NYT makes Obama the hero of the Illinois cesspool

The NYT headline says it all:

"Obama's Intervention for Ethics Bill Indirectly Led to Case Against Governor"

That is right. Barack Obama -- a man mired in the swamp of Chicago Machine politics, wholehearted supporter of Rod Blagojevich, close friend of convicted criminal Tony Rezko (center for the pay to play scandal that led to the arrest of Blogojevich), close pal of the Stroger political machine, ally of State Senate President Emil Jones, Junior (who has his own ethical problems), pals with state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (dogged by ties to the "mob", and with a history of suspicious loans made by his family-run bank) -- gets credited by the New York Times for "intervening" on an Ethics Bill that "indirectly" led to the case against the Governor.

Apparently, the Times' writers (one of them, Jeff Zeleny is a long-time Chicago fixture and has been criticized for overt Obama obsession) should have read the work of David Freddoso whose book, The Case Against Barack Obama, was a superb examination of the corruption of Chicago machine politics and the role that Barack Obama played in this web.

The Times is practicing toadyism of the highest order. Note the mealy-mouthed words: "intervention" and "indirectly". It is quite a stretch to credit the arrest of the Illinois Governor to Barack Obama; featuring the encomium on the front page of the supposed newspaper of record rises to utter sycophancy.

Barack Obama's "intervention" was not the same as being a drafter or sponsor of the Illinois ethics bill. His intervention amounted to placing a call to Emil Jones (himself a critic of the ethics bill), the president of the Illinois Senate, asking him to see to it that fellow Senate members overrode the veto of the bill by Blagojevich.

Passage of the bill -- with its January 1st effective date -- apparently prompted Blagojevich to accelerate his pay-to-play efforts. Though, given his addiction to corruption over the years, this may just be a supposition. Chances are Blagojevich saw a golden opportunity to sell a Senate seat and needed little prompting to try to do so.

Furthermore, Barack Obama was in the midst of a presidential campaign. The news of his call to Emil Jones was well-publicized and helped him as he approached November 4th. The idea that Barack Obama, a product of the Chicago-machine, is some sort of superhero responsible for the downfall of Rod Blagojevich is a display of the New York Times' Obama obsession.

While most in the media have been wondering about the ramifications of this scandal on the reputation of Barack Obama, the Gray Lady runs a front-page story that credits a man allied with Blago since his first run for governor for the downfall. The media buzz about how this may tarnish Barack Obama as a product of the same corrupt milieu in Chicago and Springfield seems not to have been heard by the mandarins at the Times.

Rod Blagojevich has been under investigation for years by Patrick Fitzgerald, as has the Daley administration in the city of Chicago. The Times may not know about this because the paper has refused to give any coverage of the massive level of corruption in Illinois. Could that apathy be due to the fact that it is the Democratic Party that has been practicing this corruption? The Ethics Bill, the passage of which the paper credits to Obama, was not the one factor that led to the arrest of Rod Blagojevich. Barack Obama is not responsible for his arrest.

To claim otherwise, as the Times does, is ridiculous.

A few people in the media have issued mea culpas for the bias shown toward Obama during his Presidential run. Others have speculated whether the media will now resort to its traditional role of "speaking truth to power" and apply the same level of scrutiny towards Barack Obama as they did to George Bush. Others have predicted that the media will still continue its "suspension of disbelief" and continue to act as Obama cheerleaders.

I think we now know what category the Times has placed itself.
The NYT headline says it all:

"Obama's Intervention for Ethics Bill Indirectly Led to Case Against Governor"

That is right. Barack Obama -- a man mired in the swamp of Chicago Machine politics, wholehearted supporter of Rod Blagojevich, close friend of convicted criminal Tony Rezko (center for the pay to play scandal that led to the arrest of Blogojevich), close pal of the Stroger political machine, ally of State Senate President Emil Jones, Junior (who has his own ethical problems), pals with state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (dogged by ties to the "mob", and with a history of suspicious loans made by his family-run bank) -- gets credited by the New York Times for "intervening" on an Ethics Bill that "indirectly" led to the case against the Governor.

Apparently, the Times' writers (one of them, Jeff Zeleny is a long-time Chicago fixture and has been criticized for overt Obama obsession) should have read the work of David Freddoso whose book, The Case Against Barack Obama, was a superb examination of the corruption of Chicago machine politics and the role that Barack Obama played in this web.

The Times is practicing toadyism of the highest order. Note the mealy-mouthed words: "intervention" and "indirectly". It is quite a stretch to credit the arrest of the Illinois Governor to Barack Obama; featuring the encomium on the front page of the supposed newspaper of record rises to utter sycophancy.

Barack Obama's "intervention" was not the same as being a drafter or sponsor of the Illinois ethics bill. His intervention amounted to placing a call to Emil Jones (himself a critic of the ethics bill), the president of the Illinois Senate, asking him to see to it that fellow Senate members overrode the veto of the bill by Blagojevich.

Passage of the bill -- with its January 1st effective date -- apparently prompted Blagojevich to accelerate his pay-to-play efforts. Though, given his addiction to corruption over the years, this may just be a supposition. Chances are Blagojevich saw a golden opportunity to sell a Senate seat and needed little prompting to try to do so.

Furthermore, Barack Obama was in the midst of a presidential campaign. The news of his call to Emil Jones was well-publicized and helped him as he approached November 4th. The idea that Barack Obama, a product of the Chicago-machine, is some sort of superhero responsible for the downfall of Rod Blagojevich is a display of the New York Times' Obama obsession.

While most in the media have been wondering about the ramifications of this scandal on the reputation of Barack Obama, the Gray Lady runs a front-page story that credits a man allied with Blago since his first run for governor for the downfall. The media buzz about how this may tarnish Barack Obama as a product of the same corrupt milieu in Chicago and Springfield seems not to have been heard by the mandarins at the Times.

Rod Blagojevich has been under investigation for years by Patrick Fitzgerald, as has the Daley administration in the city of Chicago. The Times may not know about this because the paper has refused to give any coverage of the massive level of corruption in Illinois. Could that apathy be due to the fact that it is the Democratic Party that has been practicing this corruption? The Ethics Bill, the passage of which the paper credits to Obama, was not the one factor that led to the arrest of Rod Blagojevich. Barack Obama is not responsible for his arrest.

To claim otherwise, as the Times does, is ridiculous.

A few people in the media have issued mea culpas for the bias shown toward Obama during his Presidential run. Others have speculated whether the media will now resort to its traditional role of "speaking truth to power" and apply the same level of scrutiny towards Barack Obama as they did to George Bush. Others have predicted that the media will still continue its "suspension of disbelief" and continue to act as Obama cheerleaders.

I think we now know what category the Times has placed itself.