Blagorama
by digby
David Shuster spent most of the morning insinuating that there is more to the Blago-Obama story than meets the eye. In a conversation between Shuster and Jim Warren (fo0rmerly of the Chicgo Tribune) I learned that Rahm and Blagojevich were very close and that there's something nefarious about Rahm and the replacement of his own House seat (which is not an appointed position.) And the fact that Obama listened to some of the tapes when he met with Fitzgerald is a very bad sign. I don't know why.
Then Warren starts to speculate about what might have been:
Warren: I think they were a little bit too legalistic at the start particularly with the president elect saying there was no communication between him and Blagojevich, which was literally true, but we now know that Rahm Emmanuel was a conduit for the perfectly predictable set of names that Obama threw Blagojevich's way...
But at the same time Patrick Fitzgerald is the one who is running this and I think he made it quite clear he didn't want any folks talking and remember, you have the unusual situation there when once you have the Chicago Tribune disclose that there was some sort of taping going on, then Patrick Fitzgerald was caught sort of in mid-stream and that's why you'll sort of remember that the initial press conference that say was sort of the plaintive call if anybody out there had any more information. So you had the unusual situation here where he was caught a little bit flat-footed, an investigation underway and one can only imagine what might have happened if there had not been that disclosure and if Fitzgerald had been able to play this out another step or two, to keep listening unknown to the participants and see what might have happened when it came to any serious discussion of a quid pro quo for for the senate seat. But that all came crash a couple of weeks ago with the disclosure of the system...
Yes, just imagine. Perhaps they could get the Jim Henson people to create some Muppets to act out the various parts so we could really feel what those conversations would have been like if they ever took place. (And, of course, the mere fact that they are talking about the possibility of unethical conversations featuring Obama and Emmanuel has the appearance of impropriety and bad judgment right there.
Shuster is very unsatisfied and has many questions about what's missing from the report. And the Republicans are very disappointed that Obama lied. They had such high hopes for him and he's let them down. They are asserting that Obama promised that he would not "weigh" in on the Senate seat replacement and now it turns out that he did. (I don't recall this promise, but it seems to be an article of faith he made it.)
And the fact that Rahm put forth some names means that Blago would take it as an order from the president that he had to pick one of them. So, Obama was, in essence, strong arming poor Blagojevich into naming the person he chose, which is probably why the prosecutor forced him to sit down and tell all he knows. And that has the appearance of impropriety and shows bad judgment, right there.
But the real problem is that Obama refused to come clean with the media:
Shuster: There's been no evidence of wrongdoing, but the idea of going into a shell for a couple of days before Fitzgerald told them to. If from the beginning they had said, "of course we had conversations with the Governor, of course I had conversations about my house seat, here's everything that I heard, here's what I didn't hear." I think if they had said that from the beginning, and as well had told the press, "we're going to look for more information," I think this wouldn't have been a three week story as it's dragged out.
Haha! That Shuster is funny. If only Obama had said immediately that his staff had had conversations with the Governor about both Obama's senate seat and Rahm's house seat then the press would have shrugged its shoulders and let the whole thing go. That's a good one.
They are obviously convinced that Rahm is guilty of conspiring with Blagojevich and today they seem to be hinting that Obama must have known about it. It's the "chicago way," after all. They have no proof, but they are going with that assumption anyway and it colors their coverage. I have no love for Rahm and I actually blieve he was hired by Obama partly because of his ability to put together coalitions of Blue Dogs and Republicans, which makes me feel rather ill. But this is nonsense. Whatever Rahm may have done, the press has no right to spend its time speculating and insinuating without proof and that is what's happening all over the cable gasbags shows, particularly on Fox and MSNBC.
I agree with those who say that the public isn't paying attention right now, but that's not the point. The kewl kidz media clique is paying attention and they are beginning to draw conclusions based upon their own little feedback loop. That's where the trouble always begins.
.