Open Letter to President-Elect Obama
John Dean's Open Letter to President-elect Obama:
Change the Nature of the Response to the Blagojevich Scandal
December 12, 2008
President-Elect Barack Obama
Office of the President-Elect
Chicago, IL
Dear President-Elect Obama:
I am writing with a suggestion that might help to remove you and your new administration from the still metastasizing scandal of Governor Blagojevich trying to sell your senate seat. Needless to say, until the news media is satisfied that you and your new administration have no complicity in this matter, they will continue to focus on it. Because of my own personal experience with Watergate, the mother of modern presidential scandals, not to mention being a student of scandals that followed, I speak as someone who learned the hard way by making mistakes and then watched as others made their own similar and unnecessary blunders. First, a bit of background.
It is trite but true that the best antidote to a growing scandal is transparency, and that making all relevant information, both good and bad, public sooner rather than later is vital, as is releasing more information rather than less, for all these actions help resolve matters more quickly - presuming innocence or, at worst, innocent mistakes. If, however, you or your aides are guilty, up to your ears in dealing with Blagojevich, I still recommend that you ignore the Nixon presidency precedents - for we wrote the book on what not to do. If Blagojevich has poisoned your presidency, you might confer with Vice President Dick Cheney, who has taken "stonewalling" to new heights and shown that cover-ups can actually work if you do not mind having a thirteen percent public approval rating. But this is exactly the type of behavior in Washington that you have promised to change. I submit that the lessons of Watergate remain relevant to this day and apply to the Blagojevich situation, as a few examples might suggest.
Nixon had many opportunities to prevent the disaster that befell his presidency, none more than at the outset of Watergate. If following the arrests of burglars at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex on June 17, 1972 Nixon had issued a memorandum to his White House and reelection campaign staffs demanding that anyone with any direct or indirect knowledge or involvement with the matter immediately submit a full written explanation to him, an explanation which in turn would be released by the press office, or if not willing to do so submit their resignation, there would have been no Watergate cover-up. In fact, if I learned anything from Watergate it was that in the interest of the nation presidents (which would include presidents-elect) must openly and aggressively confront any and all scandals that affect them. The more innocent they are the more aggressively they should address the problem to end it before it grows. You might speak with President Carter, whose passivity let several scandals unnecessarily get out of hand during his term in office (e.g. Lancegate, and Billygate). While Nixon would have been confronted with his complicity in some nasty national security decisions because of the earlier work of the Watergate burglars for the White House, and he would have received several high-level resignations, there would have been no cover up and nothing that would have haunted and unraveled his presidency.
Speaking of high level resignations, another lesson I learned was that when something goes very wrong memories of those touched by it get very bad, and few volunteer anything. For example, before the first White House meeting, forty-eight hours after the Watergate arrests, with the chief of staff Bob Haldeman, the president's top assistant for domestic affairs John Ehrlichman, the former attorney general and campaign manager John Mitchell, attorney general Dick Kliendienst, and yours truly who was White House counsel, I told Haldeman that since I had heard plans to break-in the Watergate offices being discussed in John Mitchell's office and tried - but clearly failed - to turn them off, I was fully prepared to resign. I expected to hear similar disclosures from others at this meeting to assess how to best deal with the problems created by the Watergate arrests, and protect the president.
To the contrary, no one said anything. Haldeman was silent on his telling me to have nothing to do with such operations when I had informed him after hearing them and he never mentioned my offer to resign; Ehrlichman was silent on having approved an earlier break-in at Dan Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office by the people arrested at the Watergate; Mitchell would not admit he had approved the Watergate break-in plans for almost a year; and Kliendienst would not tell anyone what he told me after the meeting - on a pledge of confidentiality - that the man who had bungled it all, Gordon Liddy, had sought him out on a golf course after the arrests of his men at the Watergate and confessed. In short, no one seemed to have the president's interests in mind only their own.
There has never been a better moment than now for you to take decisive action by proceeding aggressively, proactively, and in the process change the way presidents deal with scandals. According to the New York Times transcript of your December 11, 2008 news conference you were again asked a series of questions about Blagojevich. When responding, you stated: "What I want to do is to 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 we'll have those in the next few days, and we'll present them. But what I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I'm absolutely certain of." Presumably that material is being gathered at this time, and the sooner it is released the better for events are unfolding.
What is not clear is that you have all the information you need, but you should insist that your staff provide it. Following your press conference, the Chicago Sun Times published a story of the refusal of Rahm Emanuel, your designated White House chief of staff, to respond to questions about his involvement with Blagojevich, and a Chicago television station is reporting Emanuel did, in fact, meet with Blagojevich to discuss filling your vacate senate seat. If true, as I read the transcript of the press conference, you have misspoken; if not true, in a post-Watergate world the burden is on you to prove it is not true - and you can only do this by having information from Emanuel explaining his actions in full. No one would be surprised if Emanuel or others did have discussions with Blagojevich or his office about your successor, but denying that such discussions took place will be the start of a cover-up. You should place the burden on your staff to give you all the information for cover-ups only compound problems, and if anyone withholds information, they should suffer the consequences.
No president (or president-elect) can operate in a fish-bowl. On the other hand, when it comes to scandals, there is an exception and a need for extraordinary transparency. Thus, if you truly want to change the scandal paradigm, you should operate in a fish-bowl to show you have absolutely nothing to hide. Accordingly, I offer this suggestion for your consideration: Email all your past and present staff, all designated appointees, and any others with whom you have an informal relationship if they could have had contact with Blagojevich about your senate seat, and request they all report to you any and all such information that in any manner relates to the appointment to fill your senate seat. Instruct everyone to err on the side of too much information. In addition, tell everyone than when responding to you that they should also post their responses at your website to make them public. In short, you should insist that the public be told everything that you are told, and you should make it all available at you website - www.change.gov. Such action by you would forever change the standards of presidents in dealing with potential presidential scandals and nip this one before it can cause any more problems for your new administration. This would be a change everyone could believe in.
Respectfully yours,
John W. Dean
Thank-you Mr Dean. This is good advice. The bits and pieces of recollections coming from Axelrod and Emanuel are creating problems that seem quite unnecessary. If either have to be thrown overboard, then so be it. It seems clear at this point that Obama has worked hard to distance himself from Blago-vich, but it also seems almost inevitable that some of his staff had contact with him. If they can't come clean, then they should go.
December 13, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This letter is completely outrageous, over the top and totally unwarranted based on the facts and circumstances. For Dean to even infer that PEBO actions in anyway are analogous to Watergate is simply scandolous!
Obama's actions are completely consistent with an ongoing investigation, which we have plenty of reason to believe was elevated by a call to Fitzpatrick from Emanuel. Emanuel is not even on tape saying PHUCK, he says Friggin' which means he HAD to know he was being taped! C'mon, Fitzpatrick said at the conference Obama is not involved and Blago's own words call PEBO a MF for thinking he can get a MF senator for NOTHIN but APPRCIATION!!
For Dean to try to spin this into anything as nefarious and sinister as Watergate is unbelievable. Hell NIXON planned the breakin with Liddy. Obama has done nothing but keep his distance from Blagojevich since he became Governor. So, this is just vile.
I am sick of the GOP trying to destroy the PEBO with their innuendos, and inferences that lack any semblance of fact.
We KNOW that Candidate#5 did inDEED have a fundraiser for Blagojevich in Dec, we also know that Blagojevich was set to announce JJJ appointment to the Senate on the day of his arrest!! That is why they did not wait to indict.
The Obama team is clearly cooperating with Fitzpatrick and that is why they are delaying giving out details. Fitzpatrick is trying to collect more evidence on Blago and JJJ by forcing them to come out and tell what they know. Given the horsetrading nature of politics, it is doubtful that he can indict even with the tapes because he stopped the appointment of Jackson before it became fait accompli.
PEBO has nothig to do with this and neither does his team, even if his team talked to Blago ..so the hell what? There was NO paytoplay...so why in the hell is the media and Dean yammering on and on as if this is going to spiral into some full scale corruption at the Presidential level analogous to Nixon?
The only reason is to destroy public confidence and trust in PEBO BEFORE he can even take the oath of office!
I am sick of the polarization, partisiahship and divisiveness that the GOP keeps up all because Nixon had to resign. They have continuously since that moment set out to destroy every Democratic administration so as to blame the Dems for being just as crooked as the GOP. The facts are that they have never demonstrated that they govern in the same corrupt manner.
Where was Dean's open letters to GW Bush and Cheney when they lied about the WMD's and create an energy and oil cartel with secret meetings in the WH? Where was Dean's open letters about the DOJ and the dismantling of the justice dept with lies from the AG on down. Was there even a PEEP from Dean when they fired all the AG's...has he written an open letter to Gonzales or Yoo who destroyed the Constitution.
Dean can kiss my ass...the only lesson he learned was how to smear a Presidency with lies and innuendos, suspicions and gossip.
December 13, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like dude, man, Mr.Dean isn't making any insinuations...he's just pointing out the problems that were the root cause of Watergate. And those same problems seem to be appearing with this situation so he's doing nothing more than offering advise from someone who was caught up in the whirlwind of politics back in the day. It's only advise to consider the merits...not a condemnation of wrong doing.
December 13, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is an insinuation to infer, imply or suggest that there was an act that transpired at the Presidential level of the nature of Watergate...a friggin burglary..that is a felony.
The root cause of Watergate, was that Nixon PLANNED a breakin!! He aproved the break in. There is no analogous root cause here whatsoever. Obama has not and did not engage in a 'paytoplay' scheme with Blago.
Dean is offering advice on a crime! There is no crime to cover up. He seems to suggest that folks who are not engaged in a cover up need lessons on how how folks DO cover up!! He more than suggests that you can expect this specified behavior based on the people being GUILTY. Well, no one on Obama's staff DID anything!!
He is like DonCorleone telling Michael, how to know who the Judas is when they come for him. The problem is that Obama is not involved in that type situation AT ALL.
The point is that Dean infers there is a reason to NEED his advice. When the prosecutor clearly has stated there are no facts to even suggest a scandal involving the Presidency.
Dean speaks like a crook telling another crook how not to keep up the right appearance so as not to get caught!
Can you please tell me what problems you see as appearing in this situation analogous to a coverup for a planned larceny?
It is a condemnation to infer that Obama needs advice for how to manage a cover-up, can't you see that?
Everything Dean suggests about 'transparency' is due to actual crime being committed. It is equivalent to advising a person to show remorse for something they have never done. Obviously, the fact that you believe they need to show remorse is because some actual heinous act was committed.
Innocent folks do not show remorse, because they have none... because they are unremorseful about a deed uncommitted!
December 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but Whiterose is right. Even using Watergate and Nixon as analogies for this scandal is itself offensive to the president-elect in that he is not comparing Blagojevich to Nixon here, he is comparing Obama to Nixon. Obama is a victim of this scanda, as clearly stated by Mr. Fitzgerald, not a party to it. By writing this letter Mr. Dean is playing into the media's obsession and their obvious desire to make this an Obama Scandal and not what it rightfully is: a Blagojevich scandal to which Obama is a bystander. Its foolish and over the top. That Watergate is even mentioned here, with reference to Obama, is unacceptable.
December 13, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that Dean isn't making insinuations. He is insinuating that Obama or his team is involved in this scandal! I agree with his conclusion that it is always better to tell the truth, but then he goes on to assume that someone is lying already. I agree with WRB on this, and I think he stated it very well.
After 8 years of the press yawning at torture, illegal imprisonment, illegal attack and occupation of a country that posed no threat to us, flouting the Constitution, and illegally using government agencies for political gains, I am just a little sick of this obsession with someone who is a crook and happens to come from the same state as Barack Obama. Get real!
Oh! and I am also sick of the press lying down and playing dead when people say that Bush kept us safe! Talk about a scandal!
December 13, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's you who speak outrageously.
Dean is a legal scholar, as Obama is, and he rightly speaks out -for a real change - and because he sees the same beginnings of 'misstatements' and conflicting reports that precede every scandal.
Most of us on the Left warned Obama about Rahm, about Baracks insistence in dealing with all the old skeletons of the Clinton administration and now he dabbles with Wall Street/New York politicos - all who also have baggage.
Inside secrets and deal making were always part of Democratic politics just as with Republicans.
Originally, Obama's campaign broke that link to that past.
But he renewed and, in fact, re-enforced all those connections with his appointments.
Dean is speaking as if he were Obama's defense attorney. And rightly so.
December 13, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need a defense attorney he is not charged with ANYTHING!! There are no misstatements. The federal prosecutor clearly and forcefully stated he is not a part of any payforplay scheme which is the complaint. Jesus Christ what in the world does it take for folks to take the word of a Federal prosecutor over a friggin fringe attorney who was involved in the greatest Presidential scandal of all time.
What is wrong with this country? What is wrong when folks believe convicted felons over the sitting federal prosecutor?
Dean is completely out of line. He is completely wrong.
December 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRB, you're coming all unglued at the mere prospect that, perhaps, the Blago affair could somehow have negative impact on Obama. Dean hasn't said that Obama has done anything wrong here. He's merely pointed out that it's entirely possible that someone - it only takes one person - someone on his staff may have had some improper interaction with Blago, and it's in Obama's best interests to get to the bottom of it and to make any relevant information that comes to light public immediately. I'm not getting why that advice would be unacceptable. I wholeheartedly agree w/Dean and hope that Obama is pursuing this course of action.
December 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CarolBig, I know I sound unhinged, sorry.
However, Fitzpatrick said Obama NOR his staff were involved in a 'paytoplay' scheme. He didn't just exculpate Obama but his staff as well.
Sooo, why are folks beating a dead horse trying to find staff who were involved when the Federal prosecutor, who has listened to the tapes, says there is nothing there that involves the staff as being complicit in the charges contained in the complaint.
That is my problem. Why do folks refuse to believe Fitzpatrick?
December 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there are certainly those out there who are likely hoping this will hurt Obama somehow, there are more who support him. I agree with you that it's pretty clear that Obama didn't do anything wrong in this affair. But, it's entirely possible that someone in his operation could be implicated in some small way. I can see why it would be to his advantage, and entirely consistent with his campaign message of "changing the way we do politics in Washington," if he were to proactively call his staff to account for their interactions with Blago and make public any info that comes to light. It would be a demonstration of good faith and would speak volumes, given the sort of shadow government operations we've had to suffer under Bush and Cheney.
December 13, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol,
Dean's letter focuses on what Obama 'said' vs. the known facts that the federal prosecutor exculpated obama and his staff already. So, that the entire premise of Dean's advice is nullified. There is no coverup for Obama to manage.
Obama told us how he is cooperating with the federal prosecutor and somehow that level of transparency is insufficient when there is an ongoing investigation? Somehow, his taking the time not to speak about what the feds need to know first, taking a few days, makes him suspect despite the federal prosecutor having said the complete opposite?
December 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said 'as if' he were a defense attorney.
Almost every well known public figure has a private attorney nearby for a variety of reasons. Dean -as an Obama supporter - is simply offering very sage advice to a younger man about to step into a HUGE mountain of sh**.
Dean is trying to help cover O's very public and vulnerable ass, as any good point man would.
Toughen up!
December 13, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like he is trying to incriminate him via known criminals and corrupt GOP politicians ala Nixon and Cheney.
Dean needs to go to hell.
December 13, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
hazmaq, Why are you thinking that Obama needs a defense attorney? What is up with that statement? Get a grip dude, Blag SAID Obama wouldn't pay to play on the TAPE.
December 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absofuckinglutely you are right on
whiterosebuddy. Dean's letter is outrageous and pissed me off righteously.
Turn about is fairplay so I have this to say to the few remaining in the republican party; the whole asshat group of them.
"America. Love It Or Leave It!"
December 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
whiterose,
what column did you read that caused this rant?
It certainly wasn't John Dean's opinion.
I read Dean's opinion and he's simply trying to get Obama to reaquaint himself with Santayana;
'Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.'
December 13, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Note: You will undoubtedly notice this comment re-posted multiple times though-out this thread...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as many have said to, “prove a negative.” I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm"...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as having to “prove a negative.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I assume you've not read either Conservatives Without Conscience or Broken Government?
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. Dean and his opinions. I find it extremely hard to believe that he is implying any wrongdoing, at any level, by Mr. Obama, and I think his advice is spot on.
Anybody notice that opinion polls are indicating that a significant percentage are already believing that there was some involvement by Mr. Obama? Thanks, Old Media, for flogging a completely fabricated storyline!
I would urge Mr. Obama to follow Mr. Dean's advice - he's in a rather unique position to know what he's talking about.
December 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is impossible for people to keep Obama from being sworn in. But people who were certain the Bradley effect would keep Obama from becoming president are trying to make sure he doesn't get 4 more years. If enough scandal surrounds him people will be less likely to vote for him the next time. It doesn't matter if his hands are clean. These are people who never wanted or expected him to win in the first place. They will go to any lengths to make certain he doesn't get a second term. The only real defense Obama has is to proceed to make this country what it used to be. A thriving, healthy place to live. I have faith in him that he can accomplish this. But time will tell just how smart and savvy he really is.
December 13, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The only real defense Obama has is to proceed to make this country what it used to be."
Is that the promise he campaigned on? I must have been listening to someone else.
December 13, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat."
I don't think simple contact with Rahm or anyone else, even if a name is put forward, constitutes "deal-making." I think he's denying any sort of quid pro quo, and the facts thus far seem to bear this out.
December 13, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. It's quite an error for someone so well-versed in such situations to make. Nevertheless, I think Mr. Dean's advice for the President-Elect is on the whole very wise.
December 13, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be perfectly natural for members of the transition team to have been in touch with Gov. Blagojevich regarding the vacated Senate seat. Unfortunately, releasing the information will not put an end to the constant, media driven narrative that Obama may be tainted or that he and his team may be hiding further involvement in this scandal. I'm also concerned that the Illinois Gov. is vindictive, narcissistic and not above outright lying in order to bring down the PE and other members of his team.
Never the less, you've offered good advice, Mr. Dean, to our President-elect. Hopefully, the information will be forthcoming by early next week. But even if it does, it will only lead to more questions by the media and baseless allegations from the Right.
We'll just have to wait and see how this gets resolved.
December 13, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
December 13, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with much of what Dean has written and the subsequent commentary, all of this is premature and speculative. For all that we know at this point, the president-elect and his transition team are being forthright and tactful. This conversation could be completely justified but we are most likely spinning our wheels... Let's wait and see what the feds have on tape.
December 13, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Mr. Dean is pointing to subtle innuendos by P.E. Obama's transition team that bear similar posturing by President Nixon's staff during the Watergate scandal. It's was those subtle errors that lead to Nixon's problems. Mr. Dean is just trying to emphasize the need for P.E. Obama not to make the same mistakes Nixon made.
December 13, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. To even evoke Watergate is a huge smear on Obama. What part of "the president elect is not implicated in any wrongdoing" do you people not understand.
December 13, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES!!
December 13, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
NOPE!
Note: You will undoubtedly notice this comment re-posted multiple times though-out this thread...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as you have said to, “prove a negative.” I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm"...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as having to “prove a negative.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Watergate analogy is merely a vehicle (as a consequence of the author's pertinent experience) to emphasize the way that perception can influence reality, and in turn, how a political figure can influence perception by getting out in front of a story, thereby truncating any attempt by the media to overstate its implications.
No one is accusing the President-elect of any wrongdoing.
December 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean's insights as a co-conspirator need to be seen for precisely what they are...how to manage a coverup. If there is no crime his advice is meaningless. We need someone to give advice to the President who was targeted not having committed any act but innocent yet was subjected to unrelenting character assasination. That is what he needs.
Dean's advice works well if you are the consigliore to a crime family.
Not when the character assasination is unwarranted.
December 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
From yesterday's column by Eugene Robinson, hardly an Obama critic:
John Dean is essentially offering the same advice.
December 13, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media does this all the and it annoys me - blame the victim for their crime! They ignore more important things to chase a non-story and they lay it on the feet of the president-elect. Unbelievable! Eugene, unfortunately, is an enabler. Barack Obama and his supporters don't have to join him.
December 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even granting your point, the reality is that the media has a disproportionate impact on the evolution of any story, irrespective of the facts. As a consequence, public perceptions can become distorted, and in turn, the political opposition can exploit those misperceptions.
A smart politician recognizes that manifest reality and seeks to influence media coverage by getting out in front of the story before a feeding frenzy can create those distortions.
I think Obama understands that, and will follow Dean and Robinson's advice in the next few days.
December 13, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with Robinson. What Obama is demonstrating is leadership, and it is enough. Folks like Robinson just like the rest of the nation just haven't seen it in so long they no longer understand that facts count more than speculation and innuendo.
Obama is taking the most judicious, wise course of action that is commonplace to true leadership. Think before you act. Wait until the facts are in before you speak.
Unfortunately, our nation has gotten so use to incompetent morons who lack the wisdom to process information and speak accurately first, not have to back track because they were trying to get out in front of a press that is tabloid crazy.
Eugene is wrong and so is Dean.
Obama has the wisdom to lead. He has the judgment and temperment to know that if you speak before the facts are in...it looks like a cover up. You have to back track and explain which in turn leads to a loss of credibility.
What folks want Obama to do is get ahead of the story and he isn't. He is doing the right thing. Not the popular stupid 'spin the gossip and innuendo' throw out something..give the dogs in the press a bone to spin.
That is what is wrong. It is the press. They have nothing to spin and so they yammer on and on because they no longer know how to do their jobs which is to COLLECT the facts, not spin talking points.
Obama is shifting to governance mode. He is setting the pattern for his administration and press conference. The press will eventually get it. Those who were on the campaign trail with him already have.
Did you hear what Jessica Yellin told Wolf? She told him that the Obama team collects the facts first, they do not just come out with talking points to spin, they are deliberate in collecting the facts and then they report them.
Nothing about that is not transparent. What has created the false transparency are talking points which turn out to be complete spin until the facts are in.
The Obama team is not into spin, they weren't during the campaign and they sure as heck do not plan to govern that way.
They are not coy, they are judicious.
December 13, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The impeachment of Bill Clinton largely demonstrated that facts do not always count more than speculation and innuendo.
December 13, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was involved in a sex scandal, he was condemned for actions on his part. Impeachment was over the top but WJC did have oral sex in the oval office.
Obama has done nothing. geez!
December 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, no one said Obama has done anything wrong, the locus of questioning has really been focused on his staff.
The issue is what is the best way to truncate even the appearance of impropriety by a member of that staff, thereby stifling any partisan attempts to tie them to the culture of corruption in Illinois.
Providing more information than would be otherwise necessary is the best way to get the moronic, disingenuous Repugs to STFU.
December 13, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best way is to beleive the federal prosecutor when he says very forcefully that there is no involvement of Obama NOR his staff.
To imply, infer or otherwise suggest that their is staff imvolvement means the federal prosecutor is liar.
The best way is to cover due process when there is an ongoing federal investigation that prohibits witnesses from talking as that could jeopardize the investigation.
The best way is to cover the known facts not engage in endless speculation. The best way is for the media to report the facts as stated by the federal prosecutor and not harass the people who have been exculpated by the prosecutor.
Basically, there needs to be respect for our system of laws and due process. The President is honoring that, why isn't the media?
December 13, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish it were so, but when you have this kind of unfolding coverage, it has to be addressed in order to maintain control of Obama's ambitious agenda:
The Obama transition team should disclose this information first, so that the media will be forced to focus on how Obama will transform the country with a bold, progressive agenda rather than on the odious Blagojevich.
December 13, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama cannot disclose anything on his own time table as long as there is a an open federal investigation going on. Obama is constrained by the federal prosecutor. Honoring due process and our system of being a nation of laws means Obama is respectful of that. The public needs to understand that the federal prosecutor has exculpated Obama and his staff.
Any challenges to that are tantamount to disrespect for the rule of law. That is what the public needs to focus on. They need to trust the federal prosecutor. They need to understand there is an ongoing investigation and that all facts are being releashed with all deliberate haste so as not to jeopardize that.
Until then, the public has to trust the federal prosecutors word regarding Obama and his staff.
December 13, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently, Obama didn't get the memo.
Obama:
The sooner the better, and that is John Dean (and Eugene Robison's) point.
December 13, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naw, I think, as a former constitutional law instructor, he did get the memo.
I also believe what he said was for the purposes of not responding with details during an onging investigation. I suspect the next statement will be about having gathered the facts along with his and his staffs records and not being able to respond at this time due to the ongoing investigation. But that as soon as Fitzpatrick gives the heads up he will be happy to release everything he has gathered.
December 13, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ah Yes . . .
Hello Rich...
Please see my comment that follows in this thread that I had posted at 7:04 PM, in addition to a multiple of other locations within this thread.
It seems to have fallen on deaf ears in lieu of more emotionally driven rhetoric.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Note: You will undoubtedly notice this comment re-posted multiple times though-out this thread...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as you have said to, “prove a negative.” I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm"...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as having to “prove a negative.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well bleeeping said!
December 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Dean conveniently ignores the fact that Nixon was behind the Watergate and Ellsberg shrink break ins. Had he followed Dean's advice he would have either admitted his complicity in a felony and resigned, or accept the resignation of all those involved and pretend that he was unaware of such goings on.
This letter is clearly another example of the kind of self-promotion that Dean has been involved in recently. Creating the impression that we have another -gate developing would be helpful to him and the GOP.
I think that anyone is pretty presumptuous who offers Obama PR advice, but I would suggest that he revise his statement that no one on his team was involved in a quid pro quo discussion to anyone who was involved "would not be a member of the team." Naturally anyone who heard an unsolicited hint, offer or demand from Blago should have reported it to BO. If he is investigating then he doesn't know if anyone actually discussed a trade with Blago. Anyone who might have would not be a member of his team.
Let the press chew on that for a while while he gathers the facts for publication.
December 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ok . . .
If in fact there was simple contact with Rahm or anyone else, even if a name was put forward that does or does not constitute a "deal making" (quid pro quo or not) what would be the harm for Obama to do what Mr. Dean has suggested?
By being totally transparent it basically would clarify and place the responsibility of any and all actions upon those various actors that may be involved in this on-going drama.
That's what I get from Mr. Dean's suggestion.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama IS being transparent. He can't prove a negative. What he is being asked to do is prove something he DIDn't do!!
It is far more likely that Obama is being as fully transparent as possible when cooperating with an open investigation.
Why the hell isn't that as easy to believe given that Fitpatrick said there is NO reason to suspect Obama at the confernce. Why is there not as much weight given to Fitzpatricks statemetents as there is to the factless speculations and conjectures?
Why is it so disproportionate?
There are no facts to support the speculations all the KNOWN facts support that Obama nor his team were involved in paytoplay and that the facts even suggest that it was Emanuel who tipped off Fitzpatrick and who is also being as transparent as he can be in an open investigation as well. Fitzpatrick gave more than enough evidence in the complaint to exculpate Obama and his staff.
So, if the federal prosecutor is not suspect, why then are his words not being given the full weight they deserve?
December 13, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so true. You can't "prove a negative". That's the subject of the new movie "Doubt" which came out recently. Trying to deny false allegations just makes you look more guilty.
Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and has in fact been specifically mentioned as NOT ACCUSED of any wrongdoing. Patrick Fitzgerald has made that clear from the outset.
December 13, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well ...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as you say, “prove a negative.” I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm"...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as he being required to “prove a negative."
~OGD
December 13, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey OGD,
I agree with the change the paradigm scandal, however that approach does not work in the midst of an ongoing investigation, until the prosecutor says the information can be releashed.
Until then, the best approach is for the public and the media to believe the federal prosecutor when he says that Obama NOR his staff were involved in any 'paytoplay' schemes.
That is the scandal game-changer at this juncture.
And that is why I said he is being asked to prove a negative, there is no more that he can disclose to stop the endless speculation until the prosecutor says so. Otherwise it could jeopardize the ongoing investigation.
BTW, how do you do the shadow boxes now? Before the system changed to this new thread format, I could make them. Now, I can't.
December 13, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Howdy Doo Dee WRB . . .
netstrider.com ... /commands/blockquote.html
I hope all's well with you...
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks
December 13, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that John Dean wrote this letter, and I'm really trying to see a potential for controversy here, but it seems pretty clear that the Governor was pissed off at Obama's people for not playing ball.
Sure, let's get a full accounting, but this letter is a bit much. Still, Obama should print this and put it in the top drawer of his oval office desk. He'll need it. Someone will do something stupid in the next 8 years. It's inevitable.
December 13, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Noseeum, Thank god someone else read the same thing I did. I thought I was losing my mind. Blagojevich said that Obama people wouldn't play ball, F'em. Is that not enough? Good heavens to murgatroit, Blag was the governor of the state where Obama was Sentor, of course Obama would say SOMETHING to Blag about the seat he vacated, it is simply stupid to think otherwise.
I have a feeling there is no need to get angry about this tempest in a teapot because this will happen again and again with Obama as long as he is president. Can I hope the MSM will just tire of their losing game?
I am sure Dean means well, but Obama has talked consistantly of transparency and this little made up nothingness doesn't even bare mentioning in the same room as Watergate, please.
December 13, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect I disagree that the letter is
a "bit much".
Obviously Obama has a large reservoir of good will. And a small one of doubt from two issues. The first: Rezko's assistance in his house purchase. The second: Ayers.
He largely immunized himself with respect to Rezko by describing that as a mistake. End of story.
Not true with respect to Ayers. Obama's inital attempt-which we all saw- to dismiss Ayers: " someone who lived in the neighborhood" was
deceptive.Not because Ayers hosted that early fund raiser-those are a dime a dozen and almost fall into the "someone who lived in the neighborhood" category. But because they sat on two different boards on one of which -the Annenberg Challenge- they essentially made the running as close collaboraters
I'm glad Obama got away with it. But it's a fact hanging out there which can either be reinforced or pushed further into the background depending on how handles this Blago affair.
Here's a model I'd suggest.
Today he should announce that he'll hold a press conference Monday - by announcing it today he'll avoid piecemeal sound bites on the Sunday Morning shows. Not the place to do it.
On Monday he should stand in front of a screen listing every contact which any one connected with him had with Blago or Harris since the election. Name, date and time ,how long it lasted. Each of the people listed on the screen should be present.
It should begin with his press guy saying that Obama will take their questions (he's in charge). But that they'll have an opportunity afterwards to address questions to the others on the stage. He'll get most of them since the press want to be seen talking to him not to Rahm or some other staffer.
Obama should breifly describe what took place in each of those contacts. Then answer questions for however long it takes until no else puts up their hand. The conference will be watched by millions and they should
see that for themselves .
December 13, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only reservoir of doubt about Ayers and Rezko is the nitwit press driven by Palinomics. The public time and time again has shown it does not care. And do you think with one out of seven homes likely to be foreclosed on, people give a rat's ass about Blagojevich? It's all immaterial as the American way of life goes down the drain, as our hopes for the future, for our children get stomped on by economic disaster.
John Dean, for all his wisdom, has over-reacted.
December 13, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need to do any of that.
Obama has been exculpated by Fitzpatrick AND Blago's own words...there is no way to prove what you DIDn't do!!
You can't prove a negative. All this other stuff is just gossip and innuendo with NO FACTS, just smears and conjecture with NO substance.
all hotairandnosubstance.
December 13, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree he doesn't need to do anything.
And I understand the argument for taking a low key matter-of-fact approach,that by "protesting too much" he might actually be throwing fuel on this fire. And creating a precedent that could hurt him . "Why isn't Obanma having a press conference this time? Pretty suspicious"
To some extent it may depend on what he intends to adopt as his "presidential " style. As the Brits say 'he might as well start as he intends to go on'. If he's too much in the public eye he may cheapen the currency. But in his case that currency is pretty powerful. He's a great communicator and of course he'd be foolish not to make use of that.And he's not foolish.
I guess where I come down is that I have a gut feeling that on this occasion he ought to make a full court press. Could be wrong. Guess I'll just listen to the rest of you now.
December 13, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do not make a full court press when there is an open federal investigation where the prosecutor has clearly in his press conference told the world there is no reason to believe Obama or his staff were involved in the paytoplay scheme which is the reason for the complaint!
What needs to happen is that the press needs to respect the weight of the federal prosecutor. They need to focus on Obama being exculpated instead of engaging in innuendo and wholly unwarranted by the facts speculation.
Why would a person be anything other than calmly matter of fact, having been exuclpated? Since when does the loudest voice stand as the affirmation for being right. Folks shout out about wrong all the time. Look no further than JJJ press conference..he sure was fierce in his assertion that he would be ajudicated/vindicated and his enemies repudiated.
And yet, we know he did in fact have a fundraiser on Dec 4 where 'emmissaries' were raising 500K having rallied others to do so at a party on 31Oct.
So, Obama is being as forceful as he needs to be. Anyone who followed his campaign knows the man is just plain COOL, CALM and COLLECTED. He is not a boisterous, flamboyant or a loud mouth who blusters. Just not his style. Folks need to get use to that.
I for one am very happy that he leads with a calm confident manner. That means that when there is a crisis he will not try to get out there and use false bravado like 'bring it on' or 'fight 'em over there not there' propaganda. And it means when he says the economy is going to get worse, we know to buckle our seat belts because the man is far more prone to understatement than exaggeration.
Basically, America hasn't seen leadership in so long..they don't recognize it any longer.
December 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could well be right.
December 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The excellent Mr. Dean may not fully appreciate how irrational the press is toward Democrats.
President Clinton was as forthcoming as could be about his alleged scandals, but the accusations just kept coming. Openness and transparency didn't slow down the media assault one bit.
December 13, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
That was "as forthcoming Clinton could be" about that scandal? Really? No cover-up there?
December 13, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there was no cover-up, when Clinton asked the judge to define sex at trial she did not include oral. Clinton had figured that out ahead of time. Whether you like it or not. The average American, as Clinton knew, would not think it was oral. And he was right. Moreover, it was technically true given that he was a passive participant and did not DO anything himself!
December 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get this crap on the table once and for all.
Clinton was not "lying!" In that sentence he spoke passionately and truthfully based on what HE and millions of others believed the definition of sex is. And what HE believed at the time he spoke, is his truth. Maybe not yours, but to pass off those beliefs as if they were his is not accurrate.
When you teach young adults about sex, there's a grave distinction between acts that are considered 'fooling around' and acts that can cause a pregnancy. Having 'sex' is actual fornication/intercourse which can cause a pregnancy.
At the time, I routinely heard kids say "we didn't have sex - we just fooled around", when talking to their parents about their activities.
Clinton echoed a familiar line through the lens of religious interpretations of fornication, and the mind of a Parent's definition of 'having sex.
December 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such utter ludicrousness. Defense attorney? For what?
Obama did not have anything to do with Blagojevich and his "play-to-pay" nor did anyone on his team. Blagojevich said so and so did Fitzpatrick. I tire of the right-wing mindless and baseless attacks on Democrats. Their constant panties-in-a-twist angst over NOTHING. Trying so hard to make a "there" there when there is none, just like with Clinton.
Have you people no shame at all? Even long last after the last horrid 8 years of GOP blatant malfeasance which resulted in the very real and awful harm to your countrymen, no shame? At all?
It ought to be against the law. Oh, perhaps it is. What crime precisely, does your fevered imagination think PE Obama has committed?
Defense attorney? Maybe you and Dean need one if you don't knock off the sick and twisted innuendo. I for one am tired of it.
December 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was meant as a reply to your earlier comment at 12:01
December 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Quack Quack you ol’ Clucker . . . :)
Note: You will undoubtedly notice this comment or an edited version of it re-posted multiple times though-out this thread...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as some have said, “prove a negative” … Nor for President-Elect Obama to defend any perceived illegal actions. Nor do I read from the Mr. Dean’s statement that he is attempting to paint President-Elect Obama with Nixon’s transgressions by innuendo. I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm" that the country has endured for too years...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as having to “prove a negative.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree Hazmaq with your assertions regarding sex equal fornication and Clinton not lying. Besides, a cover up is for another act. Clinton was the recipient of a BJ, that BJ was not a coverup for anything of national import nor was the BJ a criminal act itself.
December 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to take issue with Mr. Dean's contention that Nixon could have avoided impeachment and removal from office through transparency. As was discovered several years back, Nixon approved the break-in before it happened. Back in those less cynical days, we expected that even Republican presidents wouldn't brazenly flout the law.
Nixon would have faced the immediate end of his presidency if he hadn't started the cover-up.
December 13, 2008 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't take Mr. Dean's letter as equating the current Blagojevich thing with Watergate. I see it as advice from one who knows, at a time when such advice is opportune. This is the first thing that there is even a whiff of scent of scandal about it, and while it appears there is nothing there, I really do want Obama and company to avoid the litany of mistakes that has haunted previous presidents.
Scandal will no doubt come, if not to Obama himself then to some cabinet appointee or other high-ranking official. It is axiomatic. People populate the Government; all people make mistakes, and some people at times are just no damn good.
I want Obama to handle things like this like he handled the Wright matter. I want him to find out quickly what the facts are, demand candor, reveal what mistakes or wrongdoing has occurred, and then take action to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Now's a good time to start, when he can easily hit it out of the park, and set precedent within his administration.
December 13, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO whiff. A cover-up implies, infers and suggests that there was some actual act to cover!
Obama is not covering. Fitzpatrick said that. He said there is no evidence to suggest that Obama or his staff were involved in a paytoplay scheme.
So, what was there to coverup? Do you not believe Fitzpatrick?
The charge is paytoplay...if you didn't engage in paytoplay there is no whiff and nothing to coverup!
December 13, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the MSM doesn't need a problem to sling dirt. All they need is the suspicion of wrong-doing and they're like hounds chasing the fox.
December 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Beetle I completely agree they need no reason and that is the reason for my ire.
The press needs to be held accountable for engaging in all this tabloid gossip and guilt by innuendo, particularly when we are talking about the President of the USA.
There is not even any smoke here, if the press gave respect to the justice system and the complete integrity of the federal prosecutor.
Someone needs to point that out. There needs to be a complete push back on what the press is doing. And crooked conspirators like Dean do nothing but a fuel to an already out of control fire factless circumstance.
I am appalled at the lack of accountability of the press and the pundits.
We need to ask them why they are so dismissive of Fitzpatrick, and the due process nature of an open investigation.
For pete's sake, Obama was a constitutional professor AND president of the Harvard law review. His actions are wholly consistent with the facts of the situations as well as the prosecutors forcefully stated remarks.
Why then is the press getting a free pass with their endless speculation.
Why is the press allowed to just skip over the far more important business of this nation, such as health care reform, an economy in peril and endless focus on an investigation that has nothing to do with the President elect?
Since when did corrupt Governors in the state of Illinois no less become such a rare event that it takes up endless hours on the news despite folks losing their jobs, homes, and the auto industry going under.
The complete disproportionate coverage of what is of significant importance to focus on the insignificant act of just another in a long-line of crooked Illinois governors is beyond belief.
The press is suppose to take a page out of Obama's book and wait until the facts are all gather and then do some solid reporting about an ongoing investigation.
What they are NOT suppose to do is engage in endless speculation and smear the Presidency by innuendo.
I hope everyone is writing the cable news and networks to tell them what our expectations are.
Respect the justice system and respect the Presidency, until you have facts to otherwise prove that is no longer unwarranted. No guilt by association is ever appropriate in these types of situations, that is why we have due process and innoncence until proven guilt vs. speculation until proven innocent.
The law can never prove innocence. That is why all of this is so damaging.
No one can prove what they didn't do either.
December 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Spot on. Obama should not have to go out of his way to prove he had no involvement when even the prosecutor has said there was none.
The press is so good at suggesting a scenario and then set about trying to find a way to support their accusations without ever apologizing for being completely wrong.
The press takes innuendo to a new low. I fear this is just the beginning of Clintonizing Obama by the press while the People's Obstructionist Party (POP) uses the filibuster to prevent any change from occurring.
Together they are completely destructive to our democracy especially since all the media now belongs to 6 corporations and POP's only purpose is to protect the holdings and business of the very wealthy and multinational corporations.
If POP would have won the presidency it would have resulted in the end of democracy and the US becoming a completely Fascist Corporate state. This election was like throwing a wrench into the machinery and most Americans knew it was necessary to implement a change of direction to save and restore our democracy. But now, all that is left this party of no ideas is to demonize Obama and liberals despite America polling as a predominate liberal nation. That and obstructing change is all they have left.
Look for conservative TV to continue to Clintonize the Obama administration, too stupid to see it isn't working anymore and will just increase their own self destruction as we denazify the government.
another reason why Obama was the right one at just the right time to be president.
December 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ITA!! well said.
December 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you're a Republican, that is.
December 13, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep! That is all this is partisianship. Since when does a Democratic incoming President need the advice of a co-conspirator in one of the worse scandals at the highest level of government. Advice that basically says, if you committed a burglary, here's how to get out in front and spin the story so folks will think you didn't until they can uncover the fact that indeed you did plan a burglary?
like riiiight.
That is like a teengirl, having sex taking advice from a whore, about how to maintain her reputation. The expertise is based solely on being a women who has a reputation as a whore.
December 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to get my mind around that image.
I was glued to the radio during Dean's testimony during Watergate, and still admire what he did. But the fact is he was part of the administration and as a lawyer and advisor did some iffy things before he saw the light and came clean. Granted he has learned a lot since then and I'm glad he's sharing it through his books and appearances.
This letter though, by its publication, simply begs the media and the other party to raise this Blago thing to the level of another -gate. Dean makes a living in part by looking for -gates and sermonizing on them.
The implication that even if Obama is guilty of something he can contain the damage by taking Dean's advice ticks me off the most. If anyone deserves the assumption of innocence, as others have said here, it's Obama.
Dean is after the lime light, and the status that comes from advising to the president. It reminds me of the aging Linus Pauling when he made a run at a third Nobel by attempting to prove that vitamin C prevents colds.
December 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, it is like the teengirl who is non-promicuous and is known as a lady being accused of having being sexually promiscuous and then being given advice on how to maintain her reputation as a lady based on the advice of a whore.
December 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw it the same way...just a word of advise from someone who's been there before. P.E. Obama can take it or leave it - no strings attached.
December 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with Dean about one thing. Obama did NOT misspeak at all.
Obama said that he never spoke to Blago which is true. Obama said that he is absolutely sure that none of his staff was involved with deal making which is true as well. Rahm is the person who spoke to Blago and it is very clear from the court papers that all the Obama team would give was "appreciation". Thus there was NO deal at all. Thus no deal making.
But I do agree with Dean that the sooner that Obama is transparent the better for him. I say get it out all in the open ASAP.
December 13, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is being transparent as fully transparent as he can be while cooperating with an open federal investigation in the process of collecting evidence to indict! There is no reason to believe anything other than that based on the words of the prosecutor himself.
For anyone to believe Obama is not transparent they have to believe Fitzpatrick is lieing.
December 13, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Note: You will undoubtedly notice this comment or an edited version of it re-posted multiple times though-out this thread...
I personally do not see that Mr. Dean is attempting to cause President-Elect Obama to, as some have said, “prove a negative” … Nor for President-Elect Obama to defend any perceived actions. Nor do I read from the Mr. Dean’s statement that he is attempting to paint President-Elect Obama with Nixon’s transgressions. I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm"...
In Mr. Dean's words from above, last paragraph:
In addition: Here are the words from President-Elect Obama from last Wednesday, Dec 10th, two days before Mr.. Dean's letter:
From that portion highlighted in President-Elect Obama's statement above it appears to me that President-Elect Obama has no problem sharing facts that he is in the process of gathering.
The whole subject line of “proving a negative” has nothing to do with Mr. Dean’s suggestion. And apparently President-Elect Obama does not see his action of being transparent as having to “prove a negative.
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are two advantages to dealing with the matter more or less as John Dean suggests -- the first is to take the whole Blagojevich matter out of the story about Obama's being focused on organizing his Presidency. There were legitimate reasons for someone connected with Obama to talk with the Governor, after all he had to resign his Senate Seat, and the Illinois Governor would have had an advantage in quickly appointing a replacement, who would then have seniority over the new class coming in January 3rd. Small advantage, but advantage. So there were good and official reasons for conversations. But since everyone knew Blagojevich was under investigation, (and had been for several years) it would also be smart to limit involvement -- so the question is, how did that work?
At this juncture we know that Pat Fitzgerald was recording several phone lines -- so eventually everything will come out. Better to beat the Prosecutor to it all. Make a thorough phone log, and make it public, and require that at least the Obama staffer or associate speak to the content of the communication. If anyone visited in person -- make that public too.
The most important impact this can have is on the kind of control Obama has over his office and staff. If people know they have to potentially say in public what they did in the name of the Presidential Office (or what the White House did -- a construction suggesting a building "does things" or speaks) -- they will be a great deal more disciplined once in office. I think making that point from day one is critical.
December 13, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Emanuel knew he was being taped. We know this because Emanuel is heard on tape saying FRIGGIN,which is not his word of choice. He KNEW.
December 13, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a rather fragile inference to make. Because Rahm said 'Frigging' instead of 'fucking', that means Rahm knew there was a wiretap from the USAG's office in an ongoing active stake-out and investigation?
I call bullshit.
December 13, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand that.
But it means you are probably unaware of how Rahm speaks. Even the talking heads were today..they were countering each other when they said Rahm said friggin, they rebutted with you mean bleeping..no, they replied he said Friggin on the tape. If you know how Emanuel talks, that is a dead give way.
As a father, Emanuel understood these tapes would likely be made public and, he did not want this in an endless loop on the news for his kids to hear.
December 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you authorise a burglary/break in of a political opponent's office through covert operatives, that is a scandal. if you authorise the sale of arms to a rogue foreign country so as to raise funds for a covert war you are waging in another country, that is a scandal. if you get your dick sucked in the oval office by a very young girl who interns for you, that is a scandal.
if you said no way to a politico who tried to involve you in a nutty corruption scheme while you were overwelmed with a thousand other concerns....THAT IS NOT A GATE !
and lovable as he may be now...john dean was a willing participant in the nixon whitehouse. it is not the coverup of watergate that made it a crime. it is the fact that there were "plumbers" to begin with. nixon was blago as president.
December 13, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!!
No one to this day can tell you what the oral sex was a cover up for!!
December 13, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Erm, oral sex?
Pretty silly stuff, really.
December 13, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha!
I just will never comprehend how committing an act of sex is the same as larceny. Or that denying sex somehow rises to the level of lieing to cover up planning and approving a burglary.
December 13, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it is if you're a Democrat, and IOKIYAR.
December 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
what does the acronym stand for?
December 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's OK If You Are A Republican
December 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that Obama discloses ALL this week. It should be done the latest by the Friday before Christmas.
Get all of this done. It shouldn't be that hard.
December 13, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, do not forget that Emmanuel's conversations with Blago are most likely an element of the criminal charges against Blago. Emmanuel has at a minimum, probably been asked, if not instructed, by Fitzgerald's office not to comment.
I greatly respect John Dean and ultimately his advice is correct. But PE Obama probably already knows how he is going to deal with this, at his pace, and probably in a way that does not compromise this important criminal prosecution.
I will for the present give PE Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Can the MSM do the same??
December 13, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree because it is obvious that there was no "pay to play" at all coming from the Obama.
December 13, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The disclosure this past few days of how politics is conducted in Chicago has given the world a completely different view on the proposed incoming administration of Barack Obama. The corrupt political machine, from which has arisen the apparent clean President-elect who we all applauded just a few weeks past, has now been exposed to be a money-grubbing, foul-mouthed, rapacious, arrogant, self-serving, corrupt coterie of a powerful group of men who will stop at nothing to achieve their aims of power and property at the expense of the electorate. That this is the group behind the new president should fill the world with horror. The Bush administration was bad enough - but this one looks to be even worse. God help America and God help the world.
December 13, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
December 13, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Are you for fucking real?
December 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
London sounds more like Blago..a complete sociopath.
December 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being from London and all, you can be forgiven for not being familiar with American politics. Perhaps Walt Whitman can explain:
To-day, of all the persons in public office in These States, not one in a thousand has been chosen by any spontaneous movement of the people, nor is attending to the interests of the people; all have been nominated and put through by great or small caucuses of the politicians, or appointed as rewards for electioneering; and all consign themselves to personal and party interests. Neither in the Presidency, nor in Congress, nor in the foreign ambassadorships, nor in the governorships of The States, nor in legislatures, nor in the mayoralities of cities, nor the aldermanships, nor among the police, nor on the benches of judges, do I observe a single bold, muscular, young, well-informed, well-beloved, resolute American man, bound to do a man's duty, aloof from all parties, and with a manly scorn of all parties. Instead of that, every trustee of the people is a traitor, looking only to his own gain, and to boost up his party. The berths, the Presidency included, are bought, sold, electioneered for, prostituted, and filled with prostitutes.
I voted for Obama but am under no illusion he is
perfect. However, I do take him at his word that he intends to try and change that status quo. My point is only that, unfortunately, Chicago is by no means the dirty exception when it comes to American politics and how the game is played.
As for Flavious and his assertion that Obama somehow "got away" with something regarding his presumed relationship with William Ayers, may I direct you to the lowdown in Ayers' own words? He wrote an opinion piece in the NYT on December 6 in which he outlines the extent of said "relationship".
Let's say, for example, you go to the same barber for 20 years. Because you have a conversation every 6-8 weeks while he cuts your hair somehow means you share his political views? Come on. Obama and Ayers sat on some education board, along with several other high profile people, who, to my knowledge, weren't similiarly somehow tainted by this coincidence. To extrapolate from this perfectly legitimate association that an eight year old Obama was in some way involved in the youthful excesses of William Ayers is preposterous. By his own words, even Ayers isn't the same person he was 39 years ago. If any one of us are the same after nearly 40 years-shame on us!
December 13, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blago and Obama are both Democrat politicians living in Illinois. Gordon Brown and Blair are both Labour politicians living in the UK.
Blago is "behind" Obama to the same extent that Brown was behind Blair.
Relax.
December 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analogy on Blair/brown vs Obama/blago. But I agree with outlett, that Ayers is a non-issue and should not be used to infer, imply or suggest that Obama somehow has his same political views anymoreso than Wright or Farrakhan.
Anytime folks attempt to smear by association it means they have no facts to support their position which is tenuous at and nothing but slander at best. Kinda like when they tried to make out that Obama was the next Hitler because of the crowds at Brandenburg. It is just incredibly specious.
December 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a better analogy. Jack the Ripper was from London. So was Ringo Starr. Wow! Will Ringo be transparent about strangling women or not????????????????????????
Stay tuned. Our ever-vigilent media will stay on the case (As the bailout continues unsupervised; as rules are changed to ruin laws that protect the environment; as pols are "burrowed" into our government; as malfeasance continues on a daily basis by the Bush regime that gets ignored because when challenged, they simply don't care.)
Anyone checked on Sarah Palin's wardrobe malfunction lately? She still wears those expensive outfits. Anyone EVER asked her about her husband being in a group that wanted Alaska to get out of the United States of America? Wasn't she the one who was talking about REAL Americans?
Talk about guilt by association -- how about being married to a secessionist? How about being President to a VP who flouted the Constitution? How about being a President who approved torture and then said he didn't?
John Dean: You are a drive-by blogger, and that is not what TPM is about in my opinion. I'll pay attention when you write your Open Letter of advice to George Bush on how to avoid being arrested for Crimes Against Humanity, and Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against our country (and the world).
Step UP to the Plate!
December 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey cvilleDem
Drive by blogger indeed!
Dean need has a long list of GOP operatives that need open letters before he starts talking about this specious attack on obama and giving advice.
UGH!!
December 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well . . .
Hello Jan:
I hope you're doing well since the emptying of the nest (I read your blog). I also hope that at this time of year you and your children can be together.
To begin on this subject: I haven't found one major news daily nor an AP report that has yet to publish this "open letter" from Dean to Obama. Plenty of cites in the normal blogger-world both left, right and middle. But no publication in a major as of this writing. So it appears that we in the blogger-world are the ones that this has been directed to. I agree that Mr. Dean should have the good manners to come back and address many of the issues that have been broached in these threads.
Now ... About an "open letter" to Bush or Cheney? I'd venture to say that Bush or Cheney wouldn't give a big rats-ass if Mr. Dean had written and published an "Open Letter" directly to those two authoritarians.
But I do know that Mr. Dean has published many, many, many articles in the public domain, including harsh legal opinions of the past misadventures, actions, and inactions of both Bush and Cheney, in addition to many articles dealing with the members of the cabal within the administration.
It may behoove you to take the time and scroll through the articles that Mr. Dean has published in the public domain since Nov 8, 2000 to Present.
The published articles may be found at:
Find Law | Legal Commentary | John Dean
Dec. 12, 2008 - Apr. 26, 2002 | Dec. 21, 2001 - Apr. 12, 2002 | Aug. 17, 2001 - Dec. 07, 2001 | Mar. 30, 2001 - Aug. 03, 2001 | Nov. 08, 2000 - Mar. 16, 2001
Please have a good December, and hopefully with your immediate family.
~OGD~
December 14, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
HI, OGD. Thanks for your kind words: yes everyone will be home, and I am doing much better in terms of the "empty nest syndrome."
I agree that Mr. Dean as written many thoughtful and critical pieces about this regime, and I think he is a very brilliant man. I said that in at least one of my posts. I still object to the "Open Letter" format because it is a backhanded way to tell all of us (OK, all of us bloggers) that Obama needs a lesson in truthfulness.
I also believe that the format here is for discussion, and I agree with you that it would simply be good manners to come back and respond. My comments were not intended to say that Mr. Dean is a terrible person; I simply object to this particular method of "communication" to the blogosphere, dressed up as a well-intentioned communication to PE Obama. I feel certain that if Mr. Dean called or wrote to him privately he would be heard.
December 14, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
John -- Obama doesn't need advice from Nixonites for a simple and yet profound reasons: He's not like Tricky Dick. I'm confident that Obama has nothing to cover up. You say Nixon could have avoided Watergate by demanding a full account or a resignation from everyone in his administration who was involved. But that would have included himself. His own presidency wouldn't have survived a Nixon confesssion.
Nixon wasn't a guy who was brought down by the criminal actions of his underlings, he was a criminal in his own right.
Obama isn't like Nixon. So thank you for your well meant advice but it's best if you don't even compare our incoming president to the criminal you worked with.
December 13, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just so. It disturbs me to hear the word "Nixon" being uttered within miles of PE Obama.
It's a smear, however well intentioned Mr. Dean may be.
December 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
December 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up!
December 13, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Prince of Piedmont [later Charles Emmanuel IV, King of Sardinia] was seven years old, his preceptor instructing him in mythology told him all the vices were enclosed in Pandora’s box. “What! all!” said the Prince. “Yes, all.” “No,” said the Prince; “curiosity must have been without.” - Horace Walpole
The only response to this is "We don't take ethics advice from ohn Dean."
December 13, 2008 9:17 AM |