There are just two questions that Barack Obama won't answer in the scandal involving Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's attempt to sell Obama's now-empty Senate seat to the highest "bidder".

1. In light of the incredible corruption of Illinois politics, do you favor a special election to fill your Senate seat?  That way the people of Illinois can choose your successor and the winner will avoid the taint of scandal.
2.  You said in a recent press conference that your office had minimal contact with the Governor, yet court papers show your Chief of Staff had 21 phone conversations with him.  How is it that 21 separate contacts constitutes "minimal" contacts in your opinion, Sir?  

On December 16th a reporter tried to ask Obama these questions and was immediately cut off by Obama as he followed the old-style political habit of squelching the airing of opposing views.  Obama would not even let him ask the question.  Obama's response, "John, John... let me, let me, let me just cut you off - because I don't want you to waste your question."  "The facts are going to be released next week, it would be inappropriate for me to comment."

He brilliantly cuts the reporter off just in time to keep him from actually re-stating the charges that would impugn the Obama team with possible corruption - while telling the reporter he's doing him a favor by not letting him "waste his question"!  Very much old-style politics there.  So much for "transparency" in government. 

The Disturbing Press Conference Audio

That is a stunning answer given Obama's campaign rhetoric about change.  This represents no change.  This is how scandals are typically handled by corrupt and guilty politicians. 

We have not written about this scandal here because until now we saw no evidence that Obama or his transition team had any involvement in it.  However, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has released information indicating that Obama's new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel has spoken to the corrupt Illinois governor 21 times since Obama's election (just a month and a half ago) about his eventual successor in the Senate.  This is a stunning revelation in light of Obama's statement last week that his office had had "minimal contact" with the Governor.  And it is the first evidence that has made us look up and take notice.

Let's look quickly at how Obama's response two days ago goes against what he promised in his campaign.  He promised first, "change".  He was clever enough never to specify exactly what kind of change he meant, but he purposely left everyone believing that he meant change for the better.  During the campaign he talked about how important it would be for the people's voices to be heard.  He emphasized how important "openness" and  "transparency" in government would be under his administration.  Yet his response two days ago goes against all that and reflects nothing more than politics as usual.  

The Significance of Obama's Answer about a Special Election:  Holding a special election allowing the voters of Illinois to select the next Senator would be the best way to insure that there is no corruption involved in the selection.  However, this presents a problem for Obama in that it is probable that a Republican would win a special election.  Politics-as-usual would mandate that Obama and the Democrats not favor a special election.  But politics-of-change would demand that they put partisan politics aside and favor a special election regardless of the outcome.  Clearly, Obama is not representing politics of change here, or he would call for a special election as Democrat Senator of Illinois Dick Durbin has. 

Governor Blagojevich is caught on tape attempting to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat.  Several disturbing questions come to mind after listening to Obama's press conference.

1. Why doesn't Obama simply call for his immediate impeachment and removal from office?
2. Why doesn't Obama call for a special election to fill his seat, thus removing any question that the new holder is tainted in any way?