The questions that linger
What happened in the conversations with Blago?
The questions that linger
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Gubernatorial thuggery in Illinois won’t prompt Americans to throw their shoes at Barack Obama (give George W. Bush credit, the guy has good reflexes), but the president-elect risks losing some political luster if he fails to speedily address nagging questions about the extent and nature of any conversations that his aides may have been conducted with the corrupt hustler who aimed to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat.
Last week, while responding at a news conference to questions about the Rod Blagojevich scandal, Obama stated: “What I want to do is gather all the facts about any staff contacts that I might – may have – that may have taken place between the transition office and the governor’s office,” and share these facts publicly, “over the next few days.”
He made that promise on Thursday morning. At that point, he had already been silent for two days; the scandal had gone national on Tuesday morning, when Blagojevich was cuffed at home, on charges of conspiracy and soliciting bribes. This means that the Obama people have now declined for nearly a week to detail the extent and nature of their discussions with the governor about that vacant Senate seat.
Even if Obama is innocent of all wrongdoing – indeed, the federal complaint against Blagojevich offers zilch evidence of any Obama malfeasance – this six-day silence isn’t doing him any good, at least on the perception front. Unless or until Obama supplies “all the facts about any staff contacts,” his partisan opponents will seek to broadly tar him with the Blago brush, and the more vigilant members of the media will keep re-framing the key unanswered questions.
And here are some of the questions:
Which Obama emissaries spoke to Blago or the governor’s people, and when? (Reportedly, Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was one such emissary.) Did they hear Blago say anything that struck them as potentially illegal, such as his offering to name a particular person to the Senate seat in exchange for money or a new job? If so, did they ignore, abet, or resist his pitch? Did they encourage or discourage him? Did they report anything to the authorities?
One might also ask: If the Obama people have nothing to hide, then what's the hold up? On the other hand, it's understandable that they wouldn't want to respond too quickly. They don’t want to say anything that might compromise an ongoing federal probe. They also want to ensure that whatever they tell us about the conversations with Blago will jibe with the conversations that have been wiretapped; after all, being nailed for contradictions would only feed the news frenzy. All these factors probably help to explain why the Obama people have been cautiously reticent thus far; indeed, it’s entirely possible that in the end they will be perceived by most Americans as bystanders to Blago’s delusional buffoonery.
Nevertheless, the longer Obama fails to detail those staff contacts, the more he risks picking up some of the Chicago taint that he probably assumed he had managed to escape. (At this point, I’ll have to invoke the Godfather III line that I’ve been resisting since last Tuesday. From Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”) And the longer Obama waits, the more he risks making his fellow Democrats nervous (Ed Rendell has already told Morning Joe on MSNBC that, for Obama, this should have been a one-day story).
And, naturally, the longer Obama waits, the more he provides fuel to a partisan GOP engine that has been running virtually on empty. The Republican National Committee this weekend began circulating a three-minute video entitled "Questions Remain," and the party's lust for new combat is arguably best articulated by longtime conservative operative Craig Shirley: “Now the task is left to what remains of the Republican Party to begin the process of rebuilding. A good place to start is to shed it own corrupt image by going after the corruption of the Chicago and the National Democrats, and if that leads all the way to President-elect Obama, then so be it…and shove it down their (bleeping) throats.”
Now, of course, there's something slightly comical about hearing these demands for accountability from the GOP, which was mute and supine for eight years while its own president wreaked havoc at home and abroad, and which was finally held accountable and horse-whipped by the electorate just six weeks ago. Nor are there any indications that the electorate finds the Blagojevich scandal to be more important than the issues that are currently draining its savings; or that the landslide support for the president-elect has eroded in any significant way.
But his reticence on the Blago-imbrogilio won't benefit him forever. Nature abhors a vacuum - especially in a 24/7 partisan climate where an errant smell can quickly be conflated into an all-purpose stench.
-------
Late-day update, from an Obama spokesman:
"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."
So, another week. And Obama is slated to be on vacation next week.
Tal, also I wonder what would have happened to that guy if he threw his shoes at Saddam? Care to speculate!— NEPhilly- NE PHIL: I love The Pub-type response that something must be wrong w/ me, because how could anyone see things differently from you.— Talvenada
- NE PHIL: Yeah, we need to bring back the draft to attack Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and anyone else we disapprove of. Then, we can remake the world in our image. One idea, one world w/ one leader!! Let freedom ring!!!— Talvenada
- Bernard Madoff, the mastermind of the 50 billion ponzi scheme is apparantly a big democrat contributor. He made campaign donations to Obama and Chuck Schumer. Will investers get reimbursed by the Schumer and Obama camps? The stench of liberal corruption is growing
- Talvenda- What do you think would happen to the shoe thrower if he threw them at Saddam???? The fact that the man had no fear of throwing his shoes at President Bush only proves that democracy has taken root in Iraq. Only in a free country with no fear of reprisals would a man throw his shoes at the leader of another country.
- NEP, you're getting as close to the edge as Tal. Everyone who disagrees with the war is not on the hard left as does not see the U.S. as the bad guys and the rest of the world as good. And no one with any neurons firing (or the MSM) see the shoe man as anything but a crackpot. He does, unfortunately, represent far too many of the type of people we have shed American blood for. We have no interests to be served in him or his full moon, zealot brothers. Whatever we gain will not be worth the price in American lives. It will be a colossal job to drag these people into the 12th century.— JimR
- swedesboromike, Key Lay ( world class liar, cheat, and destroyer of his employees pensions) had close connections to the Republican party and the Bush family - Co-chaired Bush 41 election effort, etc. All it proves is that cheats and liars come in all sizes and party affiliations. BTW, they were both champions of the capitalist free market system. Does that mean that we need to abandon that because of the dirt those guys smeared on it?— JimR
- What do Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and Chuck Schumer have in common? They all received campaign donations by Bernie Madoff. It just keeps getting better here folks. We're getting a scandel a week from the Dems. For those of you who do not know Bernie Maddoff is the former Nasdaq chairman who was just busted in the largest ponzi scheme of all time. 50 billion he bilked out of investors
- JIM R: I'm no where near the edge: my comments are sarcastic Neo-Con send-ups, because the right wingers need a taste of their own medicine. They post like whatever they say is their opinion or question, when what it is is BS.— Talvenada
- JIM R: Example: The sun shines its brightest at midnight in Philly, and that's my opinion, which you can disagree with. Just because you disagree doesn't make me wrong. All I'm asking is for you to do is go outside at midnight and look. ............... That's how some ring-wing comments, arguments and questions come across.— Talvenada
- JIM R: Real example: Obama is delaying his findings for a week, because he and his staff are guilty. This proves it. Just like Saddam working w/ bin Laden on 9/11 could not be anything other than that. It just was not in any way possible, according to Chaney and Limbaugh and 20 million listeners.— Talvenada
- Talvenada- Obama is delaying because they need to get their story straight. That and if they announce their findings on Christmas eve no one will be watching
- SW MIKE: Good point, no other possibilities, right?— Talvenada
- The Iraqi Pres. says the shoe thrower should get 7-8 years in jail? PUBS & Bushies is that enough or too little?— Talvenada
- Talvenada- Must you always be sarcastic? Obama promised transparancy and delaying what the facts are with this for two weeks looks bad. Even Polman agrees with that.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
