As curtains open on former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's trial, Illinois Democrats "are desperate to pretend they don't know him"

The infamous Tammany Hall boss George Washington Plunkitt distinguished between “honest graft” and “dishonest graft.” Dishonest graft, he said, meant actual theft from the treasury, or shaking down criminals for bribes. Honest graft, on the other hand, simply meant taking advantage of private deals that arose in the course of public office. “I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em,” he said.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich starts his federal trial today. And the Illinois Democrats who clung to his coattails for years are desperate to pretend they don’t know him. Back in 2003, Rep. Jan Schakowsky proclaimed of Blago: “He really is very smart. I don’t laugh at the idea [of his running for President] at all.” She added that when he walked into a room, “there was this crackle of electricity. Everyone wanted to touch him.”

That electricity prompted Rep. Schakowsky to donate $28,000 to Blago’s campaigns for governor. Her husband, convicted felon and political strategist Robert Creamer, made $541,000 helping Blago get elected in 2002. She lobbied him heavily in November 2008 in the hope that he would appoint her to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Barack Obama, and is thought to be “Senate Candidate 3” in the original criminal complaint.

Now she is trying to laugh it off, nervously telling the Politico that the trial will be a “soap opera.” She and other Illinois Democrats are trying to pretend that even though Blago’s alleged crimes involved prominent figures in federal, state, and local government, he was a lone wolf. But they are nervous, because the connections are there. (Is it just a coincidence that President Obama chose last weekend, of all others, to visit Chicago?)

The story they are all sticking to is that Blago is a special case–and he has done his best to prove them right. Rather than laying low, he has used every camera and open mic to denounce the federal prosecutor and the allies who abandoned him. Yet selling the Senate seat–the “f***ing valuable thing,” to quote Blago–was what Plunkitt would have recognized as “honest graft.” It is the rule in Chicago, not the exception.

Politics requires stagecraft, and stagecraft requires a terrorist trial in New York in 2010

Actually, this is a clever maneuver that is unrelated to legal issues. This is a counter-attack against the notion that Barack Obama is soft on terror and a closet sympathizer with Islamists.

If that accusation were to gain traction, it would damage Democrat prospects in the 2010 election.

The court maneuver also may explain the passage of time, with nothing much happening on the 9/11 terrorist front. The Obama administration can now see to it that a hanging judge is appointed (good luck in finding one of those in New York) to preside over the trial of Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed. Once the guilty verdict has been delivered, the administration will demand quick execution.

As all of this plays out, the 2010 election campaign will come and go. The voters will make their judgments. Mission accomplished.

Obama will be seen as a player. If he had simply allowed all of the terrorist trials to advance to military tribunals, Obama would not have been seen as a player. Instead, he would have been seen as a bystander,  uninvolved in the judgment and punishment process.

As a player, Obama can at least weaken the soft-on-terrorism vibe. It will not gain traction as a snarling Obama team calls for blood.

In politics, as in theater, timing is everything. The stagecraft here is impressive.

The thing to look for is the end of the trial. August or September would be ideal. Execution of Mohammed on the eve of the election would be too much to expect, but not out of the question.