-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/12/obama-needs-to-tell-us-the-truth-about-blagojevich/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I just don't understand the constant hysteria when bumps in the road come up. Are some of us going to freak out each time something comes up that's not smooth sailing for the PE? If that's the case, you'll all need some serious therapy by 2012 ... you'll be crack ups.
I can give to flying fucks to the wind what a Joe Scarborough or any other Republican has to say on this matter, because before Blago, we had G Ryan in office and he was CORRUPT, pay to play ... and worst. He was Republican ... just like this corrupt outgoing-lying ass President Bush.
So whateva
Why the media continues to ignore THAT while handing his lame ass a talk show, only lets me know that the traditional media aided and abetted the ReThugs for eight years, and now acts like they want to do their jobs because a brotha is in the White House.
I came on hear to escape the MFers on Morning Joke who were all but saying that Obama was a liar. That Obama knew Blago was selling the seat.
I just thought you'd like to know that you kinda sound like Pat Buchanan this morning on Morning Joke.
So do you agree with him as well, that Blago MUST, MUST, have something embarassing on Obama.
What all this looks like to me is a bunch of people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. They are not using any journalistic ability, they are just throwing things at the wall to see if it sticks. What that does is fsoter misinformation and misquotes? For example, it was reported that Rahm spoke with the governor's aides, not the governor, but what they were saying this morning was that Rahm spoke directly to the governor, which is true, no one knows, and it seems that no one is really trying to get at the truth.. EVeryone is just speculating, instead of taking Fitzgerald at his word: the Obama campaign was not involved in any pay to play scheme.
This whole thing is bullshit, and I personally am sick of it.
There was nothing wrong with Rahm giving names to Blag for consideration either. He was the Governor and it was his job to select (not sell) the seat.
I don't believe Obama has anything to do with it. I believe Rahm dropped the dime on Blago and told Fitz to take him down. He just needs to say as much and be done with it.
I don't ahere to the ' no snitch' policy.
Snitch and be proud!
Stand up and say, yes, I threw that mofo under the bus, and anyone else who tries to fuck my shit up, under the bus you will go too.
End of story.
I used to always tell my friends "If your ass rob a bank, you better not tell me because I will drop a dime on your ass and collect the reward money."
They called it snitching - I call it being a good community watch member of the neighborhood. And as long as I don't get shot for dropping that dime, the dime drops to the Feds to turn their asses in, because they'll hook me in and I go down just for knowing about the shyt.
Some of my friends aren't worth jail time and they know it. I will sling them under the bus so fast, Bill the Bus Driver won't have time to sit their $5 dollar asses down to make change.
Second of all, I'm not attacking anyone, I am not calling anyone "the enemy". Please don't overdramatize what I am saing.
For a little clarity of what I'm saying, see my post above.
I feel ya but you know we are always held to a higher standard (that's another story)..and again I NEVER believed the PE was guilty of wrong doing just simply wished the handling was a little different or they could have done something to change the subject THAT'S ALL(that is only where I "differed" if you want to call it that) so that is why it was disheartening to be called an "enemy" by another JJP "family member" and to be told I said things I did not say and didn't understand the facts when I never disputed them. I don't think ANY of us KNOW exactly what is going on behind the scenes. We are all just reacting to what we have heard.
I want to "double agree" with " he's probably the closest thing to an honest politician..." so we are on the SAME SIDE!
Until I see Obama's dealing dirty, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's as clean as a politico can be without turning into the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
So unless some of us on here have an inside take, then all we are dealing in in innuendo and suspicion.
Also, if Rahm did drop the bomb on Blago, then that means he is a witness to the prosecution, and therefore he SHOULD NOT BE SPEAKING TO ANYONE ABOUT THE CASE...PERIOD!!
it is not Rahm's or Obama's place to say whether or not Rahm in a prosecural(?) witness. It's up to the prosecution to "out" witnesses in the cases.
Let's at least stop with all the speculation and in some cases (mostly Republicans) who are downrightt smearing Obama and Rahm WITHOUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE to support the case. Anything else without "evidenciary support" is GOSSIP, and last I remember, we are not reporters for the Enquirer.
That's all I'm saying.
Unfortunately someone else called me the enemy.
I'm simply suggesting that he stay ahead of the media and I never said it wouldn't work out in the end jsut suggested there may be another way! God forbid......
"I believe Rahm dropped the dime on Blago and told Fitz to take him down. He just needs to say as much and be done with it."
I know you see what's wrong with that.
Since Cuckoo Blag was already under wiretap investigation, Emmanuel didn't need to drop a dime; they had it all on tape, and Fitzgerald moved probably because he also heard on tape that Crazy Rod was proceeding with a nomination, and they didn't want that to happen.
As Fitzgerald's office announced after Pres-Elect Obama's presser today, Rahm can't publicly "come clean" because Fitzgerald's office has asked them not to. Besides, in all probability, this is still an ongoing investigation, and Fitzgerald already has the information he needs - on tape.
Really, I see this as much ado about nothing and a repug/traditional media generated scandal re the Obama Admin's involvement. After all, it makes perfect sense that Rahm probably submitted the senate seat recs, and spoke to Blag about the process. There's nothing unusual about this at all, and there's no reason to suspect that someone's covering up something in the Obama Admin.
I feel your same sense of betrayal. I apologize to anyone offended by my visceral reaction, but I expected more from JJP if for no other reason than the shared experience of watching our leaders defamed and destroyed by mere accusations.
Like you, I came here for relief after listeing to Joe Scarborough and Patrick "Reverend Wright should get down on his knees and thank whitey for slavery" Buchanan indict and convict PEO. I mean Joe Scarborough whose elected office career came to an end after a young aid was found dead in his FL office? He wasn't there, according to the record, but by all accounts he certainly wasn't the most helpful with the investigation. And Pat, Richard Nixon aid, Buchanan? Who the hell are they, of all people, to judge PEO. And why is JJP joining the chorus?
How much you want to bet Hannity will be touting this blog this evening as he did with Eugene Robinson's column on Thursday?
What planet of innuendo and speculation have previously sane people taken a flight from and landed here? It's ludicrous really, with this country submerging into the abyss that it isn't enough for the even sane people to take the Federal Prosecutor at his word.
Do we not have enough REAL nightmares in this country that we have to pander
to this kind of ridiculous smear campaign?
---Makes me tired.
BUT...
if Obama and his team had come clean from the beginning, a lot of this hand wringing wouldn't be happening.
The Obama team claims the special prosecutor asked them not to say anything until Dec. 22nd. It could have been that the special prosecutor didn't want them to say anything last week but they couldn't say the special prosecutor wanted them to keep quiet.
To that end, they could have said that they had nothing to do with BlahBlah, but they are working with the authorities and when they're able to release info, they will.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Team Obama gets caught with their pants down and instead of pulling them back up and moving on with life, they enable the situation to grow and grow and grow beyond it's importance. They need a full time 24-7 crisis communications director to help them kick that habit.
I don't know about you, but I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me, that if you are working with the prosecution in a high profile case, then you definietly wuldn't want to be talking to the press about anything.
Let's face it, even if Obama had been more emphatic(?) the first day, it would not have been enough for the MSM, the RNC, or the wingnuts.
Same as with the Rev. Wright situation, the Obama team's RESPONSE that feeds the story. The Obama team is always like "Um, er, hmm, don't know whatcha talkin 'bout, didn't hear about that, didn't know So N So was like that etc."
When all that's needed is a simple "yeah, so what?" response:
Ex: Rev Wright: Instead of
"I didn't hear him say that, I didn't know he was like that, I wasn't in church those Sundays when he said that, he's just a crazed uncle"
try
"I don't agree with everything my pastor says, as I'm sure you don't agree with everything your pastor says. I've reviewed the entire sermon and he is being taken out of context. It's a shame people are playing "gotcha" politics without reviewing all the facts."
Instead of
"Um, I was not aware that Blago was doing that, I didn't talk to him, nobody on my team talked to him, David Axelrod misspoke, we're unawares,"
try
"It's a shame what BlahBlah did. We were contacted this morning about BlahBlah's arrest and as we are cooperating with authorities to provide them any information that might help them with their investigations with BlahBlah's crimes, we won't be making any statements at this time."
NOBODY from Obama's team, Axelrod included, should have been making any type of statements about this case, EXCEPT for Obama.
The problem is the press knows that the Obama team will cave in and run their mouths to clear their names, instead of being like Dick Cheney and issuing a statement that makes it plain to the press: There's nothing to see here.
After eight years of being bitch slapped by George and his crime family we remember
that we have crime families too (though they are extremely inept.) I think we should sit, listen and for once in our reactionary Democratic hearts not cry worried tears out of eager little eyes and let this thing play out.
What is the man going to say if he and his were responsible for spilling to the Feds and they want them to shut up for now? The one thing the Republicans have all over Democrats is their ability to sit quietly when it's one of their own. Transparency is great----but this "we all got to know right now" is self defeating. Or maybe I'm just going on the fact that every time everyone wanted Obama to do something in their time--he waited, and his time became the right time.
I'm just saying . . . .
Obama remains cool, deliberate and calm. He does not overreact, nor REact to the craziness of the media or their need for sound bites. He simply does not engage that. He collects the facts, and delivers. That is called leadership, not false bravado nor political spin.
The problem is that America and the insatiable cable media has not seen it in so long that they no longer recognize it...they suspect it instead.
This drama needs to be contained as a local mess - sooner rather than later.
If it were me, and the same media who's been trying to "get me" for two years, has been dogging me about what I know, I don't tell them shyt until I'm good and got damn ready. I have an economy to fix; people to put back to work; and troops to bring back home.
To hell with the gossip.
Well that is exactly why I think he needs to give them (the media and us) something so we can move on and focus on the important things! At least change the subject ...to economic stimulus or something. BS walks but MONEY always talks! :-)
When will the Left grow a pair and tell the MSM, "We will NOT allow you to shape the story any longer! ENOUGH!". The Left constantly complains about the MSM bias, yet many of us continue to cling to its every word like an abuse victim clings to his/her abuser. Say what you want about the Rethuglicans, but they protect their own. Why don't we do the same?
We know what's going on. We know what they're trying to do, but we insist upon putting the burden on PE Obama?
Right now, we have the power but we're not using it properly. Pathetic.
Would I have preferred that Valerie Jarrett's name had not been floated? Yes. Would I have preferred that Craig Greg serve as conduit between the Obama Team and Blagojevich's office? Hell Yes! But at the end of the day, aspersions of wrong doing are being cast on the President-elect of the United States for sending his aid to talk and NOT promising anything in return.
I guess I am saying I want to start back watching..I want to be able to hear about something else..perhaps the things you mentioned above and I would like for Obama to help. NOT because I believe that he has done anything wrong but because I believe he is smart and capable enough to do so. It would help the media to move on consequently help us all to look at the real issues at hand and make his transition a little smoother. That takes ALL of us- Republicans and Democrats alike not just JJP or those of us that believe he is innocent of wrong doing.
Of course there are going to be those that will NEVER get on the bandwagon. They will have a problem with anything from O's haircut to you name it but I believe most of us want to move on with our lives and deal with the economy etc.
There's serious journalism needed right now. And Barack is no longer in a position where he has to give a damn about gossip columnists and their specious demands. There are serious journalists who know that an economy is at stake.
If they're dying to talk about something else, there's nothing from stopping them.
You can't demand something if you haven't acted in reputable fashion, and the traditional media has been nothing but lapdogs for Bush while he led this country into a war we didn't need to fight, an economy that is worth shyt, and making sure his oil and Wall Street Buddies got paid on the taxpayers' dime. Bush didn't hide his shyt - he did it in the open; RIGHT IN OUR FACES, and the media ignored the WHOLE DAMNED THING for eight years.
Who the hell is the media to demand Barack come clean about this Blagojevich scandal. If Rahm dropped dime on Blago, Fitz can come clean - if it doesn't harm the case he's putting togther; otherwise, he is being wise by not trying this case in the PRESS, and Obama, being a constitutional lawyer, is equally wise to say little if it's going to compromise the case against Blago.
As long as Barack doesn't look like he's hiding, I say he should be about his business of planning how to clean up the shyt Bush is leaving behind.
President -Elect Obama will provide what he needs to the media when he gets good and ready. And the MSM will look like the stupid, putrid, egotisitical, book-selling, scum bags they are!!!!!
-36 DAYS B4 Mr. President-Elect Obama's INAUGURATION!!
I'm PRAYING for HIM.
Come clean about what exactly?
Fitzgerald already said that Obama wasnt involved and Blago's foul mouth confirmed it..Yet he media continues to act as if he committed some fraudulent act. There are more important issues at hand ...two wars, the economy, health care to name a few than dealing with this nonsense
And there you have it. I major co-sign on this statement. I think to a certain extent it also applies to certain "supporters" on the far left who seem to think they own Obama. Some of these folk act like he should check with them before he takes a piss.
I am sick of them all.
If they worked with Fitzgerald ; if they were snitches, then admit it.
"What I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal making around my Senate seat," he said. "That I'm absolutely certain of."
OK He did not directly speak with Blago and no one from his staff was involved in any deal making...oh OK.
Oh I gotcha...it's still a rather "slick" response IMO. I mean why not just come out and clearly say that yes while my staff spoke with him we did not participate in any wrongdoing. I understand that none is implied by Fitz but I mean say something to shut this talk up! After all Blago is on tape himself saying that the PE would only offer appreciation but they had to know what was going on and at the very least needs to answer the questions asked of them in a TIMELY manner and provide the names of who contacted Blago and the times.......It jsut doesn't seem to hard to do to have the subject changed. I have had to take a temporary break from cable news b/c I am sick of hearing about it! Especially when it's jsut "more of the same" with no updates.
. I mean why not just come out and clearly say that yes while my staff spoke with him we did not participate in any wrongdoing
Obama CLEARLY said JUST that DIRECTLY:
"What I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal making around my Senate seat," he said. "That I'm absolutely certain of."
Maybe, you are misleading yourself into believeing that simply because they talked to the office they WERE involved in dealmaking. Just cause they spoke doesn't mean they are involved in 'paytoplay' they could have been talking about tiddlywinks!!
The prosecutor, stated forcefully..obama nor his staff are involved...further more the tape also exonerates Obama with Blago's own words.
Obama is answering timely. Do you not understand the law? Is that it? The prosecutor controls what information and WHEN it is released when there is an ONGOING FEDERAL investigation.
What seems hard for you to do is to trust the prosecutor.
Why do you trust what Blago said over a federal prosecutor?
Why do you listen to the innuendo, conjecture and speculation over a US Federal prosecutor?
Call Fitzgerald a LIAR if you want, speculate endlessly on the corrupt prosecutor, but to cast aspersion on what Obama can say or do is wrong, when it is the prosecutor in charge of all information concerning this complaint.
Dang.
IMO if the situation were handled better we wouldn't be discussing it now - that's all! And I didn't like his statement..before I heard the media spin on it ..as I was sitting watching the news and the Obama supporter that I am not looking for trouble it was just something about the wording of his comments that struck me as a little too politician slick. Again NEVER said I thought he was lying. I don't think he is that stupid for one!! I don't understand why that makes me the enemy. Not that I don't understand the law or have common sense.....good grief. I AM NOT THE ENEMY!
with you 100% or they are the enemy. Good luck with that!
I mean you simply made up an argument for me instead of taking my post as what it was...another way that PE could have possibly responded, assigned things Idid not say then made me the enemy here. WOW. I must admit I am shocked!
I am not saying I KNOW it was simply my contribution to the conversation but since you KNOW I will leave it at that!
" You may not be the enemy, but you talk and respond like the enemy"
WOW!
That really sums it up perfectly.
I completely disagree with your post. Either you have bought into the media spin to create taint where there is none, 2) you are unaware of the laws in this country that afford due process when there is an ongoing federal investigation or 3) you are calling Fitzgerald a liar?
Which is it, because there is no blame to lay at Obama's feet. He was exculpated by the prosecutor when the criminal COMPLAINT against Blogojevich was announced. The prosecutor stated that Obama NOR his staff were in any way involved in the 'paytoplayscheme' which were the charges.
What more is there for Obama to say. Both he and Rahm are constrainted by the prosecutor based on our nation being governed by a system of laws.
More importantly, whatever other details may come out of this we know for certain, unless you are calling the prosecutor a liar, that NOTHING will be about a 'payforplay' scheme.
The prosecutor stated that. Is he a liar? Or is everyone just getting caught up in the tabloid spin of a press who has nothing to say and so they create gossip, innuendo and cast aspersions simply to have something to say.
Are you calling the prosecutor a liar?
If not, then how can you imply, infer or suggest that Obama has done anything BUT be FULLY transparent, as allowed under law.
I have to agree with Leota2, Democratics need to stop all this hand wringing and second guessing, it is counterproductive. Why help the Republicans do their dirty work?
Obama is going to be the President of the United States of America to expect the kind of transparency you obviously think right-thinking people deserve is ridiculous and naive.
If Rahm dropped a dime on Blago so what? There is an on-going investigation which requires Obama 's and his staff's silence on the matter. This needs to be tired in the official courts not the court of public opinion.
Obama is just playing it as it lays.
What isn't being talked about much is that Rahm Emanuel is getting death threats, which is more than enough evidence to suggest he's the one who blew the whistle. We don't need anyone to say that to the media outright. It's too dangerous. The Obama campaign doesn't need to go public with all that they know, despite what he said, because a man's life is more important than some notion of transparency.
Why is it that "the truth" must be that he knew something wrong was going on? He has been telling us the truth -- for some reason you don't want to believe it.
The media has an obligation to America and the American people in covering the Blagojevich affair.
Media Matters’ Jamison Foser’s has a extremely important piece on the outrageous way in which the media commentary and coverage of the Blagojevich scandal tends to imply – without any evidence - that Barack Obama may have done something wrong. As he says:
“Most telling is the tendency of many journalists to speculate that the Blagojevich scandal may ensnare Obama without acknowledging that the complaint against Blagojevich contained absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama, or that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has said, "I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever, his conduct."
…Even worse than ignoring Fitzgerald's exculpatory comments, Time actually suggested they are bad news for Obama: “On more than one occasion during his stunning press conference on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald bluntly said he has found no evidence of wrongdoing by President-elect Barack Obama in the tangled, tawdry scheme that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich allegedly cooked up to sell Obama's now vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. But for politicians, it's never good news when a top-notch prosecutor has to go out of his way to distance them from a front-page scandal.”
“Got that? Fitzgerald said there's no evidence Obama did anything wrong. Bad news for Obama!
Foser then continues:
“…Perhaps the most striking aspect of the media's attempts to link Obama to the Blagojevich scandal has been the volume of news reports that are purely speculative -- and not only speculative, but vaguely speculative. That is, they don't even consist of conjecture about specific potential wrong doing. They simply consist of completely baseless speculation that Obama might in some way become caught up in the investigation at some point in the future …“Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti set the standard for pointlessly speculative news reports with an "analysis" piece declaring that "President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him." In the very next sentence, Sidoti had to admit that "Obama isn't accused of anything" -- but that didn't stop her from continuing to offer ominous warnings that Obama could be implicated in the scandal, interspersed with concessions that he, you know ... isn't.”
The major problem is not that the reporters are deliberately promoting Republican talking points. Rather it is that skilled (and, in fact, even utterly mediocre) PR operatives can almost effortlessly manipulate the coverage of a “scandal” by understanding the medias’ three-step process.
1. During the first 24-72 hours of a breaking story reporters and analysts are in a desperate life or death competition to inflate the importance of a “scandal” and make it as big as story as possible. (After all, nobody gets a Pulitzer or a raise for a story titled “XYZ scandal of limited importance”). Conversely, there is no penalty or downside cost to reporters and analysts for engaging in baseless speculation (In fact, if salaries were actually reduced based on the number of a reporter or analysts’ idle speculations that turned out to be groundless, the practice would quickly disappear).
2. Once the “story” is established as “news”, dramatic statements by leading Republicans or simply growing media or internet discussion of the “story” become themselves officially more “News” – justifying another set of headlines and TV teasers saying “back in a moment with new information on this breaking story.”
3. After the “big news” phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a follow-up news story – in the same front page position and the same headline size as the original stories that says, for example, “Obama emerges unscathed from Blagojevich affair – no evidence of personal involvement found”. The media simply do not consider themselves obligated or responsible for producing news stories like this in the aftermath of a media feeding frenzy. Correcting a false impression is not a “big news” story like the original misleading version.
The result of these three factors is a systematic, inherent bias that even the most clumsy partisan PR operatives can manipulate to their advantage.
Reporters are all well aware of this and many will privately admit the bias it introduces. They will also admit that Democrats suffer more than Republicans from this problem because they are less likely to counter-attack the media with accusations of ideological bias or to attack critical coverage as “unpatriotic” or “un-American”.
Is there anything Democrats can do about this problem – one that is sure to become steadily worse as time wears on?
There is one immediate step Dems at every level can take. It is simply to indicate to reporters, analysts and editors (though every channel from letters to the editor by ordinary citizens to personal conversations among leading Democrats and the reporters who cover them) that Democrats expect to see them issue clear statements – equal in prominence to the originals – correcting any misleading impressions that might have been caused by their reporting or commentary. This is not a matter of “ideological balance” – it is a return to traditional notions of journalistic ethics and professionalism.
In his Media Matters piece Foser notes that the media’s behavior around the so-called Whitewater scandal during the Clinton years was actually itself a scandal and remains an enduring stain on the profession. As he says:
As an endless series of investigations, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, revealed, the Clintons broke no law and violated no ethics regulations in connection with Whitewater. They lost money on a failed land deal in which their business partner cheated them. That's all there was. Republicans Ken Starr, Robert Fiske, Robert Ray, Al D'Amato, and Jim Leach, among others, investigated the matter, and none of them found illegality. There was simply nothing there -- except year after year of obsessive, and often dishonest, media coverage, fueled by conservatives who would stop at nothing to destroy the president….
If the news media regains a bit of the skepticism so many of them set aside for the past eight years, that would be an unequivocally good thing, and it should be applauded.
But this week brought signs that much of the media is set to resume the absurd and shameful behavior that defined the 1990s -- guilt by association, circular analysis whereby they ask baseless questions about non-scandals, then claim they have to report on the "scandal" because the White House is "besieged by questions," grotesque leaps of logic, downplaying exculpatory information, and too many other failings to list.
If that happens -- if the media continue to behave as they did in covering Whitewater -- they will damage the country. It's really that simple.
Deep down, a great many journalists and commentators recognize that this is true and know that they have an obligation to behave better than they did in the Whitewater affair. The Democrats best strategy will be to appeal honestly and directly to their consciences and sense of shame.
everyone here in chicago - from public strategists, consultants, campaign workers and ordinary folk who read the sun times - 'knew' of the Obama team's preference for Valerie Jarret. it was an open secret. for the governor to speak about it doesn't mean he has special knowledge from the Obama team any more than any other person saying they 'know' who's on the short list for the senate seat. (and just because we 'knew' it still doesn't mean it was so.)
Anyone who's worked in Springfield also knew of the Governor's predilection for bartering his office for personal gain - lobbyists, legislators, staffers, employees. Would a politician as smart as PEBO (or anyone on his team) really open themselves up to questions knowing Blagojevich's history? They learned a lesson with Rezko and when the Obama team learns, they don't repeat mistakes.
Reading the whole complaint it's clear that not only was Blagojevich truly bad at his job, he can't even be trusted with his own spin. The excerpts of his conversations re: the senate seat read like a crazy wish list created by the desperate. It's clear that no one (except perhaps someone who says they represent the wishes of Candidate #5) is willing to play. Everyone else clearly avoids Blagojevich like he smells.
there is nothing for obama to answer for. nothing. he's not named in the complaint; he's not implicated in the complaint; this investigation was started 3 years ago and if there is any special timing attached to this investigation it's the fact that our governor had to be stopped before he corrupted the process completely.
sometimes, getting 'ahead' of a story is just as bad as misreporting one.
Are you trying to channel Rush Limbaugh with that tired 'your Black ass would have been pissed if Limbaugh said it' skit between the President-elect of the United States of America and his executive Princeton and Harvard educated wife?
Just made me see red.
It was nothing but ghettotrash buffonery mentality...it's TIRED and OLD!!
Afraid to say I didnt get that part either.
This is all such a ridiculous distraction. And the mainstream media thinks it's much sexier and more important to chase a non-scandal than focus on what Barack is doing by putting together his Cabinet and beginning to tackle the huge problems this country is facing. What? You mean he's trying to actually solve problems that impact on millions of people in this country? But, that doesn't make for a good sound bite on MSNBC. Sigh.
And, I find it very offensive that everyone is so dogged about this utter drivel, yet none of these journalists batted an eyelash when our soon to be ex-President tookus into a war of choice that should never have been waged. We need to get real and keep our eyes on what's important.
This Blagojevich stuff is just nonsense. There is no "there" there.
Barack didn't do anything wrong. And along with the great scenario you painted of his conversation with Michelle, I'll bet the President-Elect is really trying to figure out why we live in such a silly country that this is what we get all atwitter about.
Whiterosebuddy had it exactly right saying that Barack is demonstrating, yet again, this notion we haven't been familiar with such a long time, we really don't recognize it immediately: Leadership.
“Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing
to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”
Blagojevich also said he thought PEO could secure him tens of millions of dollars from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to seed a non-profit or foundation. Do you honestly believe that PEO or anyone from his camp gave this fool any reason to entertain just a crazy ass proposition?
Now I have made no secret of how pissed I am with Obama's most trusted inner circle for not shielding him from this shit, but , Jilly, you are taking this way too far!
I'm not in the business of accusing folks of lying or commiting a crime without some damn convincing evidence, but I suspect you are smoking on the same shit at Blagojevich!
Says who?
The media?
Fuck the media!
Do you have clear and convincing evidence
of the President-Elect's involvement in the
Blagojevich saga?
If so, spill it.
If not, drop it, 'cause it ain't selling.
51 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say Obama’s done enough to explain any discussions his representatives may have had with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who’s accused of seeking bribes in his selection of Obama’s successor. The rest either say Obama’s not done enough (34 percent) or are unsure (14 percent more).
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/12/oba...
One person even posted a statement that said...he lied about being black...he's not black he's multi-ethnic!
When folks are reaching this hard to throw mud...NOTHING Obama says or does will ever be sufficient.
nada, zilch, zip,
Here is an "enemy".
Bradley A. Smith, Professor, election law and campaign finance:
And John McCain wonders why there was so little enthusiasm for his campaign among the Republican base...
Anyway, we are now six weeks into the failed Obama transition, just five weeks away from the official inauguration of the failed Obama administration, and all we have scandal, scandal, scandal!
The idea of a Washington honeymoon went out a while ago, if not at the start of the Clinton administration than most assuredly with the relentless, immediate Democratic assault on Bush 43. True, Republicans shouldn't make scandal their only or even lead message, but at least out here in boondocksville the Republican response so far seems appropriately measured. This nearly three minute internet video is intended for the party faithful, and is perhaps a little test to see how much this issue might resonate more broadly. Senator Obama ran on a very vague message of "change," and relied more Republican missteps and his own charisma rather than clear policy choices to carry him to victory. To block his agenda, Republicans need not only fight in the field of ideas, but they need to take some sheen off of the President-elect, to force people to look at the policies behind the man. Reduce...
Personally, I would prefer to see the GOP laying out the case against out-of-control "stimuli," setting the groundwork to block "card check," etc. But that said, this one little internet video is hardly a disproportionate response to the Blagojevich debacle. Certainly Democrats over the past four years have used the corruption of a handful of Republicans to tar the whole party. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.
And it is not an illegitimate issue. Blagojevich, Jefferson, Stevens, Cunningham, Ney... Republican or Democrat, there is a certain disconnect that leads people to think that Washington should run the auto industry, manage our health care, and, say, create and then regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and wouldn't let politics interfere with their decisions. Government power and government corruption go hand in hand. Big government is the mother's milk of political corruption.
Permalink
I LOVE to read the Arena everyday at Politico.com to see people like Christine Pelosi's etc view to current issues and I saw this earlier. I didn't even know Obama had begun his administration to fail it in the first place!
That does not make you an enemy. It simply means your posts reflect flawed reasoning.
Now that I think about it your post was flawed with misrepresenting my comment as I never said he was lying or anything else you accused me of but apparently if you want to make an argument where it's not valid.....
Your opinion of Obama is not the issue, it is how you are misconstruing the facts to create conjecture & innuendo about what is unknown as a repudiation of what is factually known.
You infer he has more to say while ignoring the issue is 'paytoplay' that he was exonerated by the wiretaps and Fitz the federal prosecutor also said he was not involved with the illegal activities charged. Yet, you insist he needs to add 'more details' in order to be fully transparent. as though there is some more there.
What are you looking for? Why is it difficult to accept the FACTS as stated by the federal prosecutor over the sheer speculation and conjecture of the press? You skipp right over the facts and hop on tabloid inferences and THAT is flawed reasoning.
Your statements lack validity as they are based on nothing but inferences and innuendos while ignoring theKNOWN facts and completely disregarding the weight of what the federal prosecutor said.
The point being that your opinion is not grounded in facts and thus it reflects flawed reasoning. Typically, that is due to being uninformed of the facts or ignoring the facts.
Which is it for you?
I NEVER challenged the facts yet you CONTINUE to atempt to force that on me. WHY LORD WHY?
What statements lack validity???????? All I ever said is that I wished the handling was a little different and that the wording of his statement wads different. THAT IS ALL MY OPINION WAS SO WHAT IS NOT GROUNDED IN FACTS????? Maybe you have me confused. I never said he LIED or that he was wrong..just wish he would add a LITTLE something. In fact, a couple of sentences maybe. Good Lord?!?!
Just what did I say to make you go off on a tangent against me. You never have said that..only things I did NOT say!!!!
I don't think it is fair to be treated this way for making a simple (slighty differing and I would not call it that just said I wished he would say more)comment on this site. GOOD GRIEF!
So please spare me the legal lessons etc regarding things I NEVER said!
I do think the misstatement by Mr. Axelrod provided an opportunistic opening that needs to be addressed and closed - sooner rather than later. Why? Because
at the end of the day, this story is about the shenanigans by Illinois officials over state business and it needs to stay that way.
Let me also state that I am not - nor have I ever been - an Obama campaign Koolaid drinker, and there is nothing about Team Obama suggests they are not operating above board on this.
PERIOD!
All i am saying is the not all NON PE supporters see it the same way. And while I agree that some will never even try to understand I think the handling of the situation could be better NOT that he lied NOT that I feel they did anything wrong...but OBVIOUSLY the presentation of this matter could use a little help or we wouldn't be trying to defend it or STILL talking about it- THAT's ALL I am saying. What is so wrong about that??????
If it had been addressed then we could move on and I am not saying I am an expert so I can't advise on what needs to be said but I am saying that apparently it has not been said.. AGAIN all I asked for is for O's team to change the subject. I don't really care what they change it to..I really don't even care if they answer the media's questions now (although I believe we all have a right to know) I just want the subject changed. That was all I was ever trying to suggest. If he can't answer the media's questions for legal reasons, to protect Rahm's life or whatever just change the subject! I just think O's team is smart enough to do that...again maybe they can't answer the questions because of behind the scenes that we don't know about but get the media to start talking about something else- even if it has to be Shoe-gate! I'm sick of hearing about it and not being able to watch cable news until they get something new to talk about! :-) Maybe it's not as easy as I may think or want but that is all I want them to do!
Now, I'm totally sympathetic to those who want more specifics afterall, its been a good 8 years of bold-face lies so the fear of not being informed of the truth about ANYTHING is WAY valid....but (to use an example) just because your last boyfriend lied and treated you like shit does not mean you get to rake your new boyfriend over the coals every time you THINK he MIGHT be lying and you THINK he's gonna treat you like shit.
Now that doesn't mean be naive, throw caution to the wind and believe everything Barack Obama or any of his surrogates say, it just means there's a line between what one needs to hear...and what one WANTS to hear.
We're cool! :-)
"Upon my resignation, and to ensure that the work of filing my seat remained a state matter (insert wall of separation here), the task was delegated to ___________________ and ______________ and _________________ ...
They reported to ___________________ on my staff, not directly to me as I have stated on a number of occasions.
end of discussion.
:: shrugs shoulders ::
I think the misstatement was entirely possible because I doubt that everybody is in on every loop. I can't imagine that anyone would want to be. They all seem to have more than enough to do.
That's why you can't start entertaining these folks with trying to engage them. You cant make sense outta nonsense. Leave them to their own devices to self-destruct. Dont go there with'em.
FIRST
Axelrod NEVER EVER should have been speaking to the press about this.
Nobody from Obama's team should be speaking to the press about this.
The ONLY people who should be speaking about this is Obama and/or his press secretary. That's it.
Team Obama needs to be more proactive in their crisis communications. They are too REACTIVE. Reactive gets your ass kicked. They need to start taking the bull by the horns. This story should have been over last week.
I think you clarified some of the things I was trying to say. Although I always thought he was innocent...the handling just did not seem to be quite what was needed!
That's all I was trying to say Denise but it was not taken well at all! I was called the enemy!
[quote]Barack Obama, GOP, John McCain, Republican Party, Rod Blagojevich[/quote]
Why is it that an article with the name "John McCain" in it generates the label with "GOP" and "Republican Party" in it?
If you look at the various messages surrounding this mess that is going in Illinois in which only the mention of beloved Democrats are contained within the post I rarely see the label "Democrats", "Corrupt Illinois Democratic Machine", etc.
Any particular reason for that? (Not demanding anything - just asking)
Where as "Kisses and Smooches" evaluated my blog several months ago yet didn't tell me that I was illiterate - until I visited JJP the other day - I wanted to take the time out to give you all "constructive feedback" on a little inconsistency that I see in your various posts. We all ARE attempting to "help each other out" - right?
Do you think Obama has or has not done enough to explain any discussions his representative may have had with Blagojevich about the Senate seat?
Has: 51%
Has not: 34%
No opinion: 14%
Review shows no contact with Blago
Below is a statement from Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer:
"At the direction of the President-elect, a review of Transition staff contacts with Governor Blagojevich and his office has been conducted and completed and is ready for release. That review affirmed the public statements of the President-elect that he had no contact with the governor or his staff, and that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions with the governor or his staff over the selection of his successor as U.S. senator.
"Also at the President-elect's direction, Gregory Craig, counsel to the Transition, has kept the US Attorney's office informed of this fact-gathering process in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation.
"In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release."
I'm SATISFIED!!! :>) :>)
President-Elect Obama! :>) LARGE and IN CHARGE! :>)
[quote]"At the direction of the President-elect, a review of Transition staff contacts with Governor Blagojevich and his office has been conducted and completed and is ready for release. That review affirmed the public statements of the President-elect that he had no contact with the governor or his staff, and that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions with the governor or his staff over the selection of his successor as US Senator.
"Also at the President-elect's direction, Gregory Craig, counsel to the Transition, has kept the US Attorney's office informed of this fact-gathering process in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation.
"In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release."
[/quote]
It is still a delay to the media...that is all they are going to talk about endlessly
"In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release," said Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
I know this won't be enough for the RNC, but is it enought to stop the handwringing?
Jeffrey C. Stewart, Professor of Black Studies:
McCain's critique makes sense. As the country sinks toward a Depression, one wonders how much the Obama-Blagojevich story can ultimately matter to the people who will vote in the next major election. That election--2010 and even 2012--will be driven mainly by the answer to this question: are you better off today than you were when Obama took office? And nobody knows at this point what that answer will be. If the answer is no, then the Obama-Blagojevich connection, if it is still around, might get some traction. Otherwise, not. McCain's point is this: what does the RNC have to suggest as a concrete solution to some of these problems, especially as the RNC guy, George Bush, is still president. Moreover, can anyone believe that George Bush has not had dozens of these kind of associations?
What the story does is help the viability of Sarah Palin, who ran on the idea that she was a reformer of corrupt Republican state politics in Alaska. Whatever kinks in that story the press found--billing travel to one's home, etc.--the overall argument held. And the Obama-Blagojevich story reinforces the notion that Obama has not cleaned up or opposed his party hacks during his climb to power.
Permalink
"...
In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release," said Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.
TRANSLATION: Obama's team was planning to release its findings about contacts between Obama aides and the Illinois Governor's today. (I'm told it turned out to be "pretty milquetoast stuff.") However, when White House Counsel-to-be Greg Craig informed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of that, the U.S. Attorney asked him to hold off. Why? That's unclear. One possibility is that having that information in the public domain would make it more difficult for Fitzgerald to pursue leads involving other parties. "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/15/fitz...
The media is going to talk non stop about why fitz had them not release the info until next week.
So, let's have some fun with this. What do you think the media version of this will be?
"The Obama team claims that AG Fitzgerald asked them to delay their report. AG isn't commenting. It's not clear if the lack of comment is because the AG disagrees with the Obama take on things or not, but it's obvious that this will do nothing to quell the furor over this scandal, which threatens to dog Obama into the midterm elections in 2010...."
That does not sound like a brotha with SUMTHIN' TO HIDE.
Fitz is asking him to hold off - because whatever Obama has, Fitz is probably GOING TO NEED IT in going after Blagojevich, and making sure his prosecution of this guttersnipe will stick like glue and no pardons by Gee Shrubya. (Not that it would have happened anyway).
I think Fitz is still pissed that he got Scooter Libby, only to watch Shrub all but pardon his ass by commuting his sentence.
"The New Rules
One new this was coming, but since I’d been out of town all last week I hadn’t been following the cable “news” channels where they’re “covering” the Blagojevich scandal with all the “ethics” and “standards” of accuracy that I’ve come to expect from the genre. But this morning on MSNBC there was a lengthy discussion of Obama’s involvement in Blagojevich’s corruption. Of course, there was no evidence of any involvement on Obama’s part. Nor, despite this being a news channel, was there any original reporting of any kind whatsoever. There was, however, a ton of time spent criticizing the Obama campaign’s PR strategy with regard to this issue — the suggestion being that had Obama adopted a better PR strategy, then people wouldn’t be on television making evidence-free guilt-by-association accusations against him.
This strong me as odd. The people making the accusations kept acknowledging that they had no evidence. One might think that communicating to television personalities the fact that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama’s part would constitute a good PR strategy. Given that they knew there was no evidence of wrongdoing, they should have ceased implying that there was wrongdoing. But they didn’t do that at all. Not, I would submit, because of any failings on Obama’s part, but because Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heileman, Mark Halperin, and Pat Buchanan don’t care at all about the accuracy of the impression their coverage gives.
Eventually, they got around to the idea that Obama hadn’t criticized Blagojevich in sufficiently harsh terms and that the reason for this was that Blagojevich has unrelated dirt on Obama and/or Rahm Emmannuel. Several of them deemed that likely, though none of them had any evidence for this proposition.
Sweet, sweet liberal MSNBC"
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008...
This is why I was so pissed in my post earlier.
This conversation seems more plausible to me than Jill's...sorry!
"Here is my lawyer's take on this.
Assistant U.S. Atty.: (picking up phone) Yello.
Transition Counsel: Jimmy, it's Ted.
AUSA: Hey, thanks for getting back to me. What's up?
Trans Counsel: So we had our IT guy get all the stuff together, and we talked to the people who talked with the Blago people, and we put all that into declarations, as requested.
AUSA: Super. That was pretty fast.
Trands Counsel: Ha, not to Fox News or Limbaugh.
AUSA: I hear you. So when can you get it to me?
Trans Counsel: Today, if you need it. I can send the CD by Fed-Ex, or I can get the e-mails to you by .pdf, however you want.
AUSA: Just overnight 'em.
Trans Counsel: Okay, I'll get it out today.
AUSA: How much we talking about?
Trans Counsel: Less than a redwell full. Not much.
AUSA: Cool. Well, listen, we want to review it, and I am going to need to run it by some people here. We don't want the defense to know what's in there before us, so do you mind keeping a lid on it for a while until we do what we need to do with it?
Trans Counsel: How long do you need?
AUSA: How about January 2 or 3?
Trans Counsel: Ugh, that's not going to work. we have to get this off the plate, it's too big a distraction. How about Wednesday or Thursday?
AUSA: Well, give us until the 22nd. We want to make sure we know what's in there before the beans are spilled. Blago's defense counsel reads the paper, too.
Trans counsel: Erm. Let me check, but the 22nd may work.
AUSA; I would appreciate it.
Trans Counsel: Okay, let me get back to you.
AUSA: Yeppers.
Trans Counsel: Later."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com...
Congrats! I'm so proud!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Rem...
The president-elect calls the findings 'thorough' and 'comprehensive'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28240499
CHICAGO - President-elect Barack Obama said Monday a review by his own lawyer shows he had no direct contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the appointment of a Senate replacement, and transition aides "did nothing inappropriate."
Obama said he is prepared to make the review public, but decided to hold off because prosecutors asked for a delay and "I don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation."
Controversy has swirled around the president-elect and his incoming White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, following Blagojevich's arrest last week on charges he schemed to trade Obama's Senate seat for personal gain.
Obama, fielding questions at a news conference, sidestepped when asked whether Emanuel had spoken with aides to the governor.
Emanuel was one of several aides who watched the news conference from the wings.
The president-elect pledged the results of the investigation by his incoming White House counsel, Gregory Craig, would be released "in due course."
He said the probe was complete and thorough, but did not say which of his aides Craig interviewed, whether any of them was under oath at the time, or any other details.
Spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said that the office won't release details of its review until the week of Dec. 22.
I wonder whether this coyness is actually something more indicative of Rahm Emmanuel's behavior than Obama's behavior.
Look, I am not trying to pass off blame. But all indications show that Emmanuel has more a connection to this mess than the PE. He is Obama's chief of staff, in charge of not only his calendar and the people around him and the issues to tackle, but he's an enforcer, too.
Blago most definitely thought Obama owed him something for possibly sitting Valerie Jarrett in his seat; that Obama wouldn't play ball with him had him ticking off, eff him.
But Blago wouldn't have mouthed off as much if someone like Rahm had told him there wouldn't be a deal, or any campaign money, or any ambassadorship or place in the Obama administration.
Compared to campaign dustups, Obama seemed more forthright and above board. Emmanuel, on the other hand, definitely is a pro working behind the scenes, using both the stiletto and the truncheon.
Maybe Emmanuel is using Obama to cover his tracks. I know Obama has more sense; I know that he's been up to his neck in trying to set up his government. Maybe he feels he needs Emmanuel. But he should watch out for these ex- or current Clintonistas. They could sink him with their own shenanigans.
He has to be very careful not to influence the investigation or a potential jury. Especially without any indictment in place.
Just because the media doesn't have anything better to do doesn't mean you have to cosign.
Obama's job is not to make everyone here comfortable, it is to serve as President of the United States. This makes him Blagojevich's President as well.
Stop enabling right wing talking points...