Pssst, Democrats — they’re talking about you. A group of pastors in Chicago warned today that the battle for justice after the Laquan McDonald killing would be a political war in which “there are going to be casualties,” and that “friends of ours are going to go down.” They want a petition drive for a call of “no confidence” in Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and they also want the video of another police shooting released. So far, Emanuel’s administration has refused, but the community is organizing protests to push harder:

With protesters already repeatedly calling for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign, and some even pushing for legislation to allow voters to remove him from office, Trotter and two other South Side ministers have begun a petition drive seeking a vote of “no confidence” in the mayor.

“Our mayor’s ratings are dropping daily, and people need to have a way to protest, who cannot necessarily march,” said Bishop Larry Trotter, pastor of Sweet Holy Spirit Church.

The pastors said the petitions would be used in support of proposed legislation in Springfield that would allow for a mayoral recall election in Chicago.

“This is war, and in war there are going to be casualties, and there are going to be friendly fire. So it’s going to be some friends of ours that’s going to go down, and it’s going to be some casualties, but at the end of the day victory shall be ours,” said Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center in West Englewood.

That warning about “friends” wasn’t aimed at Rahm Emanuel. It’s aimed at Democrats who might be inclined to circle the wagons to protect him. It’s a warning to the state legislature not to bottle up the recall-election bill introduced this week for the specific purpose of ousting Emanuel. And at least to some degree, it’s a warning to Hillary Clinton to quit supporting the longtime family friend.

Speaking of which, while Chicago media has focused on Rahm’s Clinton connection, the national media hasn’t exactly fallen all over themselves to demand some reaction from Hillary this week. This prompted Mediaite’s Joe Concha to wonder how the media might treat this differently had Karl Rove been the mayor in question:

As we safely exit this parallel universe and come back to reality, ask yourself this: Would the Rahm Emanuel scandal in Chicago be covered differently if Karl Rove sat in his chair instead? After all, Emanuel had President Obama’s ear probably more than anyone leading up to his election and during the first few years of his presidency as White House Chief of Staff, just as Rove was arguably more trusted than anyone in 43’s inner-circle as campaign head and senior adviser.

The Emanuel story is being somewhat covered, yes, but isn’t remotely an A block/lead story (which always defaults to Trump). And the part of the Emanuel story that is covered focuses more on the protests than the elephant narrative in the room: A white mayor of the country’s second (correction: third) largest city — who was/still is very close to the president — being at the center of a cover-up of a white cop murdering a black teen caught on camera. The tape is suppressed while a mayoral election is happening and isn’t released until 15 months later after the mayor is safely re-elected. And his party’s frontrunner in the form of Hillary Clinton has voiced support for him, thumbing her nose at the black community and the victim’s family in the process. If Trump had done the same for Rove (hypothetically speaking, of course… Trump loathes anyone connected to the Bushes), the howls would be at the usual volume of 11.

Coverage exists but doesn’t remotely dominate the way Ferguson and Baltimore did. Nobody is calling Rahm Emanuel a racist the way they would if another senior strategist to another president were in his place…

The anger and piousness is sorely lacking from the pundits paid to provide it.

Indeed.