Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Monday, December 15, 2008

 

 

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.

 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 12:47 PM  Permalink | 106 comments
Comments   
Posted 01:12 PM, 12/15/2008
jmc
It would have been nice if you media types were willing to ask Obama relavant questions during the campaign, but intellectual incuriosity ruled the day. Now that he's elected, suddenly your gonna get your journalism on? Please.
Posted 01:15 PM, 12/15/2008
rallyrally
Yes, baecause Blagos crimes are so henous: From Salon: Senate report links Bush to detainee homicides; media yawns. The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday -- which documents that "former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" and "that Rumsfeld's actions were 'a direct cause of detainee abuse' at Guantanamo and 'influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques ... in Afghanistan and Iraq'" -- raises an obvious and glaring question: how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution? The culpability which the Report assigns for these war crimes is vast in scope and unambiguous: The executive summary also traces the erosion of detainee treatment standards to a Feb,. 7, 2002, memorandum signed by President George W. Bush stating that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the U.S. war with al Qaeda and that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or legal protections. "The president's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment," the summary said. Members of Bush's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed, according to the report.
Posted 01:24 PM, 12/15/2008
potus
check it out, Polman complimented Bush.
Posted 01:37 PM, 12/15/2008
NEPhilly
rally, although I agree with Bush and not you on everything you mentioned(from Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib/non-Geneva status for Al Qaeda), why is that relevant to this issue? Remember what your mother told you, two wrongs don't make a right! I guess you are trying to deflect the attention away from Obama. Just like the dems did to Joe the Plumber, deflect attention onto his tax/job/licensed status and away from Obama's answer to the legitimate question he asked! Whatever Bush did was to protect the country from another attack and protect American lives. The actions are not war crimes, they are the actions of a man trying his best to protect you and your family! Ask the families of the dead on 9/11 if they agree or disagree with any of these actions. I think I know the answer:)
Posted 01:39 PM, 12/15/2008
chasing history
Speaking of Joe the Plumber: Did the deadbeat pay his taxes and bad debt yet?
Posted 01:49 PM, 12/15/2008
junethe4th
rallyrally, why inject your hatred of Bush into a post that is questioning why Obama has not come forth with any statement on this scandal in Crook (sic) County, Ill. Apparently you have not followed Polman in the past. Don't ya know, he's in the tank for Obama. There are some valid points here. Why has Obama not said anything? It was his senate seat, why shouldn't he have some recommendation about who should finish out his term. Did someone from the Obama team know what Blago wanted to do, then not report it? The longer Obama delays, the more questions that begin to arise, and the stronger the perception that something is amiss. Look, even Biden's empty senate seat was filled with an interim until his son comes back home and gets annointed, I mean elected, to the senate seat.
Posted 01:54 PM, 12/15/2008
junethe4th
chasing history, give it a rest about Joe the Plumber. It's obvious you know nothing about him.
Posted 01:56 PM, 12/15/2008
pagoda
NEPhilly- There are many many family members of 911 victims- standing side by side with me in New York in 2003. They were protesting the thought that their loved ones would be seen as pawns or martyrs of the ill-planned "war". Do you remember all the widows protesting? The mothers and fathers and husbands and wives??? Please don't make such offensive assumptions. Remember, the administration did everything in their power to put the Iraq invasion under the same umbrella as the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, and the war in Afghanistan.
Posted 02:00 PM, 12/15/2008
NipTip
Sure, there are questions that Obama and his staff should answer and answer now to put the issue to bed, but I think the point that rallyrally is trying (rather gracelessly) to make is that the Blagojevich “scandal” is what the media is in a frenzy about while a Senate report, directly implicating Bush & Rumsfeld in the unprecedented torture policy that has resulted in detainee deaths – which amount to war crimes – goes virtually unmentioned. It’s a glaring example of the failure of the media (punditry included). I read Glenn Greenwald almost daily because there is not a single issue (especially about the Bush Administration) that he has gotten wrong and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Posted 02:02 PM, 12/15/2008
CD75
rallyrally: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Nobody cares except hippies and other unemployed and under employed cuckoos.
Posted 02:13 PM, 12/15/2008
NEPhilly
pagoda, the war was not ill-planned, it was a stunning victory. The aftermath of victory over Saddam was ill-planned, but not the war itself! I agree with the administration, that the Iraq War and Afghan War were under the same umbrella. If not for 9/11 there would not have been an Iraq War II or Afghanistan for that matter! The vast majority of Americans (I assume the same percentage of 9/11 families, but may be mistaken) agreed with attacking Afghanistan and Iraq as a result the 9/11! Also, remember Dem Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc all voted for both wars, right? What did they know that the widows you mention not know(other than they were a victim of a mind trick by that Jedi master GWB)?
Posted 02:20 PM, 12/15/2008
pagoda
The vast majority of Americans (I assume the same percentage of 9/11 families, but may be mistaken) agreed with attacking Afghanistan and Iraq as a result the 9/11! Kerry and Clinton and tens of millions of Americans were able to admit with hindsight, Iraq was not justified as a response to 9/11. Now you are in the vast minority.
Posted 02:21 PM, 12/15/2008
chasing history
And the neocons wonder why they lost the election with that skinheaded nitwit Joe as their spokeman. lol
Comment removed.
Posted 02:36 PM, 12/15/2008
LJL
"the war was not ill-planned, it was a stunning victory. The aftermath of victory over Saddam was ill-planned, but not the war itself!"....Typical neocon doublespeak. We lost 4000 soldiers after "mission accomplished". If you can seriously say with a straight face that this counts as a "stunning victory", that the war was "over", well let's just say that explains your membership in the "13%". And please stop rewriting history - attacking Iraq was never supported by the "vast majority" of americans, although attacking Afghanistan (which we have now effectively lost) was. What support there was for attacking Iraq existed because of the lies about WMD. Once that was found to be completely ficitious, fabricated by BushCo to create a reason to retaliate for trying to kill daddy, that support evaporated except for the delusional few.
About Dick Polman

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.