Shucks. We needed an administrator, not some clown from Chicago whose only qualification was as a lawyer for ACORN.

Editor's comments: it no longer looks like the Sestak scandal is going away anytime soon. After creating the most innocuous scenario of all time, the press ask Robert Gibbs on Monday why it took three months for the White House to respond. When we say "innocuous," we refer to this explanation for the Sestak claim of having been approached with a job offer to not run against Arlen Specter in the Democrat Primary for Senator: Rahm Emanuel asked Bill Clinton to offer Joe Sestak a non-paying position on a presidential council if he dropped out of the race for Senator. Perfect !!! Bill Clinton is not part of the Administration. The position pays nothing and the presidential council only meets part-time. How on earth could THAT be wrong or illegal ? Seriously. Well, it couldn't --- for a fact. One cannot think of a more innocent explanation.

And that takes us back to the Monday news briefing with Gibbs. Sestak first made this charge in February.
Let's assume Obama and Company are telling the truth -- so why DID it take three months to reveal this explanation . . . . . . should have been presented within hours of the February revelation -- not three months later and a few hours after Obama had lunch with Bill Clinton.

And what did Gibbs say in answer to this question of three days ago? "I will have to refer to council before giving an answer." Huh? He didn't see this question coming ?? He had no explanation for the most innocent circumstance of all time!! On top of that, it turns out that Sestak could not serve on a presidential council while serving as a Representative. Can't do both.

Soooooooo, here is what Obama promised to Sestak: we want you to quit your paid position as a member of the House of Representatives, work for the President on a part time basis and for zero dollars if you will quit the Senate primary race. Why didn't Sestak lap that up?

This is beyond stupid and, now, there is another similar case. A fellow named Romanoff was offered any of three positions to quit a Democrat primary race in Colorado.

And then there is the Blogo trial. He is claiming that everyone in Chicago does this sort of thing. His trail begins today with jury selection and a part of his defense pictures him doing exactly what is being charged against Obama. So why is he charged with a crime and Obama is not? We do not have an answer to that question but we do know this -- Obama is in a heap of trouble with this scandal and the Gulf oil fiasco --- jds.

By: Jonathan Allen and Carol E. Lee June 3, 2010 / Politico

They toppled Hillary Clinton, crushed John McCain and managed to get the first black man elected president of the United States. But now a series of recent missteps just keeps getting worse for Barack Obama’s political operation, already under fire from inside the party for losing its golden touch. The second-guessing of the White House political shop — which is coming in part from top House Democrats — was sparked anew late Wednesday by news that the White House tried and failed to coax another Democratic Senate candidate out of making his race by dangling administration jobs in front of him. In a possible repeat of the Joe Sestak episode in Pennsylvania, insurgent U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado said deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina reached out to him—with a wince-inducing e-mail that is now public— with three possible jobs in September 2009. Obama wanted to keep him out of a race against Sen. Michael Bennet, the White House’s favored candidate. Taken together, the Sestak and Romanoff cases suggest a White House team that is one part Dick Daley, one part Barney Fife. They undercut the Obama’s reputation on two fronts. Trying to put the fix in to deny Democratic voters the chance to choose for themselves who their Senate nominees should be is hardly consistent with the idea of “Yes we can” grassroots empowerment that is central to Obama’s brand. And bungling that fix is at odds with the Obama team’s image—built around the likes of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Obama himself—as shrewd political operatives who know the game and always win it. Well-connected Democrats are complaining that the Obama political operation since the 2008 campaign has been more clumsy than clever. Obama’s been rebuffed by would-have-been top-tier Senate candidates in states – North Carolina and Illinois – where Democrats now face an uphill fight this fall. House Democrats lost a special election in the liberal Hawaii district Obama grew up in, and they have griped that the president didn't do more to help ease one of the candidates out. And the White House failed to head of bitter Senate primaries for three Democratic-held Senate seats – in Arkansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania – that Republicans could snatch away this fall. Last fall, Obama vacillated on how much to help Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia—he worked hard in one case, and kept his distance in another—and the party was routed in both instances. One senior House Democrat said it is baffling "how one group of people can be so good at campaigning and so bad at politics" — a phrasing nearly identical to that of a second veteran House Democrat who expressed the same sentiment. Lawmakers say the White House seems capable of handling only one issue at a time — a stunning contrast to the candidate whose campaign promised that he could "walk and chew gum" at the same time in 2008. Now this senior House Democrat said he's worried that the White House isn't able to handle multiple major challenges. "They're paralyzed," he said. "It potentially loses the House." read full text here.