Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich probably wasn’t doing Roland Burris any favors when he named him to the Senate Tuesday.

But then again, why would Burris want this job?

In the face of possible impeachment, the scandal-scarred Blagojevich had the nerve to appoint Burris, the former state attorney general, to Barack Obama’s seat. Senate Democrats — even Obama himself — have screamed foul. They’ve always said that should Blagojevich appoint anyone while he is still in office and under investigation for trying to sell that seat to the highest bidder, the new senator from Illinois would forever be tainted.

Democrats are saying, "no offense," to Burris and his experience and/or credibility, but him accepting Blagojevich’s offer simply isn’t acceptable.

From Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV:

It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat.

Obama said that while Burris, 71, is a "good man and a fine public servant," he agrees with the Senate Democrat’s decision not to accept any appointment made by Blagojevich. He called on Blago once again to resign and let a "lawful and appropriate" process of picking his successor take place. "The people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy," he added.

Burris himself told CNN that while Blagojevich has problems, those problems "are not mine."

I think that once those persons really get down to it and face Roland Burris and understand that I have nothing to do with the governor and his problems, that I have experience in serving this great state of Illinois and all 13 million people admirably, honorably and aggressively … I’m a public servant by heart. I’m a public servant by commitment, and that’s what I seek to do. And what the governor’s problems are, they are not my problems. I am not tainted by this appointment."

The governor followed the 17th amendment to fill the vacant seat. That’s all that’s there. All of this other action is conjecture. And being a former attorney general of my state, I know the law in terms of the person is innocent until he is proven guilty in the court of law. And that’s what Blagojevich should have. And if he’s found guilty, then he should serve his time and get punished for whatever he did that’s wrong. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the 13 million people of my state being absent of a representative in the great United States Senate.

Despite his colleagues’ objections, Rep. Bobby Rush, who is black, dared Senate Democrats Tuesday to block Burris from becoming the Senate’s only black member, urging them not to "hang and lynch" the former state attorney general for the alleged corruption by Blagojevich.

"Let me just remind you that there presently is no African American in the U.S. Senate," Rush, D-IL, said. "I will ask you to not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer … I don’t think that anyone — any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now — wants to go on record to deny one African American for being seated in the U.S. Senate."

Um, maybe Rush didn’t get the memo that this has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with scandal.

There’s agreement that it would be much harder for Senate Democrats to not seat a black man in the same year we elected the first black president, and not inflame racial tensions, but many are stressing that’s simply not the point.

But Burris on Wednesday appeared to try to be making race the case, at least a little bit.

"It is a fact, there are no African Americans in the United States Senate," he said on NBC’s "Today" show [video below]. "Is it racism that is taking place? That’s a question that someone may raise."

At least one other candidate said "thanks, but no thanks" to Blagojevich when he came knocking with the Senate offer.

Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-IL, wants to be in the Senate and he was offered the job last Wednesday and Friday, but he told the Chicago Sun-Times he turned it down.

"I indicated I came to the conclusion there was too much discomfort on my part and the part of my family," Davis said. "It would be difficult to generate the trust level people would have to have in me. I just decided there was too much turmoil, too much disagreement."

So what can be done to prevent Blagojevich’s pick from heading to Washington?

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said he would not sign Burris’s certification, as required by Senate rules. And, senators could outright refuse to swear Burris in, or vote to expel him. But either of those last two options could be legally tricky.

From AOL’s Political Machine:

The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue before, and determined that the Senate’s power to reject members elected or otherwise designated Senators extends only to the qualifications for Senators spelled out in the Constitution. In other words, as long as Blagojevich appoints a 30-year-old who has been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years and is a resident of Illinois at the time of his appointment, the Senate has to seat him. If Burris were to misbehave once in office, then the Senate can expel him. But it must initially accept his appointment. That means Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has already declared Burris ‘unacceptable’ may have to eat his words."

Hmmm. We’ll see how this plays out. What do you think? Should Burris take the job?