Newspaper headlines baselessly suggest Obama involvement in Blagojevich scandal
In recent coverage of the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), several media outlets have offered headlines that baselessly suggest President-elect Barack Obama has been implicated in the scandal. As Media Matters for America noted, prosecutor and U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stated during a December 9 press conference that the criminal complaint against Blagojevich "makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever -- his conduct," and Fitzgerald cautioned the press to "not cast aspersions on people for being named or being discussed or if you learn they're being interviewed."
Among such headlines are the following:
Obama damage control (Politico, December 12)
Analysis: Scandal threatens to dog Obama (Associated Press, December 10)
Scandal Is an Early Test for Obama Team (The New York Times, December 10)
Scandal tests Obama, observers say (United Press International, December 12)
Obama gets a crisis 'test run' (Los Angeles Times, December 12)
Scandal casts cloud over Obama presidency (The Washington Times, December 10)
Big risks for Obama in Blago scandal (Politico, December 10)
GOP ties Obama to arrested Ill. governor (The Hill, December 9)
RNC hopefuls use Blagojevich to hit Obama (The Hill, December 10)
As Media Matters has documented, the complaint against Blagojevich does not include a single allegation of misconduct by Obama, and at least one mention of "president-elect" in the complaint affirmatively undermines any suggestion of wrongdoing on Obama's part.
Jeez... let's just wait until Obama does something that would actually warrent an investigation. Since I now cannot participate in the sports I like, I do what every other red blooded american does and gamble on sports like there's no tomorrow! I will give anyone here 4 to 1 that all these *news* outlets will be mentioning 'impeachment' by the end of February.
What are the odds that we'll have the money to afford "luxuries" like homes, TVs and electricity come February?
As long as the Steelers emerge victorious in the Super Bowl, I will be content in my card board box on the corner of 5th and Stanwix celebrating with all the other 'yinzers.
On The Beltway Boys yesterday, Fred Barnes said this is the biggest scandal since Monica Lewinsky -- I kid you not -- thus making painfully clear to one and all the limits of his analytical abilities and intellectual powers.
You see, the Obama camp orchestrated this whole scandal as a distraction to the birth certificate issue (IYR, the Supreme Court was considering hearing the case just days before this story leaked out)...
Amazing, if MMFA had their way, we would not be discussing Blagojevich.
... truely amazing!! I called Brock just now and told him to quit being so picky in his selection of news MMFA puts out!
Amazing, if Republicans had their way, Obama would be linked to the Son of Sam, hurricanes, and lost socks.
Not at all, but Obama was the Senator from Illinois , same state that the Governor is from and it was his seat. No one is suggesting Obamas involvement in any of the articles mentioned.
You're right Casey. If the president elect were Republican and the same circumstance were occuring the media would be covering it with the same deliciousness. It is what it is. MMFA's continued whine about it is just crybaby stuff. Besides, if it tests Obama now before he is in office then it only strenghtens him for all the crap he's likely to take for four more years.
I don't see him as nearly so tender and vulnerable as MMFA does.
Tenderness don't enter into it.
Suggesting that this has anything at all to do with Obama is a blatant lie. (That's a subset of "conservative misinformation" which is particularly egregious and relatively transparent.)
Obama doesn't need to "be tested" by this, because it has nothing at all to do with him. (The Gov called him an M'Fer - ON TAPE - for not playing along with the scheme! What more do you people want?!)
Not only is there every indication that they were not close, if anything, they do seem to have been somewhat antagonistic. Sure, Obama campaigned for him and endorsed him as a fellow Democrat, but was there anything more than that? From what I have seen and heard, I tend very much to doubt it.
Remind me again of all the delicious media coverage of how the Delay corruption cast a cloud over the Bush administration and how Bush was going to deal with the crisis that dogged him. I must have been asleep that week.
Huh? Tell me how if this situation were politically exactly reversed if the Republican president elect would be treated more "tenderly". It's Obama's Senate seat, that is the inherent connection that cannot be denied by anyone. As I said, it is what it is.
Obama will be just fine, and since I wholeheartedly supported him for office, and am very impressed by all he has done since his election, I have far more faith in him than many of you, apparently.
I agree with what you said Tommy, I think Obama has done wonders so far. I find it amazing that so many are so upset over this issue.
the people i see who are really "upset" are the ones who are taking exception to the portrayal being offered by rightwingers of obama having some involvement in this. rush is doing it, as are others. this is the same stuff we saw with the clintons. endless innuendo based on nothing.
Okay, I'll tell you that if the situation was politically exactly reversed that the Republican president elect would not have been the focus of the media, that the Republican governor would have been the focus of the media. There, now that's settled, and we can depart the speculation arena.
I agree Obama will be fine, faith has nothing to do with it. The main issue here is the ability of the Republican marketing campaign to turn the focus on what should be state-level politics into a national issue regarding the president elect. The press is being a patsy in that mission, and a lot of us, including myself, are pretty sick and tired of the exposure this garbage is getting.
I am just waiting for the media to say that Obama is a maverick reformer taking on corruption in his own party. You betcha.
"If the president elect were Republican and the same circumstance were occuring the media would be covering it with the same deliciousness. "
And the right-wing professional liars would have their undies in a bunch over how biased the liberal media is.
Yep, they certainly would.
No one is suggesting Obamas involvement in any of the articles mentioned.
Obama is mentioned by name in each headline. Since "No one is suggesting Obama[']s involvement", wouldn't you have to agree that each headline is misleading?
No, he is the President Elect and leader of the party that the corrupt Governor is coming from.
How are you not "suggesting Obama[']s involvement"?
I am not, i know you want to play word games . I do not. Tell me know this headline suggests Obama is involved?
Obama gets a crisis 'test run'
Tell me know this headline suggests Obama is involved?
Then why the sheol are you posting here except to spread the innuendo around as far as it will go?...
Shut up, if you have noting intelligent to add then don't.
Obviously you hate different opinions.
Shut up, if you have noting intelligent to add then don't.
You first...
Seriously, if Obama is not involved in the case--which is what Fitzgerald has said in absolutely clear terms--then why is this even an issue, except that the Repugnantcon Slander Squad wants to slime Obama by association with an obvious crook like Blagojevich? If it wasn't that this whole ugly scenario shows what we can expect for the entire Obama presidency from these ghouls--make up phony "scandals" just to make Obama defend himself--it would be almost funny...
It is an issue because it was his senate seat and he is from the State where this occured, that is his involvement. Not to mention it may be some of his team members.
We are also forgeting something here , the Governor is innocent until proven guilty and what should even disturb everyone here is the rallycry to convict him before hearing his case.
It is an issue because it was his senate seat and he is from the State where this occured, that is his involvement. Not to mention it may be some of his team members.
How you can maintain this and claim that you are not suggesting Obama's involvement is quite strange.
How can you continue to want to play word games. How more clear can I be. Obama is involved, there is no evidence he was involved. How you could even suggest I am suggesting the President Elect was involved in this alleged scheme is just not only mindboggling, but proves you do not want to discuss this issue objectively. Good Lord.
I need to say again because I typed to fast. OBAMA IS NOT INVOLVED IN MY OPINION
I give up.
Casey, You make perfect sense. Anybody with half a brain can see the simple logic and is able to differentiate between "connection" and "involvement" in this situation.
Obama is connected, he is not involved.
Did half or all of your brain miss the "it may be some of his team members" portion of Caseysprings' claim that Obama is "not involved"?
Perfect sense is what you take away from this sentence?
Obama is involved, there is no evidence he was involved. - casey
It's a left brain / right brain thing.
Read Casey's correction.
I've read everything posted on this thread and am still at a loss as to what Casey's position is with this matter.
Stay classy there tommy.
It really is a spectacular assessment.
I am quite amazed, Gov =>
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
How more clear can I be. casey
Grammar?
Sorry, English was not my native language. We all are not perfect like you with Grammar.
I'm not even close to having "perfect grammar", however, when you post ...
Obama is involved, there is no evidence he was involved. How you could even suggest I am suggesting the President Elect was involved in this alleged scheme is just not only mindboggling, ...
I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
is this a total contradiction?
casey at 326pm: "no, he is the president elect and leader of the party that the corrupt governor is coming from." got that? "corrupt governor".
casey at 345pm: "...the governor is innocent until proven guilty and what should even disturb everyone here is the rallycry to convict him before hearing his case".
so, obama is the "leader of a party in crisis" as casey said at 333pm, because of a "corrupt governor" who is "innocent until proven guilty".
Oh, I get it. Obama is responsible for the cirminal conduct of any member of his party. Then why didn't we impeach Bush when, say, David Vitter was caught playing Johnny to the DC Madam? AFter all, he was President and head of the party the corrupt congressman came from...
Oh, I get it. Obama is responsible for the cirminal conduct of any member of his party
Nope , never said that and neither do the headlines, but he is the leader of a party in crisis
Then why didn't we impeach Bush when, say, David Vitter was caught playing Johnny to the DC Madam?
I do not know, I feel Bush should of impeached for lying about WMD, but members of both parties felt otherwise. Take it up with them not me.
what crisis would that be? the fact that a governor is in trouble means it's a "party in crisis"?
Now you're implicating EVERY DEMOCRAT in this?
Did George Bush have anything to do with Foley's page-boys, or Craig's bathroom pasttimes? No. The two had nothing to do with him, so there was no reason to mention his name in every article about the two of them. And, hey - he wasn't implicated in either story! Imagine that!
Now you're implicating EVERY DEMOCRAT in this?
I am , nice.
As for Foley and Craig, sure Bush was responsible , he is the President and leader of the GOP. (Sarcastic)
\Obviously you refuse to seriously debate this.
Oh, I'm debating this very seriously. It's you and Tommy who seem to think that becuase (1) it's Obama's seat being sold off by Blogo and/or (2) Obama is the head of the party that Blago happens to belong to, that somehow Obama is implicated in the scadal, or that it's OK to imply that he is, even as you admit that he isn't.
It's patently absurd to think that Obama owes even a minimal explanation, let alone needs 'damage control' or 'public relations' or needs to say anything beyond "This guys a *bleep*ing idiot!" The press is just MAKING SH*T UP here.
Point (1) above may "connect" Obama to the scandal, but the wrongdoing is completely on Blogo's hands. When you made point (2)... Well, where's the logic in that? The "leader of the party" is not responsible for the actions of every Senator, State Rep, Governor and Dog-Catcher in the party! Nor is the PARTY "bad" simply becuase a few (or even a lot) of it's members are. If you wan't to hold the Democratic Party or Obama somehow responsible for the actions of Blogo (or Spitzer, Jefferson, Edwards, etc...) then you'd be saying the same about Bush and the Republican's regardind Foley, Craig, Cunningham, DeLay, etc... Both would be absurd, but you brought up the point, not me.
Well, Eddie, over the last several years, there have been many posting here that have used a very broad brush with regards to what you mentioned, tying all Republicans to Cunningham, Delay, etal. And in some instances, some in the media did likewise (wrong then, wrong now), so you shouldn't be at all suprised when that broad brush turns up in the hands of rhe other side.
No one is suggesting Obamas involvement in any of the articles mentioned.
Well, besides AA, let's see if that's a true statement...
ABC News article:
Republicans pounced nonetheless.
"The serious nature of the crimes listed by federal prosecutors raises questions about the interaction with Gov. Blagojevich, President-elect Obama and other high ranking officials who will be working for the future president," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the new GOP House whip.
L.A. Times article:
"It's hard for anyone who's at the top of a sprawling organization like a transition to know everything that's going on. And it's something that may turn out to be 100% true, but it's a red flag that has been raised up. And everybody now is shooting at the red flag: the media, the Republicans."
Washington Times article:
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Mr. Obama's comments were "insufficient at best" because the Democrat has supported and advised his home-state governor.
The RNC also sent out a release detailing Mr. Obama's thin relationship with the governor
The Politico article:
At first blush, Barack Obama comes out of the Rod Blagojevich scandal smelling like a rose. The prosecutor at a news conference seemed to give the president-elect a seal of approval, and the Illinois governor himself was caught on tape complaining that Obama was not interested in crooked schemes.
But make no mistake: For Obama and his team, the Blagojevich scandal is a stink bomb tossed at close range.
Legal bills, off-message headlines, and a sustained attempt by Republicans to show that Obama is more a product of Illinois’s malfeasance-prone political culture than he is letting on — all are likely if the Blagojevich case goes to trial or becomes an extended affair.
The Hill article:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) wasted little time in trying to tie President-elect Obama to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), who was arrested Tuesday morning on a variety of corruption charges.
So, contrary to your statement, somebody is suggesting Obama's involvement.
Really? Any of those statements suggest that the President Elect was involved in selling his seat? and wanted pay for play?
Those statements, along with a lot of the other parts I didn't post make a great case of republicans implying some level of connection to Blag and the scandal. By leaving it open ended they are playing the fox game of "we suggest, you decide". And I have little faith in about 30% of my fellow americans' ability to make a sound decision.
I am sure most Americans have learned from the Bush years, Obama is respected and well liked , this issue will not change it despite what the GOP may want.
Oh, I agree with you there. And if I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting those articles suggested a connection, what they did was report who was trying to make that connection. It's unclear what everyone is ranting about here, I'd suggest the issue sounds like "why are they still giving airtime to instigators"?
Mighty Casey has struck out... again!
If MMFA had their way (and if common sense and basic dececy reigned) we WOULD ABSOLUTELY be discussing BLOGOJOVICH. We WOULD NOT be discussing how this scandal impacts the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, primarily becasue IT DOESN'T and there NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between the two!
You Con's sure are a desperate bunch these days. No substance, no principals.
I am not a Con, wow when you do not want to debate you accuse anyone of being a Con.
Ok so when the next Hurricane strikes, the President should never be questoned because there is no connection between the Presdent and the Weather.
Got it.
You really are clueless, aren't you. Once again, you missed the whole point of the article. Perhaps you don't realize that when you deliberately ignore reality that you only weaken your argument--not only now, but any future arguments you might make, because you've shown yourself to be disconnected from reality.
You really are clueless, aren't you? Once again, you missed the whole point of the article. Perhaps you don't realize that when you deliberately ignore reality that you only weaken your argument--not only now, but any future arguments you might make, because you've shown yourself to be disconnected from reality.
history, i wouldn't take "casey" too seriously. this is the same person who said the artist who made the "impeach bush" ornament was a "disgusting piece of garbage" and "scum".
But Casey does show semi-impressive cutting and pasting skills.
If each headline was simply preceded by the words "Republicans strive to ensure...", then everything would be correct.
Any responsible editor at any responsible newspaper, blog, or gathering body would have begun their headlines with, "In spite of any evidence to the contrary, etc." or "With no basis in fact, the RNC accuses....", or "In a desperate attempt to discredit the President-Elect, extremeists falsely tie Obama....". "The Usual Smear Machine Is Already At Work To Damage Obama's Transition....". Of course, I DID use the term "responsible", didn't I. That's just gullible ol' me.
don,
The reason Obama's name keeps surfacing is because of all the speculation around who talked to Blagojevich? Who were negotiatiing deals for the Senate seat and were any of Obama's team involved? Until these questions can be answered, this scandal will dog Obama. Right now we have conflicting statements from Axelrod and reports from the Quincy, Ill. report by KHQA-TV's Carol Sower, and a report by that same station later that week stating the meeting took place. Even if Obama didn't talk to Blagojevich, he obfuscated and demured about who on his team has talked to the governor.
All of this runs counter to Obama's "change" mantra. Until everything becomes transparent, and he and his team are vidicated, it looks like he and his team got caught up in the old style Chicago poltics of quid pro quo which is not the "change" Obama led everyone to believe in.
Obama ... obfuscated and demured about who on his team has talked to the governor (AA)
Barney, do you have any examples of this obfuscation and demurring? Thanks.
(I realize I'm in that elite group of posters who you're scared to respond to, so this is really just for the record. Your failure to answer will probably be as revealing as any attempt you might make to answer)
And Colonel, I'm sick of all this "old style Chicago politics" crap people like AA keep spewing. It's nothing more than a slur based on the past actions of others, not the current situation.
So my question to you, AA, is what was Obama seeking to gain from the quid pro quo of "selling" his seat in the senate? Another Rezko-like house deal? A new birth certificate? Free tickets to the Bears games? Enquiring minds want to know.
I hear you, Foghorn. I'm not saying there isn't corruption in Illinois politics, anymore than I'd say there's a state without corruption, it's just that Chicago's past is the stuff of legend- it's in songs and movies, and it's a perfect theme to promote to the emotional , sound-bite friendly conservative media consumer.
The right wing media has a pretty easy job, considering the lack of critical thinking skills in their target demo. Just find a few provocative buzzwords, connect some unrelated dots, and you've got them drooling on their shirts.
Well, foghornleghorn and the Col. You have finally figured out AA,Tommy and the rest of the conservative hacks. As long as a Democrat dares to be in the White House, they will find every excuse to demonize him, regardless of the evidence. I suppose their ultimate desire is for a one party system, and you know which party they would favor. As has been the history of the Republican Party for the past few decades, only the anointed few are entitled to govern. What sticks in their craw is this upstart, this young guy with the funny name, would have the NERVE, the "audacity" to want to right the multitudinous wrongs visited upon this formally great country by their beloved Republicans. Their "champions" must be defended at all costs and the interlopers destroyed. It isn't that Obama is different, it is that he is TOO different. He, above all else, threatens the status quo, and you know what THAT means. Blame the workers (UAW) for the miserable state of the auto industry, not the decisions of the CEOs who insisted on manufacturing sub-standard automobiles while the Japanese and the Koreans were making superior products. The working grunts on the assembly lines had no input into the product lines. I'll grant one thing, if the assembly line guys rose up and said in a mighty voice, "We're not making these cars that can't compete with the Japanese! We don't want any part of making crappy cars! Give us some PRIDE in what we make!" The auto industry could realistically compete with whatever the foreign market could put out. But, NO, blame the worker for the difficulties of whatever uber-product we foist on the public. Is that the sacred "market economy" the conservatives love to talk about? Obviously, that philosophy is flawed. "The chickens have come home to roost" is staring us in the face.
Hey Maddog, we figured some of them out a long time ago, I personally figured out that all they want is for their silly arguments to be treated as legitimate. Just call them on their BS, and they'll stop responding, pretending that it's about not taking you seriously.
Once they realize you're not giving them the Special Olympics free pass, they find more polite and patient posters to "debate" with, and you can just quickly point out their stoopidity without wasting a lot of time.
Until everything becomes transparent, and he and his team are vidicated, ...
Yet you still keep bringing up Ayers and Wright.
But Blagojevich and Obama are from the same City and State. I want to know nobody is asking what Obama had to do with that Capone guy. I also want to know exactly what Obama knows about the Saint Valentine's day massacre, these are questions we need answers to! Just what was Obama's involvement with Mrs O'Leary's cow? These are not unfair questions!
I'm sure that the answer to those questions, and many others, were probably contained in Al Capones secret vault. If only Geraldo had gotten there before Obama...
And what do the former members of Paper Lace know?
That pop culture reference is so old, Col, I heard my mama cry.
I thought that was just for me. It takes a big man to admit he's lame enough to get jokes like that. Kudos!
RayC, we all know that the fire was started by an IRISH anarchist. And her defenders are guilty of using the "bovine card". In addition, did you know that our President-Elect's original name was O'BAMA. Looks Irish to me. Of course there is a connection. I heard it from Michael Savage weeks ago. If it weren't for Mike, Bill, Sean, and Rush, I wouldn't be as well-informed as I am. Did you know that "that one", the guy who illegally won the election, is really the love child of Whoopie Goldberg and Donald Rumsfeld? Gotta start reading the Washington Post, my man.
I want to know why no one is pointing out that Blagojevich resembles Jim Morrison much more than he does Elvis.
Even though the headlines may not specifically state that Obama is involved, they create that association through the linguistic process of "coupling." When you put two terms together repeatedly they create an automatic identification reaction. One comes to equal the other. (Muslim=terrorist. Obama=corruption) You don't have to actually say he was involved to create the impression that he was.
The right has used the coupling process to create automatic identification reactions to terms, liberal (tax and spend), and to people, Saddam Hussein (9/11.) The right media is intentionally coupling Obama with the Illinois fiasco, just as they are also at work coupling unions to the Detrait situation.
Once the association is set, it's hard to undo because the reaction is automatic and imprinted by emotion rather than reason. Facts aside, many people will continue to automatically relate Saddam Hessein=9/11, Muslim=terrorist, liberal=tax and spend, Obama=foreigner, government=socialism, etc.
Media Matters is doing a service by jumping in on the "Obama=corruption" noise before it gets ingrained.
Today's Washington Post"s major article about Obama and Blagojevich catagorically and repeatedly stated that the President-Elect and Blagojecich NEVER had a "relationship" and that Obama distanced himself from any but the most casual contact. Even so, within the context of the article, the Post also planted the seeds of doubt. News organizations know how to cast anything in any WAY they want. According to the article, Blagojevich always had a low opinion of Obama and considered him a rival and an upstart. Obama was smart enough to avoid contact with Blagojevich at all costs. Who wouldn't?
Example: I am a vocalist here in New Orleans. Most of my friends are musicians. Many are very close friends and we are in touch almost daily. We are involved in scheduling gigs and/or working out arrangements for upcoming performances, visit each other over the holidays, have dinner parties, etc. But there are many that NO relationship has been developed or sought. For many reasons this lack of friendship is based on the simple fact that we just don't feel comfortable with each other. In extreme cases, we may not like each other, for personal or professional quirks. However, being professionals, these rare individuals often find themselves on the same stage with me. And, being the professionals they are, put aside whatever ill feelings they may have for me and play with the previously mentioned professionalism. Because we are in the public's eye there are many "witnesses" to our "relationship". Suppose one of these musicians is charged with possession or intent to deal drugs or some such crime. Personally, I would have no knowledge whatsoever of these events, other than rumor and scuttlebut. Am I guilty of "associating" with these people? Yes. Am I guilty of participating in their illegal acts? No. Photos can be published in the newspapers of a gig that we were all party to. "See, there is Mad Dog, cavorting with that guy arrested last week. He must be guilty of some involvement with the crimes, don't you think?" It would be difficult for ME to PROVE that I had no relationship because I have been "caught on film". God forbid I am photographed by some tourist shaking hands or smiling at the musician in question. More "proof" that we have a relationship. Please excuse my lengthy narrative, but I just wanted to give an example of how stupid it is to come to those conclusions just because we are all in the same business.