A Chirstmastime Fireside for December 24, 2008

Merry Christmas, from the President-Elect...



Is it just me, or do you think the President-Elect shot this one and last week's back to back?

Time: Does Labor still support Obama?

From the current Time Magazine:

In the seven weeks since Obama's victory, the President-elect has proven to be more of a pragmatist than labor envisioned. From his podium in Chicago during the debate over whether to bail out the Big Three automakers, Obama has been critical of the United Auto Workers, arguing that the union must be willing to grant concessions on its workers' hard-fought wages and benefits. Labor has also been disappointed by some of Obama's initial appointments. Rep. Xavier Becerra of California turned down the job of U.S. Trade Representative because, he told a radio station, he felt overhauling trade agreements would not be a top priority of the incoming Obama administration. Obama's eventual pick, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, has a record of supporting free trade deals, anathema to labor. And some progressives were disappointed that Obama passed over labor activist Mary Beth Maxwell and instead chose Rep. Hilda Solis of California as Secretary of Labor. "Labor has every good reason to be wary since they've been disappointed by Dems before, such as Presidents Clinton and Carter," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the progressive advocacy group Campaign for America's Future.

Hmmm. Progressives are disappointed.  Progressives are always disappointed, at least that's the meme nowadays.

Did anyone at Time bother to ask the Unions?

From the SEIU Blog: "A Labor Secretary Working Families Can Count On"

Solis has proven her unwavering commitment to putting workers first by supporting fair wages, recognizing the importance of unions, enforcing workplace safety and wage protections. If picked, she will be the third Hispanic nominee in Obama's Cabinet, along with Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and his pick for secretary of the interior, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar.

"It's extraordinary," SEIU President Andy Stern said in an interview yesterday with Talking Points Memo (TPM). "On every issue that's important to us, she has stood up for an America where everyone's hard work is valued and rewarded." Stern also issued a statement yesterday hailing Solis's nomination.

From the AFL-CIO Blog: "White House Task Force to Focus on America’s Working Families"

For the first time in eight years, working families have a place in the White House. Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama said he will establish a White House Task Force on Working Families. Vice President-elect Joe Biden will head the task force.

The task force will be a major initiative from the Obama administration targeted at raising the living standards of middle-class, working families. Along with Biden, it will include top-level administration policymakers. The task force will conduct outreach sessions with representatives of labor, business and the advocacy communities.

And: "Sweeney Praises Nomination of Solis"

We’re confident that she will return to the Labor Department one of its core missions—to defend workers’ basic rights in our nation’s workplaces.

She’s proven to be a passionate leader and advocate for all working families. In fact, she’s voted with working men and women 97 percent of the time.

The Blagojevich Report...one more thing.

One, the report confirms that everyone's talked to the U.S. Attorney, and that was the reason for the delay in the report:

These accounts were communicated to the Office of the United States Attorney in interviews that were conducted last week. At the request of the Office, we delayed the release of this report until such time as the interviews could be completed. The interviews took place over a period of three days: Thursday, December 18, 2008 (the President-Elect); December 19, 2008 (Valerie Jarrett); and December 20, 2008 (Rahm Emanuel).

Two, will this satisfy Politico? (My bet is no, but...what else is there to reveal?)

The Blagojevich Report...

The complete report can be found at the Transition Website. It's a bit of a snoozer, which is what you should be hoping for if you're rooting for Obama. The key paragraphs, to me, are as follows, and lay out the basic spine of the story:

Barack Obama:

The President-Elect had no contact or communication with Governor Blagojevich or members of his staff about the Senate seat. In various conversations with transition staff and others, the President-Elect expressed his preference that Valerie Jarrett work with him in the White House. He also stated that he would neither stand in her way if she wanted to pursue the Senate seat nor actively seek to have her or any other particular candidate appointed to the vacancy.

Rahm Emanuel:

Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich. Those conversations occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2008. Soon after he decided to accept the President-Elect's offer to serve as Chief of Staff in the White House, Mr. Emanuel placed a call to the Governor to give him a heads up that he was taking the Chief of Staff's position in the White House, and to advise him that he would be resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. They spoke about Mr. Emanuel's House seat, when he would be resigning and potential candidates to replace him. He also had a brief discussion with the Governor about the Senate seat and the merits of various people whom the Governor might consider. Mr. Emanuel and the Governor did not discuss a cabinet position, 501c(4), a private sector position for the Governor or any other personal benefit for the Governor.

In those early conversations with the Governor, Mr. Emanuel recommended Valarie Jarrett because he knew she was interested in the seat. He did so before learning -- in further conversations with the President-Elect -- that the President-Elect had ruled out communicating a preference for any one candidate. As noted above, the President-Elect believed it appropriate to provide the names of multiple candidates to be considered, along with others, who were qualified to hold the seat and able to retain it in a future election. The following week, Mr. Emanuel learned that the President-Elect and Ms. Jarrett with the President's strong encouragement had decided that she would take a position in the White House.

TPM: The Neverending Story...

Election 2008!, still, because we just can't get enough...

Yes, the Minnesota recount is going on...and on...and on...and on...

Currently, Democratic-Farm-Labor candidate Al Franken holds a massive 48 vote lead (and in this particular election, 48 votes is massive)...

...but stormin' Normie is up to old (as in Florida 2000 old) tricks.

Courtesy of Talking Point Memo's Eric Kleefield:

Coleman's lawyer Tony Trimble said the campaign wanted to re-argue 16 decisions on disputed ballots that the board had ruled on last week, plus they alleged that 34 ballots for which the challenges had been withdrawn were then wrongly allocated, giving an illegitimate boost to Franken. Note that 16 plus 34 equals 50 -- so if they were to somehow sweep this whole set of arguments, they would just manage to undo Franken's current 48-vote edge.

Well, the decision came in, and:

And it didn't work. The board just looked at all 16 ballots, and in all 16 cases declined to take any further action like the Coleman camp wanted. So don't expect the Franken camp to fire back, as lead attorney Marc Elias indicated they didn't want to do so but were prepared to compete. Just to make sure, Dem Sec. of State Mark Ritchie said on the board's behalf that they're not interested in this coming up again.

So, it's these 16 Votes...

...plus the 130 or so "duplicate" ballots Norm said were cast (though his proof of this is debatable)

...and the 1500-1600 inappropriately invalidated Absentee Ballots that were tossed out on Election day.

Maybe we'll have this resolved by the time Al needs to run for re-election in 2014.

WaPo: Richard Cohen. "Mr. Tolerance"

Anyone else find it ironic, that Richard Cohen is lecturing Obama about intolerance??

Anyone else find it ironic that Richard Cohen is lecturing Obama about anything?

Politico: Yeah, but he COULD be up to something...

From the Politico:

Barack Obama is promising that next week he’ll disclose contacts between his staff and disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s office, but he’s stopped short of pledging to release e-mails or other records that could be key to understanding those contacts.

Whatever such records exist may never see the light of day, thanks to a gap in government records disclosure laws that allows presidential transition teams to keep their documents — even those prepared using taxpayer dollars — out of the public record.

But, wait a second, the very article Politico mentions (from December 11, 2008):

President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday morning that he is “confident” no one representing him took part in any pay-to-play dealings with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich over filling Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, and pledged to release details of contacts between his team and the governor’s office in the next few days.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am 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,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “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.”

I guess it's all going to boil down to what your definition of "details" is. Obama could very well provide a report, but my guess is that the Reporters of the world want to double check the facts themselves. When he does so, they got another two days of stories. When he does, they got another two days of stories proclaiming how much his promises of transparency were false.

All mind you, when he's not the one under arrest, or under possible indictment.

Newsweek: Who's Under Arrest Here??

There's a tone to Michael Isikoff's latest piece in Newsweek that I find both offensive and troubling.  Why is the onus is being put on Barack Obama tell what did he know and when did he know it?  

Not the guy who was actually arrested, all the spotlight is shining on the President-Elect. Arguably the victim of said crime.

Isikoff's one of the good guy's, normally, but ain't nobody above an ass whoopin'.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  "Obama's the higher profile guy right now," the Press bleats.  "He's the sexier story, plus Blagojevich's Lawyer won't give us anything on him, so we have to turn to Obama."

Which is why people don't trust the Press anymore.

I understand the journalist's viewpoint in that, we have to clear the decks just in case Obama did something untoward...but no one seems to be asking the question, what if he's done nothing wrong??

The Journalists response would be that no one should fear having to answer a few question, but they, you and I all know that's now how the game works. We're watching it right now. The Journalists of the world are playing their typical, lazy-ass game of drama-inflation. They get to sell a few more papers, put a few more eyeballs in front of the screen, yet we get no closer to what actually happened. But what actually happened doesn't matter in journalism anymore. It's just about hitting that number...

Look at Mr. Isikoff's very first question: "Define "inappropriate," make good on your pledge of transparency and show us the internal report. All of it."

If there is a reason for the inherent hosility between Government officials and Journalists, it's because of questions like this. I'm also missing the part where the U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, asked the Office of the President-Elect to keep a lid of this stuff until December 22nd.

Second question "Explain what happened with Senate "Candidate 1."

Again, the onus being that Obama is actually the one under possible indictment.  Why not just ask "what did you do to make the guy actually under arrest so upset?"

The third question is actually the easiest to answer: "What did you know about Blago's exit strategy?"

Nothing, next question.

The fourth question is almost too insulting to repeat: "Have you shared everything you have on Rezko?"

My first answer would normally begin with a four-letter expletive. My problem with the word Rezko, it's become a short-hand, not for any actual corruption, but short-hand for possible corruption. It has been long known that Rezko was going to be a far bigger problem for other Illinois politicians not named Obama. Yet again, Obama is the one taking the heat.

And finally we come to "Will you promise to leave Fitzgerald alone?"

Of course, if Obama replaces Fitzgerald (which by the way, it's his right to do) Obama MUST be guilty of something.

I want Fitzgerald left alone. I actually think Fitzgerald will be left alone.  I think Blagojevich has a better chance at going to jail if Fitzgerald is left alone.  At the same time, what if he's let go...what does that prove exactly?  It's just one more story point that the press can hit and claim its doing its job.

The Fireside chat for December 20, 2008

President Bush, he's talkin' about you...

HuffPo: Liberals, stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy For God-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back, writes:

Here's the point for all you progressives that only talk to yourselves and haven't a clue about the "other" America: in a country where a national evangelical leader is fired for just voting for Obama, and thinking friendly thoughts about gays, the new progressive president has his work cut out!

If you all -- if we -- bitch each time Obama makes a strategic move, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Pipe down, and give him a chance. And by the way, America faces bigger problems right now than the window dressing at the inauguration.

Progressives are too used to failing. Stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war. It's all about real results now, not words, and not symbols. It is time to think like winners. The issue now is governance, not symbols.

Politico: Another in a long line of examples of Media B.S.

Here's the story from the Politico about Xavier Becerra turning down Barack Obama's job offer to be U.S. Trade Represenative:

With one decision last night, Rep. Xavier Becerra pulled a twofer: He rebuffed the Obama administration and dashed the hopes several young Democrats who covet Becerra’s House leadership slot.

The California Democrat – the first high-profile figure to reject an Obama job offer – says he turned down the U.S. trade representative gig because he was concerned that trade would not be a big priority in the new administration.

But the Obama team may have already soured on Becerra thanks to his hemming and hawing over the post, according to people close to the situation. And a report about Becerra’s support of clemency for a Los Angeles drug dealer wasn’t good PR.

“Delaying this decision for two or three weeks wasn’t helping him or anyone,” said a House Democratic aide. “He’s conflicted, we understand that, but he’s got to make a decision. A lot of people are waiting, including the president.”

In the end, even though Becerra made the decision to take himself out of the running, the move had a mutual breakup feel to it.

Becerra told the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion he had concluded that trade “would not be priority number one, perhaps not even two or three,” according to a loose translation of his remarks, adding that, “To do this job well, it would be necessary to travel a lot ... and also I have a family.”

Yet, you look at the Los Angeles Times (granted a Hometown paper for Becerra), and you see a different take on the same damn story:

Rep. Xavier Becerra said Wednesday that he turned down the position of U.S. trade representative in the incoming administration because the job will not be at the center of the action during a time of more pressing economic concerns.

The highest-profile candidate to decline a job offer from President-elect Barack Obama, the Los Angeles Democrat said he thinks he can have more influence as a ranking member of Congress than as the lead advisor on trade agreements.

"I don't see how it can be the front-burner issue for him, nor should it be, quite honestly," Becerra said in an interview with Los Angeles public radio. "Clearly the priority for this president, and I think he said it very well, will be economic recovery and jobs."

Becerra's announcement that he wouldn't take the job, released Tuesday, ended several weeks of conversation between him and the Obama team about becoming the nation's chief trade negotiator.

Sources close to the talks say Becerra had been going back and forth over whether he wanted the job, and the talks were further complicated by news reports about Becerra's support of clemency for a convicted California drug dealer in 2001.

It's amazing what a subtle change a quote or two can do to a story...

In one Becerra is an egomanaic, whom even the President-Elect had wearied of...

In the other Becerrais a little more selfless. I can do a better job where I am now...

This is why you have to read more than one newspaper...more than one source for your information.

Lest ye forget...

On the Conservative side of things, two bit Catholic Huckster reminds me why I remain a grateful ex-Catholic...

Rick Warren. THIS is the battle you're going to choose?

Did I miss something?

Now, I think Rick Warren is a two bit huckster. A Businessman who recognized there was a market out there for a slightly less venomous Christian Conservatism, and sold it to a public, ready to go out there and bash 'em some gays, but didn't want to look nasty doing so.

At the same time, given the level of furor about Rick Warren giving the Invocation...

..I mean, we do know what an Invocation is, right? It's the opening prayer at the Inaguaral. He says a little ditty to God and gets off stage.

Is Rick Warren going to say something other than a prayer at the beginning of the Inaguaral Festivities? I mean, heck, is it even going to be on Television? (Well, thanks to the Controversy, I'm sure it will now!)

Is Rick Warren going to be allowed to stand up there and rail against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage?

Has Rick Warren been given a Policy Platform to go out and put into practice that which he believes?

Has Barack Obama changed his own position on GLBT matters in the slightest??

If the GLBT Community ever wonders why it routinely gets its ass kicked in the Political Sphere, it could be the result of horse@#$% like this.

I mean this is what you're going to go after?

This is the battle you're going to choose?

Really?

Let me provide you the list of horse@#$% articles from Huffington Post as of today:

Joe Cutbirth: I Voted (twice) for Obama, and Apparently I Lost

Let's talk hope for a minute. Barack Obama seized the word "hope" this year, but back in 1977 my first political hero gave a big...

Chez Pazienza: Pastor and Servants?

Warren's presence on inauguration day makes it seems as if God -- specifically the Pentecostal, Southern Baptist version -- will continue to be granted ascendancy within our government.

Geoffrey Dunn: Et tu, Obama?: The Choice of Rick Warren Is Unacceptable

Let's get the personal creds down at the beginning: I supported Barack Obama for President out the gate. Early on. And all the way through....

Leah McElrath Renna: Dear Obama: Here's Why You are Wrong on Warren

With all due respect, President-Elect Obama, your response to lesbian and gay Americans that "it is important for America to come together, even though we...

Morgan Warners: When inclusion becomes relativism

President-elect Barack Obama erred in asking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. A spokeswoman for Obama implied that the move was made...

Jon Hoadley: On Rick Warren: What Are we Fighting For?

The choice of Warren underscores the fact that no openly-LGBT person has been selected to take part in the Inaugural ceremony, or be named to any level of Obama's White House staff.

For the record, Jon Hoadley is either dumber than a box of hammers or an outright liar. There is a GLBT group marching in the Inaugural parade. One would think that counts as a part of the Inaugural ceremony. And openly gay Nancy Sutley has been appointed to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Could there be more? Sure. But making such a broad statement, and then not backing it up because the facts don't suit your thesis is typical Bush.

Isobel White: Rick Warren: Another Damper on My Chance at Obama-mania

Obama could have chosen any clergy member in the nation to deliver his invocation. So why one who spoke out so publicly in support of Prop 8. Why re-open painful wounds?

Phil Bronstein: Why Is Anyone Surprised Obama Picked Warren?

This choice illustrates the downside of inspirational figures and the accompanying bad habit of investing in Obama your own ideas, values, priorities and views just because he moves you.

Now...for reason:

I don't understand how anyone who listened to Obama during the campaign would be shocked that Obama lets Warren give the invocation. It's vintage Obama. It does not signal agreement with Warren's political positions, some of which are clearly at odds with Obama's. Warren isn't making policy or even giving a sermon., He's saying a prayer and then possibly dancing later at some inaugural parties. If anything, it's the possibility of this dancing that should be deeply troubling to all Americans.

Lee Stranahan, Huffington Post.

While I understand the hurt and sense of betrayal, the Oblogger plans to withhold judgment until after Obama gets in office and creates policy, which is the important thing.

Obama will have to demonstrate his commitment to his LGBT constituency, which is sick and tired of getting thrown under the political bus... and rightly so.

But please... can cooler heads prevail? And may we let Obama get in office before we disown him? I say short-term sacrifice for long-term gain.

Rick Warren and I are on opposite sides of the ideological fence on so many issues: a woman's right to choose, stem cell research, school prayer, and gay marriage.

But I'm not up in arms about this choice because I don't see this invocation as an endorsement of his views, but rather Obama's doing just as he said he was going to do and inviting those with whom you have differences to be part of the table.

The Oblogger (a friend of mine from NYU)



Does this shift Obama's position on issues near and dear to folks on the left? Does this break or reinforce a campaign promise to attempt to bring the country together?

Consider this an olive branch and a signal to future generations that we as Americans must be accepting of all walks of life along with religious and political beliefs. This decision does not divide, it sends a message.

This demonstrates how Obama will be willing to have an open dialogue with all Americans and it clearly steers the country away from fear. I find it interesting that James Dobson has not condemned Warren for accepting well aware of Obama's position on social issues.

Ed Schultz. (Off air today because of an illness, but still blogging from his bedside).



In his short political career, Obama has deftly manipulated political symbols to his advantage, but he's never been one to pay homage to one of the most sacred regulations of identity politics, which is that one must take care of one's own kind before turning outward. His mind operates differently. Obama does believe, as many of his supporters do, that there are uncrossable demarcation lines between the reasonable and the profane. But he doesn't believe that Warren, someone he admires for reaching outside his (Warren's) comfort zone on AIDS, is all that different from himself. Obama is simultaneously capable of admiring Warren while disdaining Warren's oogedy boogedy appraoch to gay relationships and his uninformed response to torture. Warren's views might be hurtful to gays; Obama does not think they are harmful.

That said, his team bungled this a bit. Reaching out to gay groups to give them a heads up might have softened the edge of their reaction and given them internal confidence that they were valued members of Obama's coalition. Dropping the list (like it's hot), without pre-notice, must have seemed like a sharp slap in the face. The LGBT community is still very raw about Proposition 8, and one would assume that at least someone in Obama's inner circle would be aware of this.

Marc Ambinder, Atlantic Monthly.

AP: Your Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis...

Murdoch was wrong, it's going to be Rep. Hilda Solis (of East Los Angeles) for Labor Secretary.

How's the Gay Community going to deal with the double blow of Rick Warren giving the Invocation, and not getting Mary Beth Maxwell in as Labor Secretary?

For the record, Labor looooves the pick.

How about the first openly Gay Secretary of the Navy??

Here's Hilda supporting the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007:

Slate: This is the John Dickerson I used to know...

...the one who used to appear on the Al Franken Show every week back when dude was on Air America, and not running for the Senate.

In short, even John Dickerson is cracking back on what Dana Milbank said.

Barack Obama's initial response to the Rod Blagojevich scandal was flaccid. But his current posture seems perfectly reasonable. He has asked for a week before releasing details about his aides' contacts with the governor, and that's what he should get.

Reporters should keep asking questions, of course. Monday's exchange between Obama and John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune seemed to be a fine model for the new presidency. McCormick asked about a contradiction in Obama's statements about Blagojevich, and Obama said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked him to wait until Dec. 22 before saying anything. As nonanswers go, it was fairly straightforward—far preferable to the usual tactic of giving a nonanswer and pretending it is a real answer.

In short, Press? Chill!

There's quite a distance among press management, artful shading, and outright fibbing. Overall, we're still figuring out where the next administration and its leader fall in that continuum. Right now, however, Obama is within the neighborhood of press management—an irritating but necessary part of the dance we'll be doing for the next four years. And reporters are likely to get a chance to ask more questions, and maybe get even better answers, if they don't assume immediately that Obama is trying to game the system.

The other reason the press should give Obama his time to answer is that if it doesn't, it risks undermining the authority it will need when he finally does answer the question. If every nonanswer is described as a failure, then there will be no language to describe a truly meaningful mistake.

HuffPo: Milbank...still a punk.

There's a reason this guy was tossed off Countdown.

And apparently, Dana Milbank's still bitter over Obama firing his personal pal, Samantha Power (even though Samantha Power has been hired back).

Now, he's complaining that Obama is just like Bush when it comes to the Press.

Obama's response to Blagojevich questions has been decidedly junior varsity. Begging off because of an ongoing investigation? Hiding behind Patrick Fitzgerald's skirt? Warning a reporter not to "waste" a question and asking for an alternative question? All four techniques were popularized by Bush.

Both Jason Zengerle of the New Republic, and Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post (the most comprehensive of the two pieces) jumped down Milbank's throat.

And Linkins points out, correctly, that Milbank only lists three techniques.

Jason Zengerle:

I think this is unfair for a couple of reasons. First, Obama held his press conference to introduce Duncan as the man he's chosen to head up the Department of Education. Dana says this was akin to "insomnia treatment," and I concede that the Blago scandal is certainly more entertaining; but, in the annals of what's important, I'd say that the country's education policy tops the legal travails of a midwestern governor. Is it really too much to expect the press to ask Obama some questions about education during a press conference held to unveil his Secretary of Education?

Second, Obama didn't hide behind Fitzgerald's skirt to dodge McCormick's question, and Obama didn't time the release of his campaign's report so that he'd be in Hawaii when it came out. Unless, that is, Dana has evidence that Obama planned all this with Fitzgerald, since it was Fitzgerald who requested that Obama hold off releasing the report until next. Now, it is convenient for Obama that Fitzgerald did this? Sure. But it's not like he's just inventing excuses to not answer Blago questions.

Jason Linkins:

That's the rock in the road that reporters like Milbank have yet to surmount. Sure, the fact that the Obama team has been instructed to withhold the release of the report until December 22nd appears convenient from a press-process standpoint -- something self-obsessed reporters rarely tire of pointing out. But the order either came from Fitzgerald or it didn't. Obama is either complying with Fitzgerald's office or he isn't. If there's any question regarding what Fitzgerald has requested or instructed, then surely those questions should be directed at Fitzgerald, instead of simply being deployed as a suggestive pollutant at every Obama press conference between now and the report release.

My favorite part of the Linkins piece is when he called Milbank, a "Process Puppy".

Newsweek: Lawyers, Guns and Money...

So, Obama comes out and says that he and his incoming White House Counsel have gone over the list of contacts, and determined that everyone's in the clear. We have a report, ready for distribution, but it won't be released until Patrick Fitzgerald gives the high sign.

Yet, it's terrible news for Obama, according to Howard Fineman.

The original release was supposed to be this week. But it was pushed back, the Obama camp said, at the request of the official investigating Blago: Chicago-based U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the 21st-century Eliot Ness. Fitz's office confirmed that he had made the request, though there is no way of knowing how adamant he was about it. The reasoning seems clear enough: Fitz does not want any information about the Obama's team's contacts to be made public because it might give Blago's bad guys—who allegedly tried to solicit bribes—clues about how to cover their tracks. But surely, if they acted wrongfully, they have gotten their stories straight by now.

So the timing of the report is more complicated than that. At least it seems that way from the manner in which Obama's own camp has been acting. They have been cautious and quiet in the extreme.

So, according to Fineman, Fitzgerald asked Obama to delay the report, but may not have really meant it. Is there anything Fineman bases this on?

No, just his own supposition.

Now, Fineman spends a majority of the focus on Rahm Emanuel, hinting in the headline and subheader that he could be in reeeeall trouble, but:

Neither Fitz nor anyone I have heard about or spoken to suggests that Emanuel did anything illegal or even untoward. It's not even clear if he heard anything incriminating about anybody.

Emanuel, understandably, is taking no chances. He has kept utterly quiet. He has pledged total cooperation with Fitzgerald and, apparently, is giving it.

He's even hired counsel, which makes sense because:

A prominent Washington criminal lawyer (who declined to be quoted because he did not know the particulars of the case) was sympathetic—and stressed that hiring a lawyer and moving cautiously was wise. "You always hear the cliché that this or that person made matters worse by going silent," he said. "It's usually just the opposite, at least legally. The fact is, Emanuel at the time was probably getting a hundred calls and e-mails a day. He may not remember what he had said, and even if he did, innocent words or answers can look or sound bad. The last thing you want to do now is say something else that would complicate things. Emanuel was dealing with this crazy big-haired guy who was running around saying who knows what."

But...

Still, however justifiable the silence and caution, Emanuel (and, by extension, Obama) could pay a price for both as the Chicago mess simmers on. Emanuel already has blown up at members of the Chicago press corps—a newspaper reporter and a cameraman. Obama's transition team, eager to show its openness and focus on naming cabinet nominees, has been forced to spend day after day dealing with the Blago story. There's too much focus on Emanuel, whose naturally abrasive personality clashes with his boss's cool demeanor.

And Republicans are now piling on Emanuel—and are likely to continue to do so. At this point, there seems little doubt that Emanuel will survive, and will take his place on Jan. 20 as chief of staff in the Oval Office. But he is already a bigger story than is good for either him or his boss—and delay, however legally justified, just makes it bigger. We'll know more next week—at least those of us who are paying attention.

Fineman does know that the Emanuel blew up at said Reporter after he had let the man into his house to use his bathroom, right??

Here's the incident in question:

Back at his home, Emanuel appeared "beet-red," according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emanuel to use his bathroom this morning.

"I'm getting regular death threats. You've put my home address on national television. I'm pissed at the networks. You've intruded too much, " Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.

Ultimately, what I can't stand about the Press Corps is their desire to juice up a story at the cost of the facts, when the facts as they are...are plenty enough.

The facts are Fitzgerald is going after Rod Blagojevich. No one from the Obama Transition Team, at this time, is under any Legal Jeopardy.

Where they in Legal Jeopardy, it would be a story. But they're not, and the Media seems to be settling for "they could be legal jeopardy, who's to say" as their new standard.

TPM: Normie's a scumbag...

Norm Coleman changes his mind...again.

Here's a fun coda to today's exhausting meeting of the Minnesota canvassing board: The Coleman campaign suddenly indicated that it wants to bring back some of their challenges that they'd previously withdrawn -- a development that will probably drag out this process well past the board's original goal of finishing by Friday.

Only Labor to go??

Former Governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack to be Secretary of Agriculture.

We're down now to the just the Secretary of Labor, and then Obama can go on Vacation, and prepare to get the Family to D.C. (Remember school starts January 5th!)

But what does the Teacher's Union say?

So far, thumbs up...with a note of caution.

As Chicago schools’ chief executive officer, Duncan has shown a genuine commitment to what we see as the essential priorities for an incoming education secretary. There may be times when we will differ, but we believe we will agree fully that America’s students and teachers need an education secretary committed to focusing on real solutions for closing the achievement gap and providing every child with a rigorous, well-rounded education that prepares him or her for college, work and life. Duncan has collaborated with the Chicago Teachers Union and other community partners on various reform programs to help students with the greatest needs. One of Chicago’s stand-out programs is a form of community schooling that brings a variety of wraparound services under the school roof, including tutoring, recreational and social service programs that extend through the evening hours.