Plans seem to be afoot, perhaps via Illinois' attorney general and state supreme court, to push defiant governor Rod Blagojevich from that state's administrative and political bus. Two other observations come to mind. I compare them to an elephant - or a donkey - in the room. These are the way in which, and despite any misgivings, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (elder politico cum clergyman) chose to back Barack Obama, and secondly, how Jesse III, his son and Illinois member of Congress, for some unspecified time period has been politicking for the now-vacant Senate seat. Coincidence? Mr. Jackson the elder backed Mr. Obama very visibly and seemingly inside the Black American community, without a balanced or critical view. When it came to news coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, Jackson the elder was everywhere. In some circles he seemed to have a virtual monopoly on voicing opinions (none really critical of Mr. Obama) "on behalf of Black America" on the campaign. Then, on election night, the omnipresent Jackson was filmed shedding tears. Earlier there were his frequent U.S. media appearances as well as his repeat visits (which very few Americans saw) on Britain's BBC TV and France's France24 TV. It's not quite a year since Rev. Jackson appeared on BBC International where he quickly wrote-off as "a cheap shot" the reporter's earnest question about Mr. Obama's ethnic and historical dis-similarity from Black Americans (the descendants of people enslaved in the US and before the US existed). In shocking contrast, Barack Obama comes from a White slaveowning family, with the addition of his Kenyan father. Rev. Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson III, is hyperactively seeking the Senate seat vacated by Barry/Barack. Might these father-son activities be related? Do journalists care? Do we even still have the right to ask? What happens with interests who understand "on which side their bread is buttered," and by whom, and act in accordance? We may spend the next four to eight years answering this question.