Yeah, Bobert, I find the timing rather convenient too. And I too wonder if Republicans are being investigated as diligently as Democrats are (though I think Fitzgerald himself is pretty non-partisan).   The Dems in Congress, though, seemingly are still sticking to the "let's move on, let's "work across the aisle," and let's not get bogged down with distractions like investigating Republican corruption" strategy. Problem is, when your side takes that tack and the other side's perpetually out for blood, your side's corrupt politics either get exposed more often or get more media attention or both.

In this case, though, I think the Democrats may have pushed as hard as the Republicans for Blagojevich to be indicted now.   I don't think they wanted him to appoint a tainted Democratic senator and then later have both be exposed.   They want the Senate seat but they don't want that Senate appointee to be exposed as corrupt after s/he has been seated.

I also think that the Democrats are a lot like cats when it comes to being herded. Today's Republican Party seems to have a stronger hold on the reins of their members than the Democratic Party has on theirs. The Republicans/neocons/"conservatives" also have a huge, powerful echo chamber in the corporate media consortium.   So when Republicans are exposed as corrupt - even indicted, convicted, etc. - there seem to be all sorts of voices on radio and TV and within the party coming to their defense.   Ted Stevens was almost re-elected to the Senate despite being convicted of corruption. William Jefferson was soundly defeated for re-election to the House after being indicted for that money found in his freezer - and that House seat hasn't been won by a Republican in a long time, until now.
The liberal and progressive talk shows are being as tough on Blagojevich as they ever were on Stevens or Libby or Abramhoff (sp?), etc.   And I don't hear other Democratic politicians condoning Blagojevich's actions or supporting him. They want him out.