I did. He said he'd give more info in a few days. Why the wait? This is hurting his image NOW. He needs to get it OUT of the way NOW. Not let things drag on which only serves to harm more.

I'll say it again, you nitwit: if this was the Bush Administration they'd just lie about it, so which would you rather?

Obama is trying to avoid making statements he can't back up or has to retract.

Another point....if Obama waits too long he will appear to be playing another Bush Admin -- ride out the storm and never give complete facts thereby leaving a cloud over his admin before he even takes the pledge.

OMG - Coonsey has no degenerated to irrational, ill-informed, conspiracy rants against Obama. Quick, someone mention Hillary or Bill and lure coonsey back into the fold! Or... she suspects Hillary as the Obama Administration person who talked to Blago. That must be it.

Deny all you want but SOMEBODY talked to Blago or else he wouldn't have said what he said about Obama's not offering anything but appreciation. Who was it? Why arent' they fessing up? To me, I'd be PROUD to say I told Blago to go to hell....unless of course, I didn't report the conversation to the feds.

no conspiracy -- just facts, that's all I want.

And Dijamo....yes I'm sure H is laughing her head off over this event.

If Obama were Bush he wouldn't have answered questions at a press conference today. It would have been Robert Gibbs or someone like that.

You imply that I'm HOPING for something to COME OUT to hurt Obama when in fact it's quite the opposite. I want all details out ASAP before the media and Obama haters have a chance to undercut his whole inauguration with 'possible' scandal scoops.

Somebody talked to Blago -- whoever it was needs to come forward NOW -- if they respect anything about Obama's champaign, his candidacy and now his presidency they would.

If that person's been ordered to keep quiet - then say so. Quit giving us the, "It depends on what the meaning of IS, is" comments. We or I. Who is WE?

I trying to help the guy -- why am I being attacked here?

You have gone off of the deep-end, believing the half-truths and deceptions being spun out in a Neocon circle-jerk.

I have yet to hear whether it was true that Obama met with Blago on November 5th. Anybody know? A Chicago website reported it but now it's gone.

Basing a claim upon a now retracted story, found only upon one website of a backwater network affiliate, is ridiculous, and whoever started claiming that it was a Chicago affiliate is attempting to cover-up the original source, to give the lie more weight.

I've used up my to link max per comment, so I'll start another one.

If you look and read what Obama has actually said, he has not said that he never talked to Blagojevich, only that he did not talk to him about the Senate selection. This rumour is being facilitated with use of an out of context quote to imply more that what Obama meant. The ABC News Jack Tapper article is usually the original source, when the tracks are traced backwards. Yet, in the Tapper article is found:

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

The Chicago Fox News show where it's claimed that Axelrod stated that Obama had talked to Blagojevich about it is less than clear, even without Axelrod's retraction. Recordings of the show are getting taken down quickly on YouTube, but I was able to view one before it had been removed. Here is my transcription of the part in question:

Q. Has he expressed a preference however, on who might replace him in the Senate?

Axelrod: He has not. I mean, I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.

Obama has stated that his team had no improper dealings with Blagojevich, not that there were no contacts with him. There is a chasm of difference between the two. The is a very sound reason why Obama would not presently be completely forthcoming about contacts his team did have with Blagojevich: he does not want to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Fox News has laid out an excellent timeline, and then proceeded to spin it negatively against Obama. My take on the timeline is that the Obama team member who was told what Blagojevich wanted, immediately refused, and went to the Fed with the information. Then they cut-off all communication with Blagojevich unless asked by Fitzgerald to do otherwise in furtherance of his investigation.

Quit swallowing the swill distilled for right-tards, ok?

Quit listening to the RIGHT????? I'm listening to those same folks, media and political pundits and even Democrats that seem to support Obama since day one. They have the same questions as I do.

As for the 'chicago' story (sorry, that was my mistake - I couldn't remember where I saw it) --- I had not heard of any RETRACTION, just that the story no longer was on website.

Again I say, the more Obama delays in getting all the facts out (those involved are very few I would imagine) -- the worse it will be for HIM.

If you disagree then you are just in La La Land.

Folks,

Coonsey is a long time right-wing troll. One of the best. I've seen him/her/it on other sites in different forms. Truly brilliant, if venal.

Get in early set yourself up as a supporter of this person or that then when the time is ripe, start with a few concern trollish questions and then increase them as time goes on. This is just the beginning for little Coonsey.

If Coonsey now tries to continue with the charade it will be open season on him. He must come out NOW with proof that he is not a troll. The longer he waits the worse it'll be for HIM! Anyone who doesn't see this is in la-la land!

Josh/Greg

How about about putting that effing Report Abuse button for such "Reader posts" ... nah "Troll posts" ?