by Damozel | With all the controversy swirling round Blago, the big question in the media---and of course on the right--- is whether they are going to be able to show that Obama's incoming administration was in some way implicated. There's no evidence that it is, mind you, and plenty of evidence that he isn't (except in the same way he was "tainted" by knowing Ayers or Rezko), but there's no doubt that it's going to be the main thing the media is going to be talking about till something else comes along to replace it.
And as "Obama-related scandals" go, this one's just so obviously entirely bogus.
We all knew already that Obama came out of a corrupt system---as in "more corrupt than most", of course---and we ALSO know that he isn't implicated in this scandal because Blago's comments show he, or someone on his team, refused to play the "pay to play" game. But the media wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't milk this for all it's worth, and if everyone else is going to the circus, I certainly don't want to be left out.
They're not going to find a thing, but it won't be for the want of trying.
The New York Times is calling this "an early test for Obama's team" as if everything that's happened since the election hasn't been that. As Roy Edroso says, they do an excellent job of pretending to think there's a scandal in there somewhere (Times Pretends to Believe Blago is Trouble for Obama).
And here's what The New York Times pretends to make of it.
Exactly what role he or his team played will be a focus of intense scrutiny in the weeks to come after the arrest of Mr. Blagojevich on accusations that he was plotting to trade or sell the Senate appointment. In that sense, the furor could be the first test of the Obama team’s ability to manage a growing scandal in an era when intense media scrutiny and partisan attack machinery can escalate any flap into a serious political problem.
“This is a huge distraction at the worst possible moment,” said Lanny J. Davis, a former White House special counsel who did damage control for President Bill Clinton.
And it can grow if not handled properly. “It’s like the whirlwind,” said Chris Lehane, another veteran of the Clinton teams. “You get pulled into the vortex more and more.”See Edroso's piece for why this is all so bogus.
Obama's team so far is "circling the wagons" as I believe the expression goes. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not. In these situations what counts is the appearance of transparency. Nobody really cares whether the questions are actually answered; the important thing is to show willing.
Ambinder points out the "damned whatever you do" aspect to the breaking political scandal when there are so many who are guilty of corruption by association (the last is my spin, not his). Here's what he actually says.
Obama has nothing to hide; indeed, the evidence so far suggests that his allies were repulsed by Blagojevich's entreaties. The trouble is that the public has been so familiar with the traditional script that politicians use when they're in trouble, and that script opens with the politician's somewhat cagey denial (even if the caginess was not intended) and it continues with the associates of that politician claiming that the questions are illegitimate and that the press is only searching for a head to spike on a pike. Then, the politician notices the criminal investigation and claims prudence... well, that's where we are.
And he adds:
I can't say I was all that struck, but your mileage, like Ambinder's may vary. I come from a legal background; my own instinct if asked for my opinion would be to say, "Least said, soonest mended." But in this garrulous age ingenuousness (or the appearance thereof) is meant to be a sign of innocence except of course when it can be re-cast as sleight of hand. (The Bush administration is exempt from all expectations of ingenuousness or transparency, it goes without saying).
At any rate, the questions are going to keep coming till they are addressed and something else comes along. Politico's got seven of them right here, all inevitable. Boiled down, they add up to: "What, or whom, did Obama know and when did he know it, or them?" [UPDATE: ha ha, look at this].
In another
piece,.
Smith and Jonathan Martin, discussing the risks for Obama, say that it
is " a stink bomb tossed at close range," even though, as they concede,
Blago himself
made it clear that Obama isn't implicated in this scandal. That doesn't
matter, it seems, since he arose out of the "back-scratching" Chicago
political culture.
The Wall Street Journal is darkly suspicious about whether any Obama people participated in one of the conference calls in which Valerie Jarrett's name came up.
Among the hundreds of hours of conversations involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich secretly recorded by the FBI since Oct. 22, one phone call is drawing particular scrutiny among politicos, journalists and others in Washington. It was a marathon conference call on Monday, Nov. 10.
The call lasted about two hours. On the phone were Mr. Blagojevich, his wife, his general counsel, an unnamed adviser, and John Harris, the governor’s chief of staff and his co-defendant in this week’s case.
But what’s drawing the most interest is who was on the line from Washington, and the sequence of political events that followed that same night and in the ensuing days regarding Barack Obama’s close friend and adviser, Valerie Jarrett.
According to the FBI, there were “various Washington, D.C., based advisers” on the call with Mr. Blagojevich & Co., although the Washington callers are not named. The FBI also said participants popped on and off the line throughout the conversation.
During the call, Mr. Blagojevich and those closest to him allegedly detailed virtually every one of their ideas for turning Mr. Obama’s open Senate seat into something valuable.
And...that very night, Valerie Jarrett's name was withdrawn from consideration!!!!!!! The WSJ thinks---rolling its eyes and blowing out its cheeks in that portentous fashion that has got it so reviled among people who prefer their innuendoes to be handled with a lighter touch---that this was "extraordinarily lucky."
Axelrod's slewfootedness hasn't helped: "Oh yes, Obama spoke to the governor about a replacement; oh wait, he says he didn't? My mistake."
OMG, maybe Obama LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! If so---and let's assume for the sake of the fun of it that he did---it's like all Bush's deadly lies never happened and we're back to the Clinton years, except with no peace or prosperity! YAAAAAY!
As Mike at The WSJ noted:
At least the Clinton Administration didn’t begin to embarass itself and the American People until it took office. Is anyone in this Obama clique old enough to know the old hit show “Amateur Hour” . . . because they’d be winners in that reality TV production.
See? If this "scandal" can be brought to Obama's doorstep, or even to the edge of the property line he shares with Rezko, the right can forget all about the rotten-to-the-core administration we've had this last eight years and talk about Clinton again!
Because speaking of Rezko---ooooh! ooooh! UPDATE!---apparently Fitzgerald is talking to Rezko again, since he is willing to give up information about his former associates in exchange for a reduced sentence. And Fitzy said in plain words:
"I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever," Fitzgerald said. "We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it. . . .
"There's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say."
Legal experts said it was unusual for a prosecutor to make such a blanket statement while an investigation was continuing.
"That carries a great deal of weight," said Jan Witold Baran, a Washington lawyer who represents politicians on ethical complaints and campaign finance matters. "It is really unusual for a U.S. attorney to say someone is not implicated.
"Could evidence pop up in the future to the contrary? Sure, it's possible. Is it likely? I think that, based on what he said yesterday, the answer is no," Baran added.(NYT)
Whoops, kind of a letdown.
But then how about this???? Blagojevich questions censored on Transition site.
Obama's people seem to have launched a transition site called "Open for Questions"---"a Digg-style feature allowing citizens to submit questions, and to vote on one another's questions, bringing favored inquiries to the top of the list." (Politico) Now we get evasion by association!
The Blagojevich questions -- many of them polite and reasonable -- can be found only by searching words in them, like "Blagojevich," which produces 35 questions missing from the main page of the site....
Declaring a question "inappropriate" is different from merely voting it down; it's calling foul on a question, not just disapproving of it.
Smith heavily implies that the Obama people have somehow endorsed this by not stopping it....um, huh?
I do agree Obama's supporters really need to stop this sort of thing. It's not helping. Still, the "revelation" is not nearly as good as the title sounded, is it? No CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE DISSENT BY THE OBAMA TEAM!!!!!!! Just overzealous supporters trying to "protect" their guy.
John Cole gives this piece a stern talking to and gives it a spanking when it talks back
Anyway, we know how it goes: if you step in dirty water, you're dirty, and if you notice that the water is dirty and decide to get out, you're still dirty.
At Donklephant, Alan Stewart Carr says:
I think I already know the answer to Carr's questions, but I don't want to seem cynical. I must say, I never took the "new politics" rhetoric very seriously---if the system is corrupt, everyone who comes out of it is at least going to breathe in some of the corruption--- but if this embarrassment spurs Obama to do something about campaign finance reform, that's something good that could come out of this ill-timed mess.
FYI, all Senate Dems have called for Blagojevich's resignation.
UPDATED: Best concise summing up so far is from The Toot.
Obama is doomed. Fitzgerald’s blunt exculpatory remarks will prove a fatal blow to the now still-born Obama administration.
It’s like the reverse of Bush-induced scandal fatigue whereby an administration can commit outrageous war crimes, shred the Constitution, out covert CIA operatives as political payback, etc. to a stubbornly disinterested media (until Katrina at least), but Obama not having done anything wrong other than be a Democrat from a state in which a Democratic governor is in trouble for trying to sell a senate seat vacated by Obama is damning evidence of serious malfeasance that demands opprobrium/non-stop coverage and faux-linkage.
Or maybe it's John Cole again:
Memeorandum has more here. RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
- A Crucial Jon Stewart Interview with Mike Huckabee
- FBI Invistigating Money Scandal Connected to Norm Coleman
- New York Times Admits that Figure for Autoworker Salaries is Wrong
- Illinois Gov. Blagovich Arrested After Trying to Sell Obama's Senate Seat
- Pakistan & The Dance of Denial
- NY Governor Not too Keen on Kennedy's Taking Hillary's Seat?
- Tribune Company Actually Has Filed for Bankruptcy Protection
- Give Bush Some Credit
- Not All Progressives Keen on Caroline Kennedy in Clinton's Senate Seat
Comments