another story)

But Chicago will be brought up.

If there is one thing the entire Village agrees on, it is that Patrick Fitzgerald must go. They all hate him. Nothing connected to Fitz will ever get traction.

I don't think this will be brought up.

And all those boiz who love Feingold because he is a "reformer" just listen to their silence on Fitzgerald and Rezko.

sigh

besides the housing deal, which still makes little sense as a business transaction, is how was Obama a community organizer and not know that Rezko's buildings, some of which as I understand it were in Obama's area, were basically slums? Unless someone has another explanation, it seems to me he was either a really bad and out-of-touch community organizer or he turned a blind eye for political contributions.

I don't think it's likely Obama committed any crimes. But I do think that a closer scrutiny of his actions probably would not reveal anything very positive about him. As with so much related to Tony Rezko, everything has a certain smell wafting from it and it ain't a pleasant one.

The 527s will do it for them.

The TV spots will run.

The radio spots will run.

And they'll run hard.

Ammunition = rezko, rev. wright. Bigger = power and money. It seems the republican party has been disturbingly quiet this primary season, I expect there's some extra special planning going on and they aren't lacking for "ammunition". I'm not worried about McCain, and or 527s, will do to Obama - the stories are there. I guess I'm worried about how HRC keeps her image, superDs, supporters alive and engaged in case there's an upset before the convention/November.

I love this job!

is that true about the antipathy toward fiztgerald?

i'm not questioning because i know; i rally asking for info.

fitzgerald is as principled a u.s. attorney as one can find.

he was also the guy who had the patience to tip-toe thru the plame/libby political minefield and get a conviction, an act of consummate professionalism.

i can't believe ANY progressive weblog (even those joseph cannon refers to as "prog blogs" with that nice hint of soviet style nomenclature) would not admire him greatly.

and you wonder why the Village wants him gone?

I have no specific information, but Fitzgerald's principled investigations have taken down half the Illinois political establishment. They have also taken down half the neo-con establishment.

As for Feingold's fan boiz, it has always seemed to me that human beings like the idea of reform better than reality. That is why Fiengold gets a pass on voting to confirm pro-torture John Roberts. Hey, Feingold want campaign finance reform, and he was against the patriot act, who cares if he voted to confirm a torturer.

Because polls said most Americans saw him as non-ideological. I'm sure that had nothing to do with media coverage or the refusal of Democrats like Obama to paint Roberts as outside the mainstream ideologically. Here's Obama:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense.

To think I doubt Obama's commitment to my reproductive rights or other liberal causes. I can't imagine why.

And, as eriposte pointed out, note the equivalation. If you oppose Roberts, you are the same as those who believe America is an imperialist brute. Because, you know, you wouldn't try to force all those Democrats to oppose a nice man like John Roberts unless you hate America.

You have to love the Democratic Party went with the guy who couches his beliefs in conservative rhetoric that demonizes a large part of the Democratic Party. And that the blogs on the left who he lectured this way, supported him unconditionally.

The TV spots will run.

Don't want to give it a link, but if you want to see it, go to youtube and search for "Obama's Money Man".

Explainer, from 06 -- http://www.slate.com/id/2149240/

Just like I thought.

Tighten up your helmets, lace up them cleats.

thanks for the info.

i shouldn't be surprised.

for the prog blogs truth and credibility seem never to be evaluated absent loyalty.

amberglow points to slate:

[ ...City government experts point to a political culture that's been in place for more than 100 years. This culture dates back to the late 19th century, when a gambling-house owner named Michael Cassius McDonald created the city's first political machine... ]

and it is from this political swamp that our savior and leader

barack obama

arose?

to bring us a new politics?

a transcendent politics?

i can hardly wait until january.

yours was a fine post.

where a conversation develops on a weblog

is kind of like

where a rainstorm develops.

little motes of dust here

or there

cause raindrops to suddenly coalesce.

the commenters are the motes.

a party-pooping commenter can mess up a good post;

i know, i've been guilty.

FDL has a new post up, the Republicans will not be able to use this one.

"Barack Obama will announce today that the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept donations from federally registered lobbyists or political action committees, his campaign said this morning. No word yet on whether that applied at last night's $28,500-a-pop DNC fund-raiser at which Obama appeared in New York City. ..." -- http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/elec...

No word yet on whether that applied at last night’s $28,500-a-pop DNC fund-raiser at which Obama appeared in New York City. …

Ha!!!

Lemme provide some assistance...

"NO!"

is non-reality-based thinking at it's best. Since when is the Democrat going to be held to the same standards as Republicans, especially an African American that most people know very little about? And wait until they bring Auchi (sp?) into it. I'm still wondering if Obama wrote a letter on his behalf, Rezko reportedly asked his political contacts to help with that and if Obama was stupid enough to do it in writing you can bet the Bush State Dept. has it. Obama has already "forgotten" meeting Auchi, by which I mean he denied he had met him and that turned out to be inaccurate.

I thought the GOP ad, believe it or not, was actually weaker than it could've been. It said only Rezko bought the property next door to Obama on the same day Obama bought his house. It did not note that Obama could not have purchased that house without Tony Rezko's help or that Rezko was known to be under federal investigation at the time Obama asked for Rezko's help.

You don't have to be a genius to think this kind of stuff is damaging to a guy running as a "new kind of politics" and for "change you can believe in." If he gets painted as just another Chicago pol, which Rezko helps do, then those slogans are going to start ringing pretty hollow. For some of us, they already do.

Obama, IMO, is bleeding badly right now. What should worry Democrats is not just that he's so damaged (even with relatively light attacks by Clinton and a fawning media), but that so many of his most ardent supporters can't even see it. They won't work to fix it, if they can't even see it. He projected he would win SD a couple of months ago by 15%, instead he lost it by 10. That's not because of Hillary Clinton. It's because he lost people who previously supported him. The reason for that is a combination of things, but I believe it's mostly Wright and bitter-cling. Indeed, his personal unfavorables are way up.

Denying Rezko could be a problem is just sticking your head in the sand. In what alternative universe do you have to live in to believe that an important backer of a presidential candidate, who not only fundraised (exact numbers still not released from Obama campaign) but helped the candidate buy his house (while the donor was under federal investigation) and played a formal part of a candidate's Senate campaign, is convicted on 16 counts of federal corruption charges and no worries because it won't hurt him? Will it make it impossible for him to win? No. But it's not good news in any way, shape, or form.

I doubt Patrick Fitzgerald is going to let him "deny" Rezko.

coincidentally, re this thread.

from the incomparable emptywheel.

how many times will we hear this? How many times has it been so far? (Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Phleger....)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/pol... -- "... In a statement, Mr. Obama said that he was “saddened” by the verdict.

“This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” he said, adding that the charges against Mr. Rezko “once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.” ..."

Of "nobody could have predicted $(horrible thing that a 10 year old child could have predicted)"

The name that comes to mind is Spiro Agnew. (Whoops! Now I've dated myself!!)

Interesting format. I've always liked your Religious People Are the Best People thing, too; I missed that when you moved over to Correntewire.

But I just want to point out that there's no Dade County. It's been renamed to Miami-Dade for whatever reason -- silly Floridians. Besides, the awesome South Florida county is actually Broward, for obvious reasons (that I'm from there being the most obvious). ;p