Daley was the first permanent replacement for Rahm Emanuel, who departed the White House for a successful bid to become Mayor of Chicago, and was succeeded by acting Chief of Staff Pete Rouse. Daley’s tenure saw frustrating gridlock between the White House and Congress, and his detached style was unpopular with White House aides.

The selection of Lew as Daley’s replacement is a wise move in an election year that figures to hinge on the economy. His expertise in that area, as the President noted in his remarks, is extensive, and with a crack reelection team doing the heavy political lifting, the wonky Lew will bring added substance to the role.

Here’s video of the President’s announcement, followed by a transcript:

Transcript (via email from The White House):

Hello, everybody. Hope you all had a good weekend.

Last week, my Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, informed me that after spending time reflecting with his family over the holidays, he decided it was time to leave Washington and return to our beloved hometown of Chicago.

Obviously this was not easy news to hear. And I didn’t accept Bill’s decision right away. In fact, I asked him to take a couple of days to make sure that he was sure about this. But in the end, the pull of the hometown we both love — a city that’s been synonymous with the Daley family for generations — was too great. Bill told me that he wanted to spend more time with his family, especially his grandchildren, and he felt it was the right decision.

One of the things that made it easier was the extraordinary work that he has done for me during what has been an extraordinary year. Bill has been an outstanding Chief of Staff during one of the busiest and most consequential years of my administration.

We were thinking back, just a year ago this weekend, before he was even named for the job, Bill was in the Situation Room getting updates on the shooting in Tucson. On his very first day, Bill took part in a meeting where we discussed Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad. This was all before he even had time to unpack his office.

Over the last year, he’s been intimately involved in every decision surrounding the end of the war in Iraq and our support of the people of Libya as they fought for their freedom. He was instrumental in developing the American Jobs Act and making sure taxes didn’t go up on middle-class families. He helped us reach an agreement to reduce the deficit by over $2 trillion. And he played a central role in passing historic trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Given his past record of service as Secretary of Commerce, he was invaluable in all these negotiations.

So no one in my administration has had to make more important decisions more quickly than Bill. And that’s why I think this decision was difficult for me. Naturally, when Bill told me his plans to go back to Chicago, I asked him who I thought could fill his shoes. He told me that there was one clear choice, and I believe he’s right. So today I’m pleased to announce that Jack Lew has agreed to serve as my next Chief of Staff.

Let me begin, first of all, by thanking Ruth for allowing Jack to serve in what I know is one of the most difficult jobs in Washington. But Jack has had one of the other most difficult jobs in Washington. For more than a year, Jack has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As anyone who’s been following the news lately can tell you, this is not an easy job.

During his first tour at OMB under President Clinton, Jack was the only budget director in history to preside over budget surpluses for three consecutive years. And over the last year, he has helped strengthen our economy and streamline the government at a time when we need to do everything we can to keep our recovery going.

Jack’s economic advice has been invaluable and he has my complete trust, both because of his mastery of the numbers, but because of the values behind those numbers. Ever since he began his career in public as a top aide to Speaker Tip O’Neill, Jack has fought for an America where hard work and responsibility pay off, a place where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same rules. And that belief is reflected in every decision that Jack makes.

Jack also has my confidence on matters outside the borders. Before he served at OMB for me, Jack spent two years running the extremely complex and challenging budget and operations process for Secretary Clinton at the State Department, where his portfolio also included managing the civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the last year, he has weighed in on many of the major foreign policy decisions that we’ve made.

So there is no question that I’m going to deeply miss having Bill by my side here at the White House. But as he will soon find out, Chicago is only a phone call away and I’m going to be using that phone number quite a bit. I plan to continue to seek Bill’s advice and counsel on a whole range of issues in the months and years to come. And here in Washington, I have every confidence that Jack will make sure that we don’t miss a beat and continue to do everything we can to strengthen our economy and the middle class and keep the American people safe.

So I want to thank, once again, Bill for his extraordinary service, but also his extraordinary friendship and loyalty to me. It’s meant a lot. And I want to congratulate Jack on his new role. I know he is going to do an outstanding job, so thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

RELATED: Michelle Obama Tells ABC News She Wants Four More Years

The New York Times published an excerpt of the book, titled The Obamas, where the author alleges that former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was the advisor in question, reacting to a chain of events following the discovery that Mrs. Obama was quoted in a new French book as saying living in the White House was “hell.” Then he cursed out the first lady, who was absent at the time, but later Gibbs decided he had “misdirected his rage.”

Stephanopoulos read an excerpt of the book where the incident is mentioned, and Axelrod dismissed it as an exaggeration of tension in the White House. However, when confronted directly about the incident, Axelrod acknowledged it took place, but insisted that relations between the first lady’s staff and the president’s staff have not been so strained.

Watch the video below, courtesy of ABC:

Breitbart appeared on the Victory Sessions podcast and slammed Beck for, as his BigGovernment site put it, “pulling the race card” on the Tea Party. However, the Beck/Breitbart beef goes back a far way and one could tell this had as much to do with a heated, longstanding grudge as with the Tea Party comment.. In fact, Breitbart only discussed that comment briefly before moving on to a list of the many slights he feels he’s received from Beck. He accused Beck of throwing him under the bus during the Shirley Sherrod scandal and trash talking him in private while poaching employees to create rival website The Blaze).

This was clearly personal.

“I don’t know what to say because I know it makes me look like a bad guy and I know Reagan’s 11th Commandment, but how many times can you have a baseball bat taken to your rib cage by a gang that have GBTV on your jerseys before you stand up for yourself?

…

This guy has always been about himself. You know, while you’re sitting there watching him talk about the food shortage stuff, he doesn’t tell you this ties to the Mormon Church. He doesn’t talk to you about his investors. He doesn’t tell you that they’re paying for him to create a crisis. He always talks about Cloward-Piven and how Rahm Emanuel said ‘Don’t let a good crisis go to waste,’ but creating a hysteria that there’s going to be food storages because of chaos that is coming – he is profitting off this as well. There is a financial stake for him with food storage companies that advertise on his site. This guy is a huckster. He’s always been a huckster. It was only a few years ago that he was a shock jock, that he was a morning zoo guy. And he’s been taking people’s content for years and not crediting it.”

At the end of the interview, the podcast’s host Stephen K. Bannon put it explained that this seemed to be something that “comes from [Breitbart's] heart” and that might be an understatement.

Listen to the segment from The Victory Sessions below:

Watch Glenn Beck’s segment via Fox Business below:

Day-to-day operational duties are reportedly going to Pete Rouse, who filled in when Rahm Emanuel left the job for a successful mayoral bid in Chicago. Rouse is reportedly very close to Obama, and many insiders look back at the interim period in which Rouse served as Chief of Staff as a favorable period for the President. Specifically, this was the brief period, following last year’s mid-terms, in which Obama got a number of key legislative victories, including the extension of unemployment benefits, the START treaty and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Daley was announced as the new Chief of Staff in the first week in January.

The specific role of Chief of Staff is different under every administration, though it is considered to be one of, if not the, most important roles in the White House. And if one accepts the current conventional wisdom that the last year has been a tough political one for President Obama, it’s not unreasonable to see Daley’s new role as a result of some potentially embarrassing gaffes. Even the most straight reports on Daley’s new role, however, have not come out and called this a demotion.

Wall Street Journal‘s Carol Lee broke the story, and she led with recent White House missteps:

William M. Daley was hired to help resuscitate Barack Obama’s presidency after deep Democratic losses in 2010. Ten months into his tenure as chief of staff, Mr. Daley’s core responsibilities are shifting, following White House missteps in the debt-ceiling fight and in its relations with Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

On Monday, Mr. Daley turned over day-to-day management of the West Wing to Pete Rouse, a veteran aide to President Obama, according to several people familiar with the matter. It is unusual for a White House chief of staff to relinquish part of the job.

A senior White House official who attended Monday’s staff meeting where Mr. Daley made the announcement said that his new role has not yet been fully defined. But in recent weeks, Mr. Daley has focused more on managing relations with influential outsiders.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush cited Lee and piled on:

Daley’s relationship with some of his West Wing colleagues has been strained, and many pined for Rouse, who served as a bridge between the volatile Rahm Emanuel, now the mayor of Chicago, and Daley, the son and brother of Chicago mayors — who assumed office just ten months ago.

Earlier this year, White House aides told POLITICO they were frustrated with Daley’s top-down management style and insistence that mid-level aides be cut out of some meetings.

Fox News’ White House Correspondent Ed Henry actually calls the role reassignment a demotion, getting an unnamed source to agree with that assessment.

The adviser confirmed a Wall St Journal report saying Daley was being demoted to make way for Pete Rouse, a close ally of the president dating back to his days as Obama’s Senate Chief of Staff. He served as acting White House Chief of Staff until suggesting the full-time job go to Daley, who came aboard early this year to help shore up the president’s standing after a bruising midterm election.

The Obama administration has had some big victories in the last year, though most have been from the realm of foreign policy. The domestic political landscape in the last year has been far less friendly to the White House, in particular a remarkably inimical relationship with Congressional leadership. Considering the botched scheduling of the joint session speech from early September, and what many see as a consistent capitulation to an obstructionist House GOP, the Daley era did not seem to be working. Only history will tell us if that’s because of Daley or others in the White House, but until then, we now are (re)entering the Pete Rouse era in the Obama Administration. What Bill Daley will do — even if he is still the Chief of Staff — remains to be reported.

When Politico first broke the news of sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain, in an extensively-reported and 100% accurate story, the Cain campaign’s response was to call it a “thinly sourced smear,” which makes the sourcing in the Washington Times story that much more comical: (emphasis mine)

According to a source who is friends with the Cain campaign, not only is the Rick Perry campaign involved but also the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely involved with the sexual harassment accuser attacks. A friend of the Cain campaign believes a National Restaurant Association (NRA) employee out of the Chicago office leaked the story to the Perry campaign via information and influence from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office.

A friend of the Cain campaign? Is it just me, or is that a little bit like Homer Simpson writing a letter to the film Die Hard?

Whoever Picket’s source is, none of Cain’s “friends” are doing him any favors by firing wild accusations about who leaked a story that has proven to be completely accurate, and which continues to unfold. Cain campaign manager Mark Block already managed to make a liar out of his boss when accusing Perry aide Curt Anderson of leaking the story to Politico, by confirming that Cain’s ignorance of the accusations against him was feigned.

Drawing former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel into this, though, just makes them look crazy. Not only is there no factual basis for the claim, it doesn’t even make any sense. Why would anyone connected with President Obama want to do anything to slow Herman Cain’s momentum, and at the behest of the Rick Perry campaign? Are Perry and Emanuel secret members of the Stonecutters?

The most obvious problem with this strategy, though, is that there’s little reason for anyone to care how Politico got this story, beyond pure curiosity. All these accusations do is draw more attention (if that’s possible) to the fact that the allegations were, in fact, made, and that Cain lied when confronted about them.

Mayor Emanuel’s office hasn’t returned our request for comment as yet.

And, as Michelle Malkin noted on her blog this morning, the Daily Caller has reported that email correspondence obtained by the House Energy and Commerce Committee shows that Emanuel’s memory might just be a little hazy:

In one e-mail, an assistant to Emanuel wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 to the Office of Management and Budget about the administration’s upcoming announcement on Solyndra and asked whether “there is anything we can help speed along on OMB side.”

h/t Michelle Malkin

When asked where his children will attend school in Chicago (a question previously posed to Barack Obama as he prepared to leave Chicago for the White House), the mayor responded by telling NBC reporter Mary Ann Ahern that it was a private, family decision. Fair enough. When pressed by Ahern, however, Emanuel responded thusly:

Mary Ann, let me break the news to you. My children are not in a public position. I am. You’re asking me a value statement and not a policy. No, no, you have to appreciate this. My children are not an instrument of me being mayor. My children are my children, and that may be news to you, and that may be new to you, Mary Ann, but you have to understand that I’m making this decision as a father.

Again, fair enough. Harsh, but understandable. He has a point, even if his constituents might like to know whether his children attend a public or private school and, as such, what his personal experience with the school system might be.

Emanuel then stood to leave, and the cameras stopped rolling. Ahern tried to explain the context and importance of her question and that’s when, she says, Emanuel grew angry:

As I tried to explain further, Emanuel doubled back. He looked directly at my two college interns, and said, “You are my witnesses.”

Then, the Mayor of Chicago positioned himself inches from my face and pointed his finger directly at my head. He raised his voice and admonished me. How dare I ask where his children would go to school!

“You’ve done this before,” he said.

This was the Emanuel we had heard about, and it was one of the oddest moments in my 29 years of reporting.

Later, Ahern gave Emanuel a call in an attempt to “clear the air.” When she told him she had felt bullied by his earlier actions, Emanuel responded in an Emanuelesque manner:

You are wrong and a bully. I care deeply for my family. I don’t care about you.

Take a look at the recorded interview for yourselves, courtesy of NBC Chicago:

h/t NBC Chicago

New York Times media reporter David Carr started the fun with a remark, on a web-only segment of HBO’s Real Time,about people in the “middle places” with “the low-sloping foreheads.” (Carr later apologized for the remark on Twitter.)

Beck then reacted on his radio show by flashing his laminated Godwin’s Law Platinum card on his radio show, then followed up by sarcastically enacting Carr’s vision of mid-westerners as cavemen… by doing the kind of spitting retard character you’d see at a bad open mic night. In fact, it’s the kind of impression you might have seen in former Wonkette editor Jack Stuef‘s stand-up act, before he saw the light about mocking the mentally disabled.

Maybe I’m just being sensitive, though. You tell me if you’ve ever seen a caveman impression like this:

When I saw the clip here on Mediaite, I saw red, and to be completely honest, I was a little pissed off that Frances had let Beck off so easily. That’s not a knock on Frances; most of the writers on this site are considerably cooler-tempered than I am. Frances even took the time to deconstruct Beck’s larger point, but noted that the “nuance of (Beck’s) joke was entirely lost, to the point where it would be perfectly valid for those with handicaps and their loved ones, or anyone with a sense of decency about how the disabled should be treated in our society, to be offended by this conduct.”

Many members of our staff have written candidly about how mental disabilities have touched their own lives and loved-ones. I bring this up not to give us any additional moral authority on this issue, but to illustrate that for us, this is not about scoring points, political or otherwise. Glenn Beck has consistently lauded this site for its fairness, even when we’ve been critical of him. The social estrangement of the mentally disabled knows no partisan or ideological boundaries.

In fairness to Beck, it was probably not his intent to mock the mentally disabled. That’s kind of the point, people do it without even thinking about it. President Obama probably didn’t intend offense with his “Special Olympics” crack (for which he later apologized), just as Rahm Emanuel probably meant only to insult liberals when he called some of them “retarded,” just as Keith Olbermann intended only to slam John McCain by showing the then-candidate for president on a Special Ed “short bus.”

So maybe the best way to deal with this, except in extreme cases, is to try to illuminate, rather than excoriate. If that’s the case, Frances is probably the better person in this case.

Which makes Big Journalism‘s reaction all the more confusing. They accuse Frances, in their headline and elsewhere, of “compar(ing) the mentally disabled to neanderthals.”

This is the familiar defense of bigots everywhere, the notion that the person who notices the bigotry is actually the bigot. You know the drill. If you’re offended by a photoshop of a watermelon patch at the White House, it’s because you associate black people with watermelons, not because racists have cultivated that stereotype, and many others, for generations. If Glenn Beck’s impression of a caveman is exactly like the caricature that has been used for decades to mock the mentally disabled, you’re the bigot for noticing.

In their zeal to slam Frances, Big Journalism goes head first into the irony rabbit hole, essentially calling her mentally disabled, saying that “Anyone with the listening comprehension of a third-grader could deduce that Beck was personifying Carr’s prejudice (sic) stereotype of Midwesterners.”

It’s entirely possible that the “Big Journalism Editorial Panel” really does think that Frances Martel is some kind of anti-disabled bigot, but I doubt it. This post reeks of disingenuous score-settling. Fair enough. I’m sure there were many Beck detractors who jumped all over this with two feet, not because they give a rat’s ass about the disabled, but because they don’t like Beck.

While my initial reaction to this kind of pissing match is anger at the exploitation of this issue to score cheap points, the wiser, more productive course is to ask people to walk a mile in the shoes of a disabled person, or their loved ones, and to offer understanding in return. There are probably very few of us who have never made a “retard” joke, even those of us who were later touched by those same disabilities. That includes me.

About fifteen years ago, I was at a playground with my kids, and I was gratified to see that my oldest, who has Asperger Syndrome, had found another child to play with. At the time, he wasn’t able to communicate verbally, only echoing some of what people said to him. As I was getting ready to leave, I walked over to them, but they didn’t see me. I watched them for a minute, my son smiling down at his playmate from atop the jungle gym. Then, I noticed that the kid was staring intently at my son, smirking, and whispering “Asshole,” obviously amused that my son couldn’t understand him.

The episode made me angry and sad at first (and glad, for that moment, that my son didn’t understand), but it also made me realize that such behavior isn’t the result of evil (the child was younger than my son, maybe six years old), but of a weakness in human nature, one that extends well beyond treatment of the disabled.

Yes, people like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and Jack Stuef are free to make whatever jokes they like, and we’re all free to laugh at them, but we’re also free to stop and think about what that says about us.

“I’m Rod Blagojevich. I used to be your governor, and I’m here to tell the truth,” Blagojevich began his testimony, with all the drama Illinois has learned to expect from the former Celebrity Apprentice star. NBC Chicago’s “The Ward Room” blog was gracious enough to live-tweet the testimony, as well as compile some of the best and worst of what is starting to look like a rather rambly testimony. Despite confessing that his daughter warned him “watch your language,” he couldn’t help but apologize to the jury for his profanity with even more profanity: “”When I hear myself on those tapes, I sound like a f*cking jerk and I apologize.”

He also, it is reported, went through every major occasion in his life: proposing to his wife, becoming governor of Illinois, and the day Elvis died. He also “talk[ed] fondly about disco and the ’70s,” for which his attorney asked him, “Are you still in that era with your hair?” And while humble about his grades in law school, Blagojevich boasted he was “the only governor in the United States who could spin a basketball on all five fingers of his right hand.”

If you’re asking yourself what any of this has to do with the charges of corruption and bribery related to Sen. Barack Obama‘s seat, you’re not alone– so are the prosecutors, who have objected repeatedly and requested the governor stay at least moderately on the topic at hand. At press time, reports don’t show any indication of that happening anytime soon.

The very, very bad news about all of this is that cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so there is no actual footage of Blagojevich testifying, though the Chicago media, having been lukewarm on this topic as recently as a few weeks ago, have now once again been inspired to follow every word of the trial. And as for the national media, we now await with bated breath the response of one Shepard Smith, who took nothing less than glee at covering the first Blagojevich trial and expressed more grief than anyone at the conclusion of the first trial when the former governor refused to testify on his behalf.

What follows is a dramatic interpretation of how one individual imagines the creative process behind the production of this ad:

Scene: Curtains open to reveal a three men sipping lattes while comparing Volvo models online.

Paul: Hey you guys…I’ve totally got a great idea. Since Mitt Romney seems like he’s going to get the GOP nomination, let’s get ahead of the pack and throw up a quick attack ad!

Bill: Really? seems a little early. Plus, not sure how we can attack him yet.

Sean: Well, it doesn’t have to be nuanced or even smart, it doesn’t even matter what it says.

Paul: Yeah – just a silly YouTube ad…something like thirty seconds of black and white photos of Romney and something about how he’s changed his mind on Medicare. Cool? Excellent!

Bill: Flip-flopping? Haven’t we made fun of the right for that lame ass critique?

Sean: Doesn’t matter. Let’s just do it.

End Scene

The Chicago Sun-Times ran an editorial yesterday not decrying Blagojevich’s corrupt behavior, or his attorneys’ insistence on being disruptive and unhelpful, but on how boring the entire operation had become. While columnist Denise Crosby admits she isn’t a “fan of reruns,” she argues that this second trial is even more difficult to care about than the typical repeat. “Like any second-rate circus act,” she notes, “the novelty has worn off.” Noting the lack of “drama” and “surprises” (despite, once again, the usual threats to hold Blagojevich’s lawyers in contempt), Crosby called various relevant individuals in the area to see if her apathy was unique, and found that most people’s reaction to the fact that this trial was happening was something like “it’s lost its luster” or “there’s more important things out there.”

The Chicago Tribune, from which Blagojevich allegedly tried to have a critic removed, seem a little less overcome by ennui, but the pattern remains: Illinois is just bored, and the nation has forgotten to care, opting instead to follow shiny objects like “violent rappers” and Osama bin Laden‘s extensive porn collection. Part of this, of course, is Blagojevich himself– with jailtime at stake, the larger-than-life corruptocrat has kept the poetry recitals and Elvis impersonations at a minimum. Part of it is the jaded nature of corruption-saturated regions; Blagojevich is about as important to Illinois residents as, say, the fact that former governor Jim McGreevey was rejected from the Episcopal church for “being a jackass” is to New Jersey residents. In areas like Illinois, where three governors have gone to jail in as many decades, it takes a little more than a few f-bombs and kickbacks to say in the news. And if Illinois doesn’t care, the rest of the country is simply not going to bother.

That’s not to say that the Blagojevich trial is as boring as the Sun-Times makes it out to be. In fact, for the scholar of such things, it’s rather fascinating, and the fact that one of its major players, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is being inaugurated as mayor of Chicago today only helps add to the color. This week, prosecutors played tapes of a profanity-laced rant to former deputy governor Robert Greenlee that demonstrated that, even if President Obama did attempt to give Blagojevich his two cents on who should succeed him, Blagojevich was having none of it:

Blagojevich began to seriously consider Jackson in the beginning of December, Greenlee said. In a Dec. 4 call, Greenlee suggests appointing Tammy Duckworth to appease President-elect Barack Obama.

“Get the f— outta here, Greenlee. I’ll f—— fire you,” Blagojevich snaps. “She’s got no f——chance. I’m gonna f—— take hits in the black community for Durbin and f—— Harry Reid and Rahm, f— them and [David] Axelrod.”

In court, Greenlee said he took the threat seriously.

So, yes, Blagojevich is being pitted against the President who just killed bin Laden, one of his major senior advisers, and the mayor of Chicago in this transcript. It may not be topical material, but it certainly is fun. But ultimately, being interesting in its own sake is not enough to sustain a news story within the cycle, especially in when stories last for years in a 24-hour news cycles– novelty is its own reward, and those eagerly waiting for more of it must hope Blagojevich and his team are saving the best for the day of the verdict.

This is as good a time as any to clarify a few things about the issue of special needs-bashing.

First, to the LAT piece, by Meghan Daum. Here’s the offending section:

Even (Rebecca) Traister, an unabashed liberal and feminist who writes for the left-leaning online magazine Salon, is evidence of the way thoughtful writers treat Palin as a special-needs case.

This is the kind of offhanded reference to people with special needs that crops up from time to time, even in polite company. Daum probably thinks she’s insulting Sarah Palin here, but what she’s really doing is using special needs people as insults themselves. I know, I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there it is.

It’s similar to the wisecrack that President Obama made (then apologized for) early in his presidency, when he tried to be self-effacing about his bowling skills. He told Jay Leno that he had bowled a 129, and that “It’s like – it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

Ironically, while being the first to report on those remarks, then-Countdown host Keith Olbermann also made Tourette Syndrome jokes elsewhere in the broadcast.

In a similarly thoughtless vein, Olbermann used a “short bus” graphic to mock the McCain campaign during the 2008 presidential race (when I was in school, we derisively called this bus the “tart cart”). I called and emailed the show, and while they didn’t apologize, they stopped using the graphic, as best I can recall.

Then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel touched off a firestorm with his usage of the term “retard” in a private conversation, which drew a demand from Sarah Palin that Emanuel be fired. Emanuel also apologized.

Rush Limbaugh then unapologetically flouted the term, and Palin disappointingly excused the radio host on the same false basis that Wonkette initially rested: it was all satire. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know satire, and this was no satire.

Then, there was this Wonkette business.

In each of these cases, there were varying degrees of severity, both in the offenses and the attendant reactions. As someone who takes this issue very personally, there were times when I felt the manipulation of outrage over these incidents was as offensive as the incidents themselves. Did all of the people who gave Obama and Emanuel grief over their remarks really care about people with special needs, or were they just trying to score political points?

Was the outrage over Palin’s double-standard motivated by genuine concern for this population, or was it simply a tool to paint her as a hypocrite?

Keith Olbermann was definitely using special needs kids as a weapon of public shame when he made out a check to the Special Olympics, donating $100.00 for every lie Palin told on the campaign trail, while falsely claiming she had cut Alaska’s Special Olympic budget. I’ve never seen him mention the charity, before or since, and the only reason anyone was looking at Alaska’s Special Olympics budget was in hopes of finding a way to exploit her Down Syndrome baby.

Now, the Wonkette post was truly outrageous, but in the rest of these instances, and even in Wonkette’s case, to some degree, I think people need to take it down a notch or two. Yes, these were all wrong things to do, but the “I never made a retard/special ed/Special Olympics joke” club is pretty damn tiny. There’s a learning curve on this for just about everyone.

Apologies are nice, but even nicer when followed by going and sinning no more. Wonkette’s Ken Layne and Jack Stuef were never going to have that “Afterschool Special” moment where they invite the different kid to come play kickball, but if they lay off the special needs jokes, that’s good enough for me.

Everyone has to make up their own minds on this, but I really favor Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver‘s approach. During a Colbert Report interview a few weeks ago, Stephen Colbert asked him if abolishing the r-word was “thought policing,” and Shriver said “I want to be a teacher, not a policeman.”

“You’re allowed to be humiliating, degrading and hurtful,” Shriver told Colbert, “and I’m allowed to petition you to at least recognize what you say and be aware of the option you have to stop.”

These things do need to be called out, but in a way that engenders goodwill, not resentment. That’s easier said than done sometimes.

Sinker appeared confident, and questioned the sanity of anyone who actually thought he was Rahm Emanuel on Twitter. He also explained the transformation of what The Atlantic called his literary Twitter feed from a stream of curses to a fantastical narrative that featured a duck named Quaxelrod and a dog named Hambone. Most importantly, he also hinted that the fake Emanuel Twitter feed could one day return (huzzah!).

Watch the clip below courtesy of Comedy Central:

The feed purported to be Rahm Emanuel’s profanity-laced thoughts as he traversed the Chicago campaign trail and finished up as the actual Emanuel became the “Mayor Emanuel” and, in the fictional world of the Twitter, MayorEmanuel vanished into a time vortex (seriously). The feed became an enormous hit, gaining tons of followers, interacting with real life political figures, and inspiring the real Rahm Emanuel to offer a hefty sum for the Sinker’s identity.

In the profile, Sinker explains the difficulty he had in maintaining his secret double life. From The Atlantic:

“What’s stunning is that Sinker managed to preside over @MayorEmanuel without ever getting caught. Or at least outed. His secret was known only by his wife, a small circle of friends, and one Chicago Public Schools teacher, Seth Lavin, who figured out Sinker’s identity when Sinker used his personal bit.ly account to shorten a link that @MayorEmanuel later tweeted. Lavin kept it mum. Others came close to identifying him, Sinker said. An intern at the Wall Street Journal was onto him early, as was a reporter at Crain’s Chicago Business. But no one could muster any proof.

As the weeks went by, the pressure began to take a toll on Sinker’s psyche. ‘The train rides became totally paranoia-inducing by the end. I would think, “Is anybody watching this? Why is that guy looking at my phone? Who is this?”‘ he said. ‘Your brain starts going a little crazy. I’m looking forward to my brain not feeling so crazy.’”

However, what’s even more interesting in the piece is the suggestion that Sinker may have stumbled upon a brand new kind of literature. As the feed evolved, it stopped being just silly non sequiturs and developed a whole universe with a continuing narrative and characters. However, when the tweets get collected and published in a printed form (as they undoubtedly will at some point), it won’t have the same effect as reading them live. As the Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal points out, Sinker wrote stories that required the real time serialization for their full enjoyment. Pretty impressive for something that started with the tweet “fuck you right in your fucking face-hole.”

It’s an idea that has been employed a few times since the advent of Twitter. For example, a few months ago, the sitcom Community created fictional accounts for its characters and had them act out a “prequel” before this season’s premiere. But that was nothing like the sustained storytelling of the @MayorEmanuel feed.

Of course, all of that highfalutin literary stuff can be debated in the months and years to come. Right now all that’s important is we know who wrote @MayorEmanuel. His name is Dan Sinker and, in the words of his creation, he’s a fucking genius, bitches.

It started when Malkin tweeted this:

The Fake Emanuel then responded with this, in character, tweet:

Malkin played along, responding with this:

Unfortunately, the problem with Twitter is that it’s sometimes hard for people to see a full conversation. So, this tweet got retweeted and quoted everywhere with the implication being that Michelle Malkin was cursing out what, in essence, is a fictional character. Soon enough, Malkin was spending the next few hours trying to prove she can tell what a joke is.

It’s similar to the problems people (especially Conservatives) face when they go on a show like The Colbert Report. How do you react to someone you know is a parody? Do you play along and try to take them at their word? However, in that case, guests only risk looking unfunny (something anyone standing next to Stephen Colbert is at risk of) while poor Malkin has to deal with half the Internet collectively chuckling at how stupid she is. And she was just trying to have a little fun.

Van Pelt-Watkins has spoken honestly about her long-ago drug use, which she says did not include crack cocaine. She’s now demanding an apology from Moseley Braun.

As the Chicago Tribune points out, it’s unclear what Moseley Braun hoped to accomplish by attacking her opponent in this way. Van Pelt-Watkins is polling at less than 1% in the race, while Moseley Braun currently rests in second place, at 21%. Although it’s unlikely she’ll catch Emanuel before the Feb. 22 election, she could wind up in a run-off if Emanuel fails to capture 50% of the vote.

Here’s video of the exchange, plus some interviews with the other candidates in which they take shots at Emanuel for skipping the forum: (from ABC-7)

The interview between show host and Muller exhibits a fairly sharp turn for the normally congenial Huckabee, who appeared to encourage some extremely pointed criticism from his guest, much of which didn’t seem to be entirely correct. Take for example that, according to the Chicago-based radio personality, the White House wants a “kill switch” for the Internet, to avoid what’s happening in Egypt from happening here in America:

They create the problems and we react to fear — the the four letter f-word that controls the masses and they offer the solution, “they” being the government. They fear the social services or these social networking, Twitter, Facebook, all of this stuff, but oh, no, we must have it in Egypt, but we don’t want to have it in America.

We had 70% of people didn’t want health care, we’re going to get it, no matter what we say we get it. We didn’t want more spending, looks like we are he’ going to get more and more spending. look at unemployment. I put it at 17%, I don’t know where you put it, but this is what they have in Egypt. If this keeps going like that, I want to make the point what happens in Egypt could happen in America if politicians, what we talked about last night. If the politicians don’t start listening.

There is a proposed bill put forth by Senator Joe Lieberman that would protect American Internet interests from cyber-terrorism and, in effect, give President Obama the ability to “turn off the Internet.” But the White House position on this is fairly nuanced, and its simply wrong to suggest that the current administration in any way fears social networking services like Twitter and Facebook when in fact the White House has embraced social media.

Perhaps the more interesting take from the following video is how Mike Huckabee, a legitimate GOP candidate for president in 2012, is using Mancow Muller as proxy to take uninformed shots at the White House.

Watch the segment courtesy of Fox News below:

Emanuel’s (passionate, we imagine) argument to the Supreme Court on appeal apparently worked, as the Court arrived at the decision unanimously that he merited a place on the ballot. This permits Emanuel to remain on the top of the ballot, and to make the best of his current lead in the polls. While the appellate court concluded that there was no enough evidence that Emanuel had intended to live in Chicago, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, the Supreme Court found otherwise:

“This is a situation in which, not only did the candidate testify that his intent was not to abandon his Chicago residence, his acts fully support and confirm that intent. The candidate told several friends that he intended to serve as Chief of Staff for no more than 18 months or two years before returning to Chicago. The candidate has continued to own and pay property taxes on the Chicago residence while only renting in Washington, D.C.’’

The leases for the Washington and Chicago homes were written to coincide with the children’s school year, the justices argued. Also Emanuel kept an Illinois driver’s license — not one from Washington, D.C. — registered his car to the Chicago address, voted from that address in every election from 1999 to 2010, did his banking in Chicago, and had his Chicago address printed on his personal checks.

And the court noted that Emanuel “left many personal items’’ at the home, “ including his bed, two televisions, a stereo system, a piano, and over 100 boxes of personal Possessions.’’

Now that the odyssey to ensure his position on the ballot is over, it’s time to get campaigning: the candidates have a debate conveniently scheduled for tonight, to be broadcast on their local stations.

If you haven’t heard, an appellate court ruled 2-1 he didn’t meet the qualifications for city residency. Because he’d lived in Washington D.C. to take the job as President Obama’s chief of staff and rented out his house, the court ruled, he was out as mayoral candiate.

This undoubtedly came as a shock to Emanuel, whose coronation as mayor seemed all but assured. It left his opponents — a collection of hacks, cronies, and the bewildering Carol Moseley Braun — scrambling to pick up Emanuel’s massive support (the latest poll had him up over Moseley-Braun 44 percent to 21 percent).

To us Chicagoans, “Mayor Emanuel” seemed all but inevitable. He had a war chest that dwarfed his competitors, he had players like Bill Clinton speaking on his behalf, he had the pedigree that wowed us.

But now, it’s up to the Illinois Supreme Court to put him back on the ballot. They may not even hear his case — and even if they do, one of the Supreme Court justices is married to a man who supports an Emanuel opponent. Ahhh, Chicago politics.

But here’s why this brouhaha shouldn’t come as a surprise: This isn’t the first time Emanuel has seemed to take things for granted. It’s very similar to what happened when he was Obama’s chief of staff.

First, a little background: I was thrilled when Obama tabbed Emanuel for the gig. The notoriously profane Emanuel seemed like the perfect match for Obama. The Prez was the smooth, silver-tongued orator who would make Middle America swoon with his rhetorical mastery. And behind the scenes, Emanuel would cajole, wheedle, threaten, and do whatever it took to get those sherry-drinking fops in Congress to do his bidding.

Emanuel was undoubtedly going to bend Washington to his will with a combination of bare-knuckled braggadocio, backroom arm-twisting, and simple Chicago can-do — and a few “fucks” thrown in along the way.

For a while, it looked like we were getting the combination we wanted. Obama won a friggin’ Nobel Prize — a Nobel Prize! — and Emanuel raged around behind the scenes. We all loved the story of a naked Emanuel confronting former Rep. Eric Massa in the shower — now THAT’S Chicago-style. (Massa said Emanuel “is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to a front end of a steam locomotive,” which in Chicago is as strong a compliment as you can give.)

But then it seemed things got away from Rahmbo, as the press corps cleverly dubbed him. The right weakened Obama via the “death by a thousand cuts” method, somehow making complete horseshit charges — he’s Muslim, he’s a Socialist, he’s not an American citizen — seem at least possible for far-too many Red-State dwellers.

This birth certificate absurdity is exactly the kind of thing Emanuel was supposed to prevent. He was going to control Obama’s image and run roughshod over D.C. And yet, some 27 percent of Americans said Obama wasn’t an American citizen last year. Doesn’t some of the blame for this lay on Emanuel’s door?

Maybe the Obama administration simply overestimated the intelligence of the American public. They likely figured Americans would see Orly Taitz and Sarah Palin and “death panels” for what they are: lunacy. But the fact that we’re STILL hearing about the Hawaiian birth certificate just proves our Chicago homeboys lost the battle of setting the agenda.

Similarly, it seems Emanuel simply took it for granted this residency technicality would go his way. He had the big name, the White House experience. Surely the Appellate Court — like the Chicago Election Board before it — would overlook this little house rental situation. But it didn’t, and now it’s up to the Supreme Court to turn things around.

Essentially, Emanuel has to cross his fingers and hope. At least now, though, maybe he’s learned a lesson: Even a big-name player has to sweat the small stuff.

Joel Reese is a freelance writer and editor based in Chicago. His award-winning writing has been published in Spin, Details, Deadspin, and more. You can read his work at joelcreese.com.

Today, however, the Supreme Court of Illinois ordered the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to place Emanuel back on the ballot, although it has not yet decided whether it will hear his appeal of Monday’s Appellate Court ruling.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Emanuel’s attorneys are hard at work trying to convince the state’s Supreme Court that their client – who has already garnered much support from his ALLEGED home city – is indeed eligible to run.

Watch video about the Court’s decision, from Fox News:

Huffington Post is reporting:

The Chicago News Cooperative is reporting that an Illinois Appellate Court has overturned a decision regarding Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago residency. The court reportedly decided Emanuel is not eligible to run for mayor of Chicago because he has not been a resident of the city for one year.

This report is based on the following report from the Chicago News Cooperative Twitter feed who appeared to break the story with the following tweet:

Watch Megyn Kelly report the news, video courtesy via Fox News:

Emanuel said:

“First of all, what I said is never allow a good crisis go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things that you had never considered or what you didn’t think were possible. That’s not intended for this moment nor does it apply to this moment.”

Maybe Emanuel needs to have a chat with Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter who just yesterday suggested how President Obama could turn the “tragedy into triumph” and quoted Rahm’s very quote about a crisis. Emanuel went on to say in the news conference that Congresswoman Giffords is a friend who he campaigned with and that he began the type of event that Giffords was attending when she was shot.

Watch the clip below from NBC’s Chicago affiliate:

(h/t Hot Air)

To be clear, simply pointing out that many people leapt to score political points as the tragedy in Tucson unfolded isn’t, itself, exploiting a tragedy. Explicitly saying that one side (the left) “loves a crisis” (the Tucson mass shooting) is the very definition of exploitation. The body of the op-ed reinforces that misguided notion, in part by smearing Gabrielle Giffords’ own father:

Gifford’s own father suggested “the whole Tea Party” might be suspects in the shootings.

Spencer Giffords did not suggest that the whole Tea Party might be suspects in the shootings. He didn’t suggest any suspects. Here’s what he did tell The New York Post: (emphasis mine)

The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.

“Yeah,” he told The Post. “The whole Tea Party.”

He added that politicians constantly faced danger.

“They always get threat[ened],” Gifford said, sobbing. “We don’t really have any information. The police department was supposed to call us but they didn’t.”

So, rather than “suggest” anything, Giffords answered a question put to him as he rushed to the hospital, and his answer was, in fact, accurate. Gabrielle Giffords, herself, had expressed concerns over threats and vandalism tied to opposition to health care reform. As for “suspects,” he effectively said there weren’t any, a bit of context that The Daily Caller left out.

It may seem like a small amount of license to take, but not when you consider the source, or the op-ed’s audience. Although Carlson and Patel follow up by saying “It’s easy to understand a father’s overwrought reaction,” that bit of license casts Spencer Giffords as a reactionary villain to the Tea Party.

Carlson and Patel start to make a somewhat reasonable point about the propriety of tying gun control legislation to this tragedy so quickly after the shootings, but go off the rails quickly: (emphasis mine)

First and most predictably, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy says she will introduce gun control legislation this week. McCarthy won’t specify what her bill will entail, but it’s likely to contain restrictions on ammunition purchases and high-capacity magazines. As if either one would have prevented Loughner’s rampage.

The fact is that it was only when Jared Lee Loughner stopped to reload that the crowd was able to subdue him, so a restriction on high-capacity magazines actually would have save lives in this case. As it happens, I believe that policy should be made on the merits, not fixed around anomalous events like this, but if you’re going to make such an argument, make sure it makes sense.

Finally, they completely ignore their own side’s long history of exploiting tragedy, sometimes even during the event in question, and in doing so, they undercut their own critique, turning their headline into a confession.

While no formal announcement has yet been made, Politico’s Mike Allen reported earlier this morning that an announcement was imminent, citing an anonymous source “This is just about done. Staff is being deferential to Pete, but he is totally on board with this plan and is looking forward to getting his old office back.”

Who is Bill Daley? He has recently been the Midwest chairman of JPMorgan Chase and current Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s brother. Nick Wing at Huffington Post claims that there has been some questions on the progressive side of the political spectrum on Mr. Daley, writing that Daley “raised some eyebrows this week when prior comments were uncovered suggesting he was an opponent of two landmark Obama administration initiatives — health care reform and consumer protection.”

Not only does Mr. Daley have deep roots in Obama’s home city of Chicago, but he’s thought to have a very strong pro-business point of view, evidenced by his previous role as Commerce Secretary under President Clinton.

Watch the announcement from Fox News below:

There have been a few names kicked around, but the smart money is on Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, and with the announcement sure to come within days, this is a good time to get to know the man who is likely to take over Gibbs’ podium. To that end, we’ve got some background, plus my own observations, and a little bit of chatter from around the White House Press Corps.

In my view, the greatest advantage to Bill Burton as Gibbs’ successor is that he is prepared. I don’t just mean that as it pertains to his experience, although in the past two years, he’s gotten plenty of on the job training conducting briefings in Gibbs’ stead. This sentiment was echoed by former Bush Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto, who says, “I think he would do a terrific job for the President.  My sense is he’s well-liked and respected both within the White House and among the press corps.  Also, there’s always a steep learning curve with that job, and Bill is as prepared for it as anyone can be.”

One of the hallmarks of Gibbs’ briefings, though, is preparation, the commission of President Obama’s policies and positions to second nature, rather than hemming and hawing over a stack of papers. Burton is in the same mold, a spokesperson whose knowledge of the issues is intimate enough to respond with true authority.

That authority is crucial to the job of press secretary, because it gives reporters confidence that they’ll be able to get answers that they couldn’t already read in a press release.

As Deputy Press Secretary, Burton has tended toward a slightly more concise style than Gibbs, which is sure to delight those of us who reside in the outlying rows. When he has conducted briefings over the past two years, Burton has typically gotten much deeper into the back rows than normal. Daily Caller’s Jon Ward observes of Burton:

I think many reporters have been pleased to date with Bill’s no nonsense, respectful and efficient briefings. He often keeps his answers short and doesn’t wax eloquent, which is a good thing because it allows for more follow ups. Plus, he’s been willing to call on a broad variety of reporters, moving well beyond the first three rows.

As Press Secretary, though, that could change somewhat, as the questioning might become more pointed.

Former Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett, now at National Journal, had this to say of Burton:

Burton was and remains a crucial part of Robert’s approach to moving information and shaping the president’s message once it is developed. His approach at the podium is snappier than Robert’s and he delivers what the administration has to say more rapidly in part, I think, because, unlike Robert, he is not as burdened by all of the knowledge of how crucial policy decisions are made. Robert was more central to that process than many people may realize or appreciate. That made him rare among press secretaries. Robert was not only plugged in he was part of the wiring. If Bill ascends to this position, he may not enjoy that kind of access. I don’t know. But it comes with disadvantages. Bill is just as stout as Robert in defending the president and calling out reporters who he or Robert believes have taken a cheap shot. And he knows the message and shaping strategies of the White House as well as anyone.

Gibbs’ personal closeness to the President has been a blessing, according to Gibbs, but another White House reporter, who preferred not to be named so he could be candid in his views, made an important point about that. “(Burton)’s a smart, loyal, affable guy who’d be an asset to the president. Obviously he doesn’t have the closeness to the president that Gibbs does, but none of the possible replacements do. He’s briefed dozens of times so far and has done well.”

Members of the White House press corps shared some of their thoughts on Bill Burton’s possible ascension with Mediaite. CBS Radio News’ Mark Knoller told us:

Burton is a professional who makes an effort to be helpful to reporters. But there’s no doubt his top loyalty is to Pres. Obama and not the press.

Burton has also shown himself to be an agile spokesman when conducting on-the-record press briefings. He knows Obama’s policies and can speak authoritatively. But he also understands the press and what we need.

Burton also has a good sense of humor about the White House relationship with the press – an essential quality for someone who might serve as Press Secretary.

NBC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Chuck Todd says Burton is “sharp, likeable and responsive,” important qualities from a reporter’s perspective. Although I have never experienced it, other reporters have complained of long stints in other press secretaries’ doghouses, but Burton, in my experience, doesn’t take things personally, and has the rare ability to be both friendly and frank.

At 33 years old, Burton’s youth is an advantage when it comes to leveraging technology to share information, already a strength of this administration, but without the disadvantage of inexperience. A native of Buffalo, NY, Burton followed his graduation from the University of Minnesota by moving to Washington, DC, as a staffer for Rep. Bill Luther (D-Mn), and in 2001, began a two-year stint as press secretary for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

In 2003, Burton worked on Dick Gephardt‘s  presidential campaign, switching to John Kerry‘s campaign after Gephardt dropped out. It was during the 2004 campaign that Burton met future wife Laura Capps, becoming one of several meet-cute romances that dot the current Obama fold.

Following Kerry’s losing presidential bid, Burton took the communications director post at the DCCC, then headed by future Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Then, in 2007, Burton joined then-Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, as national press secretary, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Bill Burton’s experience and competence make him the natural choice to succeed Gibbs, especially for a White House that really doesn’t need to miss a beat at this point. This is going to be a tough year for the Obama administration, and they could sure use a proven steady hand at that podium. While as Deputy Press Secretary, Burton has been a relatively low-key presence when conducting briefings, he might surprise people in his new role. Anyone who remembers the 2008 campaign knows that Burton can slug it out with the best of them. This is, perhaps, best exemplified in this clip, in which he takes on tough-as-nails Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly:

Alas, he was spared a Boehner moment by a trademark Gibbs “instance of laughter,” this time at the expense of Assistant Press Secretary Nick Shapiro.

Gibbs was tight-lipped about his possible successor, although the smart money is on Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton. He did speak about the need to “recharge” after such a sustained breakneck tenure, and later told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that his last day at the White House will be “sometime in early February.” .

In this clip, Gibbs speaks about his future in some fairly general terms, and also downplays the notion that a post-White House Gibbs will be “unleashed” on the media. He’s not exactly known for pulling punches now, so there probably won’t be much daylight between his current style and his temperament in is new role.

When Chip Reid asks Gibbs to get into what went into his decision to leave the White House, the press secretary said “I have a difficult time talking about myself,” but spoke emotionally about his “love and respect” for President Obama, and the White House staff that he considers “among the best friends that I have,” and finishes by saying that there’s a “little boy who could use a ride to school once in awhile.”

He then lightens the mood with a reference to Assistant Press Secretary Nick Shapiro, and his surfing ways. Here’s the video, from C-Span3:

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary and close confidante to President Obama, said Wednesday that he will step down and become an outside political adviser to the president and his re-election campaign.

Mr. Gibbs said that he intends to leave the podium in early February. His successor has not yet been decided, he said, but will likely be announced within the next two weeks.

President Obama, who is in the midst of making final decisions on the first major reorganization of his administration, said in a brief telephone interview on Wednesday that Mr. Gibbs would remain a close adviser and “will continue to shape the dialogue politically for many years to come.”

“We’ve been on this ride together since I won my Senate primary in 2004,” Mr. Obama said. “He’s had a six-year stretch now where basically he’s been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay. I think it’s natural for someone like Robert to want to step back for a second to reflect, retool and that, as a consequence, brings about both challenges and opportunities for the White House.”

Gibbs’ departure, as Jake Tapper notes, means that President Obama will soon be without his three closest advisers. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel left the White House to run for Mayor of Chicago, and David Axelrod will be leaving, as well, to work on President Obama’s re-election bid.

Update: President Obama has released the following statement on the departure of Robert Gibbs: (via email from The White House)

“For the last six years, Robert has been a close friend, one of my closest advisers and an effective advocate from the podium for what this administration has been doing to move America forward.  I think it’s natural for him to want to step back, reflect and retool.  That brings up some challenges and opportunities for the White House – but it doesn’t change the important role that Robert will continue to play on our team.”

Still, it’s a walk from the West Wing to the Rose Garden, not necessarily down Michigan Avenue. So Rahm opens with a reminder that he’s a Chicagoan, born and bred: “Chicago is a great city with great people, and I want my children to feel as passionate about the city as I did growing up.” While he speaks on the voiceover, we see him meet and shake hands with people from all walks of life* from the streets to the subways to a diner. Rahm is styled casually, seen for the most part in a jacket but no tie (and when he is seen in a tie, it’s without a jacket). The message: He’s not some Beltway suit, he’s one of you (even if he’s a tad grammatically challenged: “We face big challenges from our schools, our streets, to our businesses where people can get a job”).

It’s actually a great ad – simple, plainspoken, and with enough footage of Rahm pounding the pavement to show that this wasn’t just shot in one day (though clearly a lot of it was, unless he wears that navy jacket a lot). He’s also refreshingly candid, saying: “We’ve gotta decide whether we’re gonna continue to be a great city, or become a second-tier city. I think it’s time to make that choice, and to make the tough decisions that are necessary.” Political rhetoric usually errs on the side of “this is a great city! and does not suggest there is a real danger of slipping to — gasp! — second tier (this also smartly appeals to city status anxiety). I don’t live in Chicago so I don’t know how it will go over (if at all!), but it seems to be a good, down-to-earth first outing. Watch it below:

*No doubt there will be a few hand sanitizer jokes — I put my reference as an asterisk and not a parenthetical because that detail, an early anecdote in the Rahm-for-Chicago narrative, is actually entirely common to politicians working the rope line, including and not limited to Barack Obama, Dick Cheney and John McCain. So while it is fair to point out, it is unfair to point it out without any context.

**Via Jonathan Martin (@JMartPolitico) via Ben LaBolt (@BenLaBolt): “Our first TV spot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEiBKJIvWI. On air tmmw.”

He plans to return to Chicago then to begin work on the President’s re-election campaign for 2012.

Axelrod is the latest in a string of high-level departures from the Obama administration, such as Peter Orszag and Rahm Emanuel. However, this may not be all bad news for Obama: turnover in the White House at the two-year mark is not at all uncommon. And Axelrod was effective at getting Obama elected in 2008 — so it’s possible his strengths are better suited to the campaign trail rather than the White House.

The Video from Fox News Sunday:

Blagojevich was on the early morning shift this Saturday to discuss the upcoming and not-so-upcoming elections, both weighing in on next Tuesday and on the far away mayoral election in Chicago. Of Rahm Emanuel‘s chances at the seat, he made the comment that Emanuel “knows how to play the inside game of politics” (unclear if that was meant to be a compliment or not), and that he had not spoken to Emanuel since he is “a key witness in my case.”

Then the conversation turned to Trump, as Cavuto asked Blagojevich what he thought of a potential presidential campaign by The Donald. “Two things are for sure,” he told Cavuto, “he could finance his own campaign, and if he’s not happy with the Cabinet, you know he’ll fire them.” Blagojevich was not well-enough acquainted with his policies to endorse or not, however, and so merely noted that Trump was “strong” and “capable,” with “a voice” in the game.

Blagojevich’s appearance on Fox News this morning below: