It's all about the pressure. Looks to me like a heads up to the President-elect, probably about control of the Intelligence Community. I doubt they'll try to take him out now, but you never know.

P. Fitzgerald is the perfect choice to lead the attack, and a card-carrying member of the National Security State. Prog-bloggers are going to be so confused!

The NYT does what it does best, guide the media storm.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Dec 11 2008 7:08 utc | 1

Even worse is the apparent choice of Steven Chu as energy secretary, Chu is (gasp) a scientist, Nobel Prize winner and actually knows something about energy...

This proves that Obama believes we can solve our problems by applying actual knowledge about the real world instead of praying to the Great Potato and waiting for his only besprouted Spud, the Holy Idaho to come save us from the shit we are in.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Dec 11 2008 7:48 utc | 2

much ado etc!...if politicians were to be indicted for coveting power and money and using expletives deleted, there would never be a quorum in any political body!

the national security gestapo, nazis, homeland security police should stick to scandals in their own bailewick...who did blow the cover of one of their own? who shot jr, really? and was teddy really able to swim back to hyannis in time for breakfast?

tweedle dee and tweedle dumber are on this case and fitzy has already shown his inability to convict even when he has a smoking gun in the indicted's hand!,,give him a law school dea's retrement and let him teach 1st year constitutional law..he has violated enough of the constitution to be an expert!

Posted by: Robert Macdonald | Dec 11 2008 13:19 utc | 3

Obamanauts and old-line Democrats had better get used to what's happening right now, because it's going to keep happening for the next four years at least. For the last 25 years I've watched Democrats aid and abet every anti-democratic Republican initiative while Republians fuck the Democrats every time they see an opportunity. So today Obama says he isn't going to prosecute Bush administration crimes while a GOP prosecutor and the GOP press work perpetually to put Obama's head in a GOP noose. Reasons I don't vote Democrat any more and have not voted Democrat for 12 years are numerous, but they all boil down to just that. Democrats don't simply aid and abet GOP crimes: Today's Democrats are patsies who take the heat for every GOP crime. Four years from now voters will have forgotten all about George W. Bush, and they'll listen to Sarah Palin when she blames Democrats for everything Bush did to wreck the country.

Posted by: Jimmy Montague | Dec 11 2008 14:07 utc | 4

The dear liberal media: this is the same New York Times that did a lot of unsubstantiated rumor mongering early in Bill Clinton's first term. Then it was Vince Foster and, yes, Whitewater.

But strangely the dear, liberal media is nowhere to be found in cases of obvious, though thinly disguised corruption: Where was the New York Times when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley gift to Wall Street at precisely the time Hillary was poised to run for Senate to represent Wall Street? Are Clinton/Gramm/Rubin less corrupt than Blagojevich, merely because they were clever enough to not leave an obvious smoking gun? Or clever enough to know that such investigations are outside of "all the news fit to publish?"

And what about Clinton's approval of the Enron-loophole, enabling much of the energy speculation that helped trigger the current bust? Was there really no quid pro quo? Enron profited immediately by manufacturing the California energy crisis? Are we to believe that Clinton just gave this away out of the goodness of his heart? Why was this never investigated by the dear New York Times?

And what about Dick Cheney funneling no bid contracts to Halliburton while he was still on their payroll (severance pay) and also stood to make millions if Halliburton's stock rose enough for him to exercise stock options worth millions? Why did law enforcement and the corporate media never bother to investigate the Veep's enormous "conflicts of interest?" Is Cheney really any different from Blagojevich? And where was the New York Times?

Posted by: JohnH | Dec 11 2008 16:34 utc | 5

never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics

Hoo, hoo! "Murky" is one of those small stinky words, like a silent fart, that by saying nothing very specific seems to imply very, very much. Do they mean corrupt? Do they mean to say that politicians (all of them, including Obama) are influenced by money (over half a billion from corporations in Obama's pres. run), and that is why the rich make possible their running for elective office by funding their campaigns in exchange for having their advisors appointed and their policies pursued? Well, they can't say that because it is literally true, and to say it would be to give the whole game away. The charade must be maintained at all costs. So, the word "murky" implies small-town corrupt -- some local Polish meat-packer providing money under the table in exchange for using cadaverous meat in their sausage, or some such local Chicago matter. Big corporations aren't corrupt. They actually run things: The Supreme Court was VERY explicit that money equals free speech, and money is generously provided for think-tanks to keep those temporarily out of office (it was the very dems Obama is now hiring, now it's the repubs) in highly paid sinecures complete with vanity book publishers; and money is also provided every two years to support the media, an army of highly paid mercenary consultants, and keep people from having the time to form actual citizen movements. Well, that can't be reported, the charade must be maintained by deflection or projection. Nothing "murky" about any of that; it's clear as day for anyone willing to see, and accept.

Even better is the word "insular." Insular is meant to imply inbred, which Chicago politics certainly is, and a tendency to follow what might be generously called "their own interpretation" of the rule of law -- kind of like the Supreme Court's "one off" (cannot ever be used again as a precedent) ruling in Bush v. Gore, perhaps the very definition of just how insular our "democracy" has become. Insular might be the recent elections in Kenya or Zimbabwe, where, due to American-led pressure, the one who lost was catapulted into a power-sharing agreement with the one who won -- something the Supreme Court, not being insular, would never have done in Bush v. Gore.

This is the New York Times writing the word "insular." Perhaps they mean that in Chicago they elect people from Chicago -- so very heartland and insular -- unlike New York, where they have no compunction whatsoever about electing Senators from Chicago! or Massachusetts. No, those doughty New Yorkers are not insular at all; they think globally.

In any event, this is the reason why top reporters at the New York Times are paid well in excess of 100K/yr. They have the ability, by saying nothing, to imply everything; by using a few measly words, always carefully vetted by staff legal counsel, to sway the opinions of millions around the globe. YES THEY DO-- and don't think that they don't use this power, or are in any way shy about it.

So the real question to ask is, (and it should have been obvious to all but the most starry-eyed here) is why didn't they use this power in the past election. They criticized Obama just enough so that one couldn't level a charge they they gave him a free ride, but not a hair more. Yes, I know people here spent their own time and money on "get out the vote" efforts for Obama's campaign, and they would like to think that their work made a difference. But it is patently obvious to anyone who has followed American politics over the past 10-12 years that the press has the power, by pushing some meaningless scandal relentlessly, by planting a seed of doubt, by publishing baseless charges and giving them credence (as the "swiftboating" of Kerry), by innuendo, by manipulating sound levels (the Dean "scream"), by catching you farting or picking your nose or burping or scratching your crotch (or anything every human does), by innuendo again, by a million tactics, some too subtle for you to consciously notice (manipulating skin tone in photoshop to make one candidate look healthy and the other appear sick), to sway the minds of millions, and then their votes.

And the corporations, by controlling advertising revenues, have the power to control the press.

So the real question is, why didn't they do that to Obama this past selection -- why didn't they "swift-boat" him? It would have been effortless -- as you will see over the next four years if Obama does not do the power elites' bidding.

Is it just possible that Obama was the corporation's preferred choice? And that that is why he was provided with funds "beyond the dreams of avarice" for his election, as well as with coverage which couln't have been bought at any price.

And is it possible, just possible, that by the miracle of marketing -- of making something look like what it's not (which Obama admitted his campaign was intentionally doing: allowing people to see what they want in him)-- that people who have spent the last five years grousing about the power of corporations were "hoodwinked" into doing the corporations bidding?

Nah, too nefarious. It simply couldn't be true! Besides, they "didn't have a choice."

In any event, Obama is now choosing second and third tier political appointments. The first tier couldn't have been done better by Bush, McCain, or Kissinger himself. Perhaps Obama feels some pressure to assuage his liberal base at this point, and this is just a small shot across the bow, "Hey buddy! Remember who's boss around here. We made you from nothing in four short years, and we can break you even faster."

Don't believe it could happen in a "Democracy?"

Well, the answer to that, if one were even prepared to face the frightening truth, is, of course, both "murky" and "insular."

Posted by: Malooga | Dec 11 2008 16:36 utc | 6

Well put, JohnH

Posted by: Malooga | Dec 11 2008 16:38 utc | 7

@2,

I met Steven Chu years ago when he gave a lecture at USC to California Science Fair winners. My daughter had won from San Francisco. He impressed me greatly by his balance of enthusiasm for science and well-rounded education with real world issues. I have to give Obama credit for this pick and hope he has some similar surprises to come.

And, if you ever want to slow some photons down to a crawl using lasers, Chu's your guy.

Posted by: biklett | Dec 11 2008 18:17 utc | 8

The fact that the F.B.I. is actually pointing the finger at a corrupt politician (!) is suspicious in itself. And it ("the story") is sending a very public message to Obama not to step out of line...just subtle enough to make the point.
Excellent post there, Malooga...

Posted by: James Crow | Dec 11 2008 20:22 utc | 9

No, no, here is the real scandal...

"Nuclear Umbrella" insanity

Obama to offer Israel 'nuclear umbrella' against Iranian attack

December 12, 2008 "Haaretz." -- - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Also see,

Obama will nuke Iran if Israel nuked, official says

Clinton also seen backing 'nuclear umbrella' President-elect Barack Obama intends to offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" in the event of a nuclear strike by Iran, according to a defense source close to the administration quoted by an Israeli newspaper.

Under such an agreement, the United States would promise to use nuclear weapons against Iran should Israel be atomically attacked. Obama's secretary of State, Sen. Hillary Clinton, promised a similar "massive response" should Israel come under attack during the Democratic presidential debates.

"The source, who is close to the new administration, said the US will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran," the paper Ha'aretz said Thursday.

The source quoted also said that the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile defense system, which comes in addition to one the Bush administration helped deploy in the Negev.

Perhaps, I should post this again:

The Flexible Floor Doctrine: ( Thermal Nuclear Monarchy)

Elaine Scarry, Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, speaks on the U.S. Constitution in relation to war and the social contract. This is the third lecture of a four-part series.

This four-part lecture series curated by Sam Haselby, Visiting Professor, and co-sponsored by the Leonard and Louise Riggio Writing and Democracy Program, the New School Writing Program, and Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts aims to deepen public understanding and raise critical awareness of this charter document of the United States by bringing three of the country's leading scholars of law, history, and literature and one of America's outstanding human rights activists to address the topic of the Constitution in Crisis

Run time: 1:11:27 Regardless of her monotone voice and numerous verbal faux pas here, Elaine Scarry is a known for her interpretive daring and interesting erudite philosophy. She has for decades scrutinized torture as an instrument of state-sanctioned policy, a preoccupation that grew out of her 1985 monograph The Body in Pain. She knows what she speaks of wrt collective trauma of humankind including and up to Nuclear war.

It would be wise to mind-walk with her.

Put on yer thinking caps fellers...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 11 2008 20:54 utc | 10

No, no, here is the real scandal...

"Nuclear Umbrella" insanity

Obama to offer Israel 'nuclear umbrella' against Iranian attack

December 12, 2008 "Haaretz." -- - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Also see,

Obama will nuke Iran if Israel nuked, official says

Clinton also seen backing 'nuclear umbrella' President-elect Barack Obama intends to offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" in the event of a nuclear strike by Iran, according to a defense source close to the administration quoted by an Israeli newspaper.

Under such an agreement, the United States would promise to use nuclear weapons against Iran should Israel be atomically attacked. Obama's secretary of State, Sen. Hillary Clinton, promised a similar "massive response" should Israel come under attack during the Democratic presidential debates.

"The source, who is close to the new administration, said the US will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran," the paper Ha'aretz said Thursday.

The source quoted also said that the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile defense system, which comes in addition to one the Bush administration helped deploy in the Negev.

Perhaps, I should post this again:

The Flexible Floor Doctrine: ( Thermal Nuclear Monarchy)

Elaine Scarry, Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, speaks on the U.S. Constitution in relation to war and the social contract. This is the third lecture of a four-part series.

This four-part lecture series curated by Sam Haselby, Visiting Professor, and co-sponsored by the Leonard and Louise Riggio Writing and Democracy Program, the New School Writing Program, and Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts aims to deepen public understanding and raise critical awareness of this charter document of the United States by bringing three of the country's leading scholars of law, history, and literature and one of America's outstanding human rights activists to address the topic of the Constitution in Crisis

Run time: 1:11:27 Regardless of her monotone voice and numerous verbal faux pas here, Elaine Scarry is a known for her interpretive daring and interesting erudite philosophy. She has for decades scrutinized torture as an instrument of state-sanctioned policy, a preoccupation that grew out of her 1985 monograph The Body in Pain. She knows what she speaks of wrt collective trauma of humankind including and up to Nuclear war.

It would be wise to mind-walk with her.

Put on yer thinking caps fellers...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 11 2008 20:55 utc | 11

Malooga, The first tier couldn't have been done better by Bush, McCain, or Kissinger himself.

True without a doubt.

Posted by: Rick | Dec 12 2008 1:00 utc | 12

that this "scandal" and the political problem it poses for Obie One is getting serious play with the punditry only bolsters another pertinent observation by our host. and Malooga, god damn, and thank you.

what bothers me about the timing of this "scandal" is how it has totally eclipsed the very significant victory at Republic Doors & Windows.

when the story of blago broke it snuffed the brief spark i felt when he called out Bank of America and actually threatened to use the state's business relationship to put pressure on the stingy credit Ebenezer for not doing what they're "suppose" to be doing with their smack injections of our cash.

add to that the probable discovery of that toddler who has been missing for i don't know how long, and there's no way that spark will catch. and it really seemed like it might if allowed to bask in the national spotlight.

how many scandals are there on standby? i imagine plenty, waiting to force reluctant performers to dance when their strings are pulled.

Posted by: Lizard | Dec 12 2008 5:51 utc | 13

The US PTB can knock Obama away whenever they like. He was selected as a darling of Wall Street and a traditionalist in foreign policy. He will do all he can, bomb bomb bomb, to maintain, or augment, US hegemony and to keep the big bros cashing in...

He was selected by the PTB/media, and the US electorate followed on to the voting booth. Young, black, with jug ears, an ‘angry’ wife, no experience, a Junior Senator, Muslim roots (!), the middle name Hussein, praying in front of Pastor W. who says Damn America and talks about chickens coming home to roost, with very dark ties to the political etc. corruption, of the pathetic minor kind (get a grand house, brick! such a status symbol ...your wife on boards..your kids in private school..and hush hush about any crooked deals...) and a life which despite his self-serving biographies is opaque.

It looks inspiring, stellar: black! young! family man! Great PR stuff for Brand America. Proof of freedom, social advancement, lack of prejudice...

He is there on sufferance. A good boy - black, or junior and lowly, a new hopeful - who has to do what is right. He lasts as long as he is useful.

Bush II was in fact pretty much in the same position.

Chuck, yes, Chu is respected, and his nomination as a scientist has been hailed all over the scientific community. But imho he is a kind of flakey technocrat, dizzy and inconsistent, and much enamored of having his segues listened to, a bit out of it? Time will tell. The problem is that national policy and what is happening in the lab right now are not necessarily in any direct relation.

Posted by: Tangerine | Dec 12 2008 19:37 utc | 14

1) John Chu's role will be to sell Americans on the bonus of Nuke Power, which will be built by The Shaw Group and sold as a business to Exelon who will charge Americans exorbitant fees. Anyone who thinks that Chu's "brilliance" exempts him from profiteering is a fool. Anyone who thinks that Chu will be for clean power that is safe and cheap for all Americans is a dunce. He's a master of greenwashing.

2) Blagojevich is not a scandal against Obama. It's a scandal to HELP Obama. Blago spoke out against Bank of America in the Republic Window & Door strike/sit-in, whereas Obama stood behind BoA on that issue and didn't even bother visiting the workers in their strike. Blago embarrassed Obama. Within 24 hrs, Blago was greeted by Feds with a warrant and handcuffs at his front door. How on Earth can anyone see this as an attack on Obama? The only way is to have Obama as one's secret messiah, a fantasy savior who has enemies everywhere merely because he's so damned good and true.

A bit of skepticism and wisdom would sure help this discussion.

Posted by: micah pyre | Dec 12 2008 23:02 utc | 15

Nothing incriminating here, but it doesn't look good:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24798815-2703,00.html

"THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama's chief of staff after it was revealed he had been captured on court-approved wire taps discussing the names of candidates for Mr Obama's Senate seat."

Posted by: dakorulater | Dec 14 2008 16:35 utc | 16