Blagojevich appoints Burris

Really?

In my 22 years of life, never have I witnessed a more widely broadcast act of defiance from a holder of public office since George W. Bush's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the misleading evidence that led us to war in Iraq after more than five years and no WMDs.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate today despite the strongest urgings from members of both parties to hold off on the appointment until the allegations regarding his attempts to sell Obama's senate seat had been settled or dropped.

Blagojevich opened the conference with a disclaimer that the legitimacy of his appointee should not be tainted by the recent accusations made against him.

If there is anything Burris or Blagojevich should be worried about it is not whether or not his seat is "tainted" but whether or not he will be allowed to maintain it at all. Blagojevich's own lawyer said there was no point in naming somebody because the appointment would be rejected. Does Burris actually believe that Blagojevich is doing him a favor? I suppose its kind of a twisted, backhanded way of paying Burris back after he has consistently donated thousands of dollars to Blagojevich's campaign over the last several years.

The conference did make for some great television, however, sans the circus music and unicycle jugglers. As soon as Burris took to the podium, Rod - this isn't about me and my crooked dealings - Blagojevich hovered closely in order to readily dive in and answer questions from reporters that were clearly more interested in the controversy over the appointment rather than the appointment itself.

"I've enjoyed the limelight I've had over the last couple of weeks I think uh its been um I don't want to hog the limelight this is Roland Burris's day so I don't think its appropriate for me to really get involved in answering any questions."

After this not-so-brief interjection by Blagojevich, Burris became so thoroughly flustered by the frenzied reporters that, like the honorable, attention-fatigued governor that he is, Blagojevich stepped in once again to - you guessed it - respond to reporters' inquisitive jabs that seek only to tarnish his good name and threaten his presumption of innocence.

The festivities continued as Congressman Bobby Rush stepped up and further obliterated any chance of Burris actually being able to make a coherent case as to why anybody should take his appointment as anything less than an illegitimate last chance political Hail Mary on the part of Blagojevich. Rush carried the conference along by emphasizing the worthiness of Burris for the senate seat and reminded the American people that he would be the only African-American in the senate. Might I remind you, Mr. Rush, that Mr. Burris is potentially also the only African-American member of the senate appointed by a governor currently under investigation of criminal conspiracy. Bravo.

One might ask which of these men is more politically suicidal? Burris or Blago?


On a side note, I offered Blago $30 for the senate seat and he promptly turned me down. Can anybody see a tunnel or a light? No? Me neither.

Confessions of an ex-campaign worker

At the risk of choosing a title for my first blog that is both cliche and bears slight resemblance to a grotesquely inconsiderate Lindsay Lohan flick, I fully intend to attract as much fellow ex-campaign staff empathy as possible. No obscurities in titling my subject matter for now.

In the words of Young Jeezy, my president is black. Yes, yes he is. I like to think I contributed to this political transition of such profound historical significance. I devoted several months to managing a campaign office in the battleground state of Ohio, a crucial and decisive factor in the electoral process and a mecca to devout patrons of strip malls and fast food. How a state with one of the largest concentrations of relatively large and well-known cities can have so little to offer still baffles me. Nonetheless, I must applaud them for their ability to sift through the BS and vote for a candidate who at least appears to genuinely have their interest at heart.

Initially I found myself working in life-sucking Canton, Ohio, a place that I will from here on out refer to as Hooverville. Hooverville, you see, is a virtual ghost town only lacking tumbleweed and a constant old country western soundtrack on repeat. This is due in part to the fact that about one year ago, several Hoover manufacturing plants pulled out and shipped thousands of jobs over to our good ole pals in China, home of the commies, incompatible gender demographics, great firewalls and of course, cheap child labor. How else would we get that pretty little stitch work done on our Nike high tops without the assistance of tiny little hands from the Fujian province?

I digress. Let's just cut to it...November 4. Even after the emotional moment of allowing the CNN projection that Barack Obama had won the presidency had passed, I never felt even the slightest inkling that I had contributed anything of great significance to this much-needed Democratic victory. Rather than restore or rejuvenate my faith in the political process and my ability to affect change within it, my experiences on the campaign forced me to rethink whether or not any of the blood, sweat and tears (and there was plenty of all three) that muddied the path of the campaign trail that I loyally followed for several months actually affected any quantitative difference in voter turnout. Conventional wisdom might argue that a Democratic victory was decidedly inevitable considering the historically low approval rating of Mr. W, a failing economy and an increasingly unpopular war.

Can anybody tell me one way or the other? Was it all my fancy persuasiveness in talking older swing voters out of believing that Obama had terrorist affiliations? Was it my efficiency in cutting turf and distributing walk lists? Was it all that helpful literature I passed out with factual information highlighting Obama's main strengths and policy ideas? I would really like to know either way. No hard feelings. If you have any insight into this... call me, e-mail me, send me a letter, throw a bottle with a message in the ocean and point me in the general direction, send me a friggin telegram but I need to know.

I know that the thousands of newly registered voters may have had something to do with Obama's landslide victory. The opportunity to early vote in Ohio certainly had to have had an impact. But again, the political pendulum of red to blue may very well continue to swing back and forth by no result of civic action per se, but more so as a result of situational factors. My point is not to appear disillusioned, regretful or a bit of a cynic but more so to open up a real discussion about the power of civic action and our ability to measure its effectiveness.

Is there hope for America or did Obama just have the right brand at the appropriate time? What are the broader implications of the outpour of volunteerism in Obama's campaign and return to a sense of civic duty and obligation? I suppose at the end of my experience on the campaign, I am left with more questions than a sense of satisfaction, accomplishment or resolve. But it is with this constant curiousity that will may very well pull me back into the sticky and unsanitary world that is politics. An addiction I suppose. With no forseeable cure.