This is going to get me in all kinds of trouble, but feh, what else is a blog for?
Exhibit A:
CHICAGO (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama says he is saddened by allegations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to trade favors for Obama's Senate seat—and says he had no contact with the governor or his office on the matter.
The governor was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges. Prosecutors say Blagojevich wanted to give Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Obama says he will have no further comment on the matter because it is an ongoing investigation.
Where have I heard those phrases before? Hmmm....
Now, the first part I put in bold is critical, as it related to Axelrod's words in this video. Notice how Axelrod is very careful not to say what subject, or any other relevant details, about what the conversation was concerning. Gee, I wonder why?
I am really trying here. It's a hard, fine line to walk. I don't want to be overly rhetorical, or run away with the latest emotion-based villification of the moment. I'm not looking for attention, and I already know: few, if any politicians in DC are going to "satisfy" me. Etc. But there are a couple of different ways to contrast and compare these two links, and most of them don't make Team Obama look good.
Boilerplate: I've read the pdf, I know what Blago said about Obama; it's clear they didn't get along and I'm inclined to believe that Obama was, let's say, too professional a politician, to get involved in Blago's blatant and sloppy corruption. But then an unpopular blogger (hey, just like me!) throws this out there, and what the hell am I left thinking? That we can't be cynical enough, and that "not quite a lie" is the new "lying their asses off."
I'm so fucking sick of it. Team Obama: just say, "Sure, we talked to him about the appointment choices. He wasn't too fond of ours. You know what he wanted in return for it? Money. We weren't prepared to give him any. That would've been wrong, and corrupt." Can't you see how much better you'd look right now if you'd said that? No, I guess you can't.
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Yup, dishonesty rots everything
It's such a breath of fresh air when someone will speak with candor, which "no further comment on the matter because it is an ongoing investigation" ain't.
Isn't it just a little early for not commenting...
... on ongoing investigations? I mean, typically that takes at least a year, right?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
exactly, VL. if i were an advisor on this team, i'd be saying:
"go direct, go hard, swipe the kneecaps out from under the critics and potential critics. beat down on Blago, let it all out, every corrupt thing you know about him."
there are ways to do that, which don't involve weaseling, nor mucking about an not-yet-proven-guilty man's chances in court (not that rod has any). but standard non-answers that were *REALLY GODDAMN COMMON COMING FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THESE LAST 8 YEARS ISN'T "CHANGE" YO!!!*
sorry, that line more than any other touched a nerve with me. everyone remembers scooter and how the bushies dealt with that, right?
tell me what the difference is.
I' sure a WORM will emerge soon--bcz his statement so reeked of
BushBoy's statements during the last 8 years.
It's too embarrassing, too similar.
But, on short notice, they probably didn't know what to say, what tack to take. Give'em time.
There will be WORM
. There must be WORM
.
Exactly
Who the hell decided to take that tack?
If they circle the wagons for no apparent reason.... Then there's a reason. It is the little rift within the lute / That by-and-by will make the music mute...
And I say this as a total disbeliever in Ayers and and a severe skeptic on the importance of Rezko.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"he was sent to perform"?
Weird wording from Axelrod in this video, talking about how Obama won't be able to get involved in Illinois politics because "he has to stick to the task he was sent to perform." I know, I know, people say random things. I know that very well, having said many random things, some hilarious, in front of my students over the years. It just strikes me as a peculiar thing to pop out of someone's mouth.
The Democrats: a roach motel for progressive energies
- VastLeft
Strange use of the passive voice,
that's for sure.
Same with Wright, Rezko, and Ayers
Obama would have been more sympathetic to me if he'd explained that Ayers has been active in children's issues and has tried to correct youthful troubles and that, yes, he had heard some things from Wright he didn't agree with and explain why some might feel that way. But no, he lied about knowing Ayers and lied at least once WRT Wright (he said he hadn't been in any "offensive" services only to later say he had).
The ease in which these people lie about relatively trivial matters is troubling. Blago is clearly corrupt and wants to deal with anyone. That doesn't mean the Obama camp wanted or did negotiate. There is no real reason to lie about this. I thought tying Obama to Blago was silly until this stupid "denial"--though I'm still skeptical. It makes no sense to lie.
Can we at least now stop talking about the great campaign Obama ran? The whole campaign was filled with this sort of stupidity. No one bothered to ask about them.
Only tyrants rig elections.
Obama is correct to not comment on Blagojevich
For starters there's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, which apparently Obama takes seriously even if others do not and I'm OK with him on that. Interesting it does appear to have become quaint in some fragments of the Progressive community. Plus, the making of pronouncements on guilt, innocence or any aspect of the investigation, the charging process, the adjudication, the trial and, if any, a sentencing, would be entirely an abrogation of the principle of Separation of Powers and further, considering that any trial will likely extend into Obama’s presidency, potentially an abuse of his office.
Morality and legality aside, any message other than refusal to comment will be dissected, parsed, torn apart and reassembled not to mention blatantly misrepresented, so politically there is no gain. No positive outcome is to be had from issuing a comment other than - No Comment.
This is the proper decision legally, politically and morally.
I'm not debating the decision to avoid passing judgment
The choice of language ("ongoing investigation") is the jargon of stonewallers.
Harry Reid, OTOH, doesn't sound like a cover-up artist here:
Reid said, “The charges against Governor Blagojevich are appalling and represent as serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard.”
And it would have been easy to say just that
And by qualifying with "The charges against..." Reid is not only legally, politically and morally correct, he's not using obviously obfuscatory language, either, as both Obama and "some" of his defenders are doing.
Personally, as I've said, I think Obama's got a PR blip on this, nothing more, and hopefully somebody smart will clean up his Blago riffing soon. But if the stonewalling language continues, as I don't expect it to, that will be interesting.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
BTW, the RNC,
in its role as whoring cheerleader for the republicans, has already released to the media a listing of all the complimentary remarks Obama ever made about Blagojevich.
Oh, yes, a fun-filled four years ahead.
Heh
"No comment." Because that was so well-received when coming from Republicans' mouths. And of course the "Progressive" community nobly respected the "innocent until proven guilty" idea when it was GOPers on the hot seat. Yeah, riiiiight...
So, on the premise that "no comment" is acceptable. We should
have no problem with the following statement "I have no further comment on the matter because it is an ongoing investigation" from any one of our political leaders. Odd though that Patrick Fitzgerald et al can read detailed descriptions and accounts of their "ongoing" investigation and Dick Durbin and others can speak to the investigation but Obama stumbles through a "no comment."
He's frightened of any implication, as he should be.
I love this job!
And now for something completely different
I agree more with Rachel Maddow than with Somerby:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh121008.shtml
I agree, of course, with Somerby about the disturbing lack of "innocent-until-proven-guilty" caveats in some circles. But Maddow, like some of us, picked up on the unmistakable jargon of Bush stonewalls in Obama's response. Rachel's and my and CD's and Lambert's et al.'s gripe isn't that he didn't shout "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" It's that he used the lingo of the cover-up artist.
Maddow: "You know, that’s the most Bush administration phrase ever, isn’t it? I mean, even if it’s true, did he have to say it exactly like that?"
BTW, I also agree with Bob's other complaints about Maddow's reportage, her willingness to help propagate bogus connections between Blago and Obama.
That's what happens when you join the Village
You assimilate.
Is Maddow being too sensational? Possibly, no more than the theories abounding on the internet though. Her observation about the weasel wording was wonderful though.
Probably irresponsible to speculate, yet the machinations of the Illinois Combine have been openly for decades. How absorbed Obama became, is a question that should be thoroughly explored by our media.
It would have been better to discover this before the primary, but better late than never. As Maddow herself noted, we shouldn't forgive this behavior, just because it comes from our side.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
A less-programmatic response from Obama
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/...