It seems to me all the 24 hour news channels have convicted Gov Blagojevich without a trial. They even made fun of his brief press conference on Friday (Dec 19) because he didn't say much about the case. I find that interesting that journalists would make comments knowing the first thing a lawyer tells the client is not to talk about the case at hand.
The tapes were very popular fodder for the late night comics, and with a foul mouthed Governor and his wife, it was easy to see why. The interesting thing is that no crime was committed on the tapes. The governor did talk about getting some kind of gains for the open Senate seat, but he did not make any deals or bribes. There is no crime in talking about bribery, although it isn't a good thing to do ethically.
I for one am glad Governor Blagojevich is not resigning, no matter what the pressure. He deserves his day in court, just like any one of us who are charged with a crime. He is innocent until proven guilty, and that is what is the foundation of this country.

I think some of the news media would jump on anything that might possibly reflect badly on Obama, and some would cover anything that was in the least sensational in order to boost their ratings. I've noticed how many threads have already tried and convicted Obama of being involved in a pay-for-play scheme, one even speculating, without any foundation at all, that Michele Obama was one of the candidates Blagovitch (sp.?) was considering selling Obama's Senate seat to.

My question is, logically, how would Obama be involved if he were, actually, involved? He couldn't be selling his own Senate seat because Blagovitch is the only one with the power to appoint his replacement. Blagovitch would logically keep all the money and not cut Obama in on the deal. The other possibility is that Obama wanted to buy the Senate seat for one of his preferred candidates, like Jesse Jackson, Jr. or his wife Michele. That doesn't make much sense because Obama is the president-elect and his recommendation would probably be strong enough to influence the governor, who would have a lot to gain from a good relationship with the Commander in Chief. Obama has denied even trying to exert his influence, and I think that is probably true. Why would he risk his whole presidency on one Senate seat? Blago is a Democrat and would most likely appoint a Democrat anyway.

The only thing anybody can prove, at this point, about the two of them is that they're both from Chicago, which has a reputation for corrupt politics. To assume more because of that is just guilt by association--a tactic some people have used against Obama for months if not years.

I'm waiting for some real proof before I judge either one of them.

From what I've read and heard so far, the only thing Blagojvich can be accused of is running his mouth while he was being wiretapped.To my knowledge, nobody has anything more concrete than that, and it's not enough to prove he was actually serious.

Being a Democrat is not, apparently, working in his favor either.

I am watching what unfolds with interest.

Gov Blagojevich surprised everyone on Tuesday, Dec 30, when he appointed Roland Burris to the Senate seat. He made a convincing argument, as the Illinois State Assembly did not pass a law while it had the time in session. He has the legal right to do his duty, and that is to give Illinois two sitting senators. I give the man points for having the guts to do this, and know it will be difficult for all involved when it comes time to seat the Senate.
Roland Burris is highly qualified and well respected in Illinois, and has run numerous unsuccessful runs for governor and US senator. I would hope that the usually spineless and ethically challenged Harry Reid would seat him, but he is trying to lead the upper moral ground. Gov Blagojevich has not been found guilty of anything, and has the right of due process. The Democrats should put aside their petty feelings toward the Governor, and seat this most honest man.
It did not help for Rep Bobby Rush to play the race card, but he is old school politics in Illinois, where the race card is played on a daily basis. I also believe Roland Burris will be a seat warmer, as he is 71 and was retired once.
It will be interesting to see how the Senate Democrats work this one out, as they have a very qualified and clean candidate among them.

Well today the Illinois legislature voted to impeach Blagojevich, with no dissenting votes.

I suppose Blagojevich should have been there to defend himself rather than going around the country giving interviews and appearing on talk shows. Maybe he knew he didn't have a chance in Illinois, so he preferred to be tried in the court of public opinion.

After all the analysis I'm still not clear where "pay to play" ends and making campaign contributions begins. None of the talking heads I've seen has made it any clearer. It seems self evident that giving a politician money in exchange for favors or legislation that one wants is a shady activity.

But just about everybody gives money to influence politicians to act or vote in a certain way. For example, even my measley campaign contribution was because I hoped the candidate of my choice would win and thereby enact policies and legislation that I want to see happen.

Is it the size of the "donation" that makes it illegal, or the fact that a politician is too blatantly obvious about it, or some other measure of guilt?

It seems clear to me that Illinois is eager to get rid of its reputation for shady politics and to publicly refute "pay to play" and the guy who symbolizes it . But it's equally clear to me that such deal-making will not end in Illinois or anywhere else in the country. Blagojevich is just the fall guy for a lot that's wrong in American politics.

And by the way, nobody has explained to my satisfaction why Blagojevich was being wiretapped in the first place. Was it a blatant attempt to entrap him? Does anyone else have a clue?

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Sestias]