I predict no Fitzmas for Fitz!

In other words, Patrick Fitzgerald will be no closer to having the head of Rod Blagojevich above his fireplace mantle by Christmas Day. In fact, I predict the “stay tuned” for more comment he made when he arrested Blago will have no “more” revealed to us by Christmas. Ditto for Barack Obama’s review of staff contacts with Blago, which he is likely to try to bury by announcing no earlier than late Tuesday.

I’ve blogged before that I think he has weak hole cards in this game of seven card stud; now, as noted yesterday, Willie Brown agrees. And, the former San Francisco mayor, who knows something about politics, has talked with Blago recently.

What’s crystallized more in my mind in the last 24 hours is the likelihood of some backdoor Fitz-Obama connection.

The officially authorized Obama leak to George Stephanopoulos is what started the train of thought.

If Obama has no problem leaking via a back door, to prepare the way for the official repoart on his campaign’s contacts with Blago that he will bury right before Christmas, yet publically honor Fitz’s “cone of silence” request, then I figured something is probably up.

Obama is likely cooperating with Fitz in some way as to what he can turn up.

Fitz, in turn, is hoping he can “roll” somebody, anybody, who will then roll Blago. But, I’m thinking that the “appreciation” Stephanopoulos said Blago’s chief of staff, John Harris, mentioned to Rahm Emanuel, probably wasn’t very specific, or Fitz wouldn’t be trying to run a weak bluff in liar’s poker.

And, the judge who set Blago’s bail at less than 5 grand must have felt the same way.

So, Fitz? Put up or shut up. Why don’t you go back to indicting Karl Rove in the Plame leak instead.

As for Blago, everybody calling him “dumb” is surely underestimating his political acumen.

Update: Fitz’s nabbing an Indian fundraiser with connections to both Blago and Obama does not fundamentally change my assessment. In fact, it somewhat reinforces it.

Willie Brown – Blago ain’t going anywhere

Lisa Madigan’s recent actions explained?

The former San Francisco mayor says Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich called him recently.

Based on what Blago told him, Brown, who knows a thing or two about politics, says Blago ain’t going anywhere soon. He claims the showdown started when Blago looked to name Lisa Madigan to Obama’s Senate seat after Obama pulled Valerie Jarrett. The idea was to remove a potential primary rival, should Blago have been looking at seeking a third term in 2010.

Given that Madigan isn’t really close to Obama, this may have started something rolling.

Anyway, here’s Brown’s nutgraf:

I think he liked how I raised questions about the timing and manner of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to charge him over what appears to be little more than loose conversations he had with his staff.

TOTALLY agreed.

I’ve said for a week now, ever since Fitz’s “cone of silence” request, that I think he’s bluffing In a game of seven-card stud with fairly weak hole cars.

Throw in Obama jealousy over Madigan, the possibility of “official leaks” by Rahm Emanuel or others, and, here we are today.

This might also explain Madigan’s gambit with the Illinois Supreme Court.

I think she knew all along that the “unfit for office” angle wouldn’t fly there, but, she wanted to clean up her image.

Emanuel pushing Jarrett by name is NOT ‘pro forma’ phone call

Obama camp leaks to friendly Stephanopoulos to plow ground for release of official report, while MSLBs continue to peddle the “nothing there” line

Nice to see that Mr. Angelic Funk, George Stephanopoulos, has joined the Obama PR staff.

• “Sources say” Obama chief-of-staff to be Rahm Emanuel only had one phone conversation with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich? Obama campaign sources I’m sure, who have no problem leaking info, while still using Patrick Fitzgerald’s “cone of silence”

Question No. 1 — Why are "sources" talking (I assume Mr. Angelic Funk's sources are inside the Obama camp), or rather, why are they leaking? Didn't Fitz say he wanted a "cone of silence" and didn't The One agree?

• Besides the "just one" phone call with Blago, how many times did Rahmbo talk with Blago chief of staff John Harris? That's answered — four, and none of them pro forma.

Question Set No. 2 — How much was Jarrett discussed? Other candidates?

Question Set No. 3 — What is the timeline for where the direct phone call fits in with the four to Harris? Was it before all of them, with Blago then saying to Rahm: "Harris speaks for me, carte blanche"?

Question No. 4 — How does this timeline relate to when Obama pulled Jarrett from consideration by appointing her to a White House position?

• Harris mentioned “appreciation” in exchange for tapping Jarrett, in one of the phone calls between Rahmbo and Harris. So, in response to Question Set. No. 2, we know Jarrett got more than “pro forma” discussion.

Question Set. No. 5 — How much was Jarrett discussed, at all, after the “appreciation” comment? Did Obama pull Jarrett out of the mix immediately, or were some negotiations going on? If Obama removed Jarrett from consideration immediately after that phone call, did Rahmbo still talk with Harris about other potential nominees? Was the “appreciation” discussed in any more specific detail?

Meanwhile, at Washington Monthly, Steve Benen, typical of MSLBs, continues his past Obama flackery by claiming the latest reporting says that any reporting on Obama connections with Blago is continues his just a dud.

If it’s a “dud,” Steve, why didn't Obama say so right away instead of giving us non-answer pseudo-answers?

This is obviously a friendly leak to a journalist perceived by the Obama camp to be in its pocket, as part of softening up the ground for Obama’s public statement, which will be released not Monday, but Tuesday or Wednesday, to promptly be buried under Christmas fuzzies feel-good news stories.

And, for all we know, the Patrick Fitzgerald who decided NOT to prosecute Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame case may want it that way too.

Two more voices say Ken Salazar will …

Be a sellout as Interior Secretary.

And, they’re two voices I respect.

First, in case you had either forgotten or were unaware, Jeff St. Clair reminds us that rancher Ken Salazar once threatened to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to keep it from listing the black-footed prairie dog as an endangered species. Yet, despite this and his anti-environmentalism whenever the word “energy” is mentioned, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society and other Gang Green members all greenwashed him.

How can you have an Interior Secretary who opposes full use of the Endangered Species Act?

St. Clair goes on to remind us of Salazar’s support for Gale Norton, etc.:

Say this much for Salazar: he’s not a Clinton retread. In fact, he makes Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt look like Ed Abbey. The only way to redeem Clinton's sory (sic) record on the environment is for Obama to be worse.

Meanwhile, Felice Pace says this is part of larger problems in the “political access as usual” corridors of Gang Green environmental groups.

What can you do?

Cancel your memberships. Do not give another dime to Sierra, Audubon, Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, NRDC, WWF, etc.

Doesn’t the Greek Goddess have the money not to fund plagiarism?

Because that’s the accusation now being made against a new Arianna Huffington/HuffPost spin-off venture.

HuffPost Editor Jonah Peretti says, no, it’s all a big misunderstanding, that HuffPost is just trying to send traffic in the direction of The Onion and alt-weekly Chicago Reader, among others.

Bullshit in spades. Both of those folks are plenty big enough, and at least the The Onion, have had well-established website presences long enogh before Arianna came along, they don’t need HuffPost’s “help.”

Also, people who complain about this and similar shenanigans at HuffPost are getting cybercensored.

I hope the scandal “helps” HuffPost continue to tumble down the stairs of worthwhileness (as it already has), with a good, swift cyberkick in Arianna’s solar plexus.

Rick Warren – the anti-gift that keeps on giving

Has anybody asked Warren, or better yet, asked the Obama campaign if it has asked Warren, his opinion on Prop. 8 backers’ attempt to unmarry legally married Californians?

At the same time, did no Prop. 8 opponents think to raise the “substantiveness” argument against it BEFORE Nov. 4?