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
What youre saying is completely true. i agree with you.
children health
January 11, 2011 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 21, 2011 8:11 AM | 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 | Reply | Permalink
Why is the press not calling this a great testimony to PE Obama? There could have been a scandal, except that Obama's team refused to participate. Right? The real scandal is that the news media generates scandals to sell soap.
The other real scandal is that the Govenor of Illinois was only doing exactly what all of congress has been doing for several generations - selling their services to the highest bidder. Govenor Blagojevich probably doesn't understand what the fuss is all about.
December 13, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think at the threshold, as the press prepares for a little bit of a feeding frenzy, it is important to remember that the notion that Senator Obama would not have any interest in who is replacing him is preposterous. He was serving in an elected position and I would suggest that it would be irresponsible for him not to have discussions directly or through his aides with the person who will be choosing his replacement. I would also suggest that, if he expressed any preference for a successor, that would be absolutely reasonable and certainly ethical.
I will give Dean the benefit of the doubt and assume he is writing in good faith--although I absolutely loathe the "open letter" approach--and I think we have to accept that the press will do what it does, but this, my friends, is not like Watergate just because Mr. Dean draws a sloppy analogy.
December 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
remember when Bob Scheifer interviewed Wesley Clark and Clark made the comment that being shot down doesn't qualify one to be President?
What followed was a feeding frenzy of warped interpretation of what Clark said and/or meant.
I think this is what is happening here with Dean's column and his reflecting on Watergate which would be quite natural considering Dean was there.
Pretty soon some of the posters here will be accusing Dean of claiming Obama was one of the
burglars....or maybe a cousin of Gordon Liddy.
December 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, I get to come to a site and this time read John Dean and I get to comment. This is great.
The New Administration is demonstrating courage. Hit them head on no matter what the issue. This is the lady I am appointing to this position. This is the Black man I am appointing to this position. This is the Nobel Laureate that I am appointing to this position.
And politicians are REACTING not setting the pace or the agenda.
I predict that the New Administration will hit any claim of even the appearance of impropriety head on. And no matter what the so-called media is saying, it is hitting this thing head on and will continue to do so. Read Media Matters and see how they are taking on the media for this crap.
This Governor-felon is not quoted as saying: That Goddamn Obama is hinting or pretending to promise me something for something. This Governor-felon is taped as saying that Obama will promise nothing, I will get nothing from Obama and finally the obscene but wonderful quote from the Governor-Felon: Fuck Obama.
John Dean has it right on as usual. Everything must be revealed.
It makes obscenity almost poetic, does it not?
December 13, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be absolutely normal for the leader of the national Democratic party, the newly elected President of the United States, to suggest candidates for his replacement as Senator? Would you expect him to sit back and say "your call, Governor, I have no opinion?"
This debate is crazy! Of course he should say who and when somebody called the Governor!
December 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's throw in a hypothetical here. Let's say that Rahm did have contact with Blago. It would not be surprising that Obama's chief of staff would like the Gov of IL to know what his preference of replacement would be. Nothing illegal there.
If Blago then said "Hmm Ok...but what will you give me?"
And Rahm says "The president-elect would appreciate it if you would take his preference into consideration." End of conversation.
Nothing illegal there. And would fit into the context of Blago's real quote from the complaint that they are only willing to give him "appreciation".
But just the mere stench of Blago's "What'll you give me?" is enough to pollute the whole Obama administration?
I agree with Dean. He has got to come out with the contacts and what was said. It is a damn shame that the media has to expect the worst, but that is the only way Obama can clear the taint before it starts.
December 13, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The REAL scandal is what is happening while the rest of the MSM and nation are focused cross-eyed on Blago. The banks and financial institutions are meeting with the IRS without Congressional oversight and getting the IRS to ok HUGH tax ride-offs on acquiring failed companies--first RAPE the taxpayer with the BAILOUT and then RAPE the TAXPAYER again with backdoor under the radar deals with the IRS....,please GOD BLESS AMERICA or GOD DAMN America!????
December 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now John Dean has weighed in, and more or less came out and told us he believes Obama and his staff are in this "up to their ears". Thanks a whole lot Deany, and thanks for an impossible set of conditions Obama must meet if he is not to be condemned out of hand. Thanks for nothin. Funny, this advice smells very strongly of almonds...
December 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only see Rahm as the only one that talked to Blago and it appears that he didn't "pay for play" at all so I still don't see what the controversy is at all.
The sooner that Obama discloses all the better which will end all speculation.
December 13, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What should obama disclose? Fitzpatrick already said he nor his staff is not a part of the 'paytoplay' complaint.
The federal prosecutor the one bringing the charges of illegal activity says Obama nor his staff are involved.
What more is there for Obama to disclose. How can he disclose what the Federal Prosecutor says is NOT there?
Where is the challenge to the Federal prosecutor if there is something for Obama to disclose. The media should be focused on the prosecutor and impugning the prosecutors integrity FIRST.
Otherwise, Obama is not a suspect, is not involved and has nothing to disclose as he has done nothing.
December 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complete transparency will also accomplish another valuable side-effect. It will keep the creeps from K-Street off of the White House doorstep.
If they know their manipulations and deal making will be very public, they will avoid that spotlight.
It will nip that problem in the bud.
As for the Blago idiocy, no doubt the wingnuts will milk that cow for every drop of scandal they can find. They (the radioheads and TV poundits) are still reeling from the beating they took from the blogs in the last two election cycles. (Their addiction to a maleable miscreant like Drudge has deflated any credibility air their tires once held.)
They tried everything nasty BEFORE the election, and failed to slow Obama's mo. Now they have this Chicago-politics-related scandal to chew on, they'll gum it to death, until the wring the last drop of contempt from their brain-dead audience.
Expect the worst from our MSM. Always. You will never be disappointed. And remember ALWAYS, the people who OWN those media outlest are among the wealthiest people in the country, and their media holdings (especially print media) are one of their lowest profit enterprises, they own them for one purpose; corporate propaganda and political influence.
Maybe some of the reporters and announcers and show hosts and hostesses are centrists or even progressives, but the people they work for, the managers, editors and producers the owners hire, have one purpose, and that is to protect the corporate continuum.
So, is "capitalism" to blame?
Sadly, these guys aren't capitalists, they are monopolists in free-enterprise clothing, and their stranglehold on our energy industry reached all the way into the White House.
Force them to live by the rules of capitalism, and many of these money-mongers would never make it to millionaire status, let alone multi-billionaire status.
December 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr.Dean is right in every facet of this article. It would change things forever. The sort of trasparency that Obama could and should show right now would set the precedent for past and future Presidents. It should be done and I very much hope he does it.
December 13, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think alot of people are reading this wrong. What I get from it is not that Obama did anything wrong in any way. It's just that to end any sort of media attempt to tie the two together, or to even let this drag on with Obama's name, is to show full transparency on any and all conversations between the two camps. If you do this you show that you walk the walk and youmean what you say but you also nip this in the bud.
December 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
To evoke Watergate, to suggest that Obama might be lying (as Dean does in his letter) is an insult and a smear.
And I think the demand for excessive disclosure is unreasonable to expect from someone who isn't implicated in wrong-doing and who has a transition to organize and an economically traumatized nation to worry about. The real outrage is the media obsession with "Blagogate" in the light of this reality.
Barack Obama is being transparent where he needs to be. He's chronocling every step of his transition on change.gov, including donors to the effort and the groups he meets with as he makes decisions. He's given more press conferences that any other president-elect in history.
The media will try to push negative memes. I don't see why Obama or his supporters should act as enablers. As long as there is no there there, the Blagojevich bruhaha will blow over.
December 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
> What I get from it is not that Obama did anything
> wrong in any way. It's just that to end any sort
> of media attempt to tie the two together, or to
> even let this drag on with Obama's name, is to
> show full transparency on any and all
> conversations between the two camps. If you do
> this you show that you walk the walk and youmean
> what you say but you also nip this in the bud.
And you establish the precedent that the Radical Right can drive the "ethics" assessment, and the day-to-day media spin, of the Obama Administration based on **nothing at all**. Bad as the Foster and Lewinsky media riots were, there were at least a few facts there in question. Here there is nothing: no question, no impropriety, no scandal, NO INVOLVEMENT yet you propose that the Radical Right be allowed to seize control of the meme bus before Obama even takes office. No thanks.
sPh
December 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well Blah Blah Blah . . .
If it isn’t sPhealy . . .
Hey … Should we just replace Hillary and the "Radical Right in 2009" with Obama in this scenario you left at your blog over a year ago? Sheesh . . .
Now 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 by innuendo. Nor did I read anything that would lead me the believe that, as you say, "…the Radical Right be allowed to seize control of the meme bus before Obama even takes office."
I read Mr. Dean's suggestion more as it to be intended to "change the scandal paradigm" that the country has endured for 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.
And remember: "Always try to keep what's real near...
~OGD~
December 14, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find Mr. Dean's insight on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" to be thoughtful, even-tempered and well-measured.
His experience is a voice we'd all do well to follow.
I believe, therefore, that Sen. Obama would do well to post all messages, to show transparency, to reveal the lawful interaction his office had with the governor.
Seems like a win-win for all, especially for those of us looking to P.E. Obama's leadership as an example to follow, rather than the shameful attempts at leadership from the present "Decider."
December 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh i get it. obama tried to move some of his excess campaign cash to blago in exchange for picking his replacement. and now obama is trying to cover it up. dean is advising obama to disclose now and get it over with.
one problem. obama adamantly refused to buy the selection.
but that is not good enough. it has to be obama's fault that blago was born. he must apologise for blago's very existance.
December 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You people need to be a little more cynical. What makes anyone think that this is well-intentioned advice? There is no reason to believe that the Republican Party – or John Dean – has suddenly put principle over power. This is simply a way to ensure that they can scream for full disclosure of every email and document anytime anything even remotely controversial happens – scandal related or not.
December 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is nothing but the vilest of smears! It is the impugning of a man's character for that which is not there.
I want the people who seek full disclosure to ask Fitzpatrick why he is lieing. As that is the upshot of all the allegations, swirling innuendos, and inferences...they are saying something IS there. Yet Fitzpatrick says there isn't.
So why are they just not calling Fitzpatrick a LIAR?
And Dean is a sleaze bag. Nothing he purports is even remotely true unless you first beleive there is something there to cover up.
December 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
plus axelrod and obama surely knew that blago was govenor of illinois. he had been photographed with obama many times. how can they deny obama knew that blago was govenor also. what did obama know and when did he know it?
December 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know about cynical. people should be fucking angry and irritated about this. and quit protecting clinton. he did recieve a blowjob from a very young intern in the workplace in the middle of the day and lie about it. his performance during the recent campaign showed me he is unworthy of further defense. throw him under the bus now. make the point that blago was shooting for a blowjob but was rebuffed. obama said i'm a family guy so take a hike with your blowjob craze. john dean needs to continue his own therapy about why he was a nixonite blowjob. it is a life's work i'm sure. leave obama and family guys out of it.
December 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A blowjob is not a criminal act. Clinton was not solicited to engage in a criminal act. The blowjob was not a cover up for any nefarious activity. He simply had a blowjob...that is not like planning and hiring goons to committ a burglary. Just ain't analogous whatsoever. No matter how morally offensive it may be it is not criminal.
December 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must we argue about anything other than what John Dean was saying--That when faced with a [presumed] scandal, one must respond quickly openly and clearly.
How he said it is not all that important. Some of us do not read this as conflating the current scandal with Watergate so lets not get all touchy over whether it does. After watching and reading John Dean over the past few years, I am sure he didn't intend to conflate.
Before reading this I was wringing my hands over how the O-team was handling this media problem. As I see it they have done so very poorly.
First the PE said he shouldn't respond because it was an ongoing investigation and the next day he says 1. His team is gathering all contact information to be released in a couple days and 2. None of his staff was involved. It didn't take long during day two to find out that a staff member (Rahm) was indeed involved.
Now I agree that the PE shouldn't have had to say squat. But as we all know, that is just not reality based. The media, prompted by their Repugnicon pimps are on the trail and making noises that sound like the PE may have something to hide. Not responding would allow at least that frame to take hold. But responding by dripping the kinds of comments made so far could be worse than not responding at all because it reinforces that frame and forces the story into yet another day or two.
How long does it take to gather information about formal and informal staff contacts? I wouldn't think it would take two days.
Now I don't entirely buy into everything John Dean is saying should be done here. What is unknowable by any of us is the full nature of the contact Rahm or any other O-team member or surrogate may have had with either the Governor's folks or with Fitz's team. We also don't know what the impact of rendering that absolutely transparent might be. If what many of us suspect--that Rahm knew he was being taped--is true, there may indeed be some real reason to clam up right now. We certainly wouldn't want that kind of person to be forced to resign now would we.
Still the basic concept--get it out fully and get it out fast--remains true IMHO. The worst thing to do is to allow this to cloud your message for more days than it needs to.
That is what must be made clear and IMHO is what Dean intended. His use of his one historical contribution to history as context for what he was saying should not muddy his message.
December 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama didn't say none of his staff was involved. Go back and check precisely what he said. He's a precise guy.
There are other reasons (besides covering up wrong-doing) why Obama might be reluctant to disclose every aspect of his team's contact with the Illinois governor.
This article in the Tribune sheds some light. Emanuel apparently gave Blagojevich a list of "acceptable" candidates for the Senate office. Acceptable candidates imply unacceptable candidates. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13dec13,0,3359611.story
I could see how this can become embarrassing for Obama and possibly fracture relationships he'd like to maintain.
December 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal making around my Senate seat," he said. "That I'm absolutely certain of."
Perhaps I'm taking too much license here but that sounds like saying his staff didn't have any involvement.
All that is nit picking though.
December 13, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not nit picking. The seven words after "involvement" are important.
December 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is simply because 1. Most people will not make the same distinction. 2. It doesn't change my point one whit. and 3. Arguing about it simply distracts from the point being made.
Yes the words are important, but not to the point I was making and most folks will not pay all that close attention to those words--especially with the repugnicons muddying the waters. When I say sounds like, I am referring to what most people will take away.
December 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"What is unknowable by any of us is the full nature of the contact Rahm or any other O-team member or surrogate may have had with either the Governor's folks or with Fitz's team. We also don't know what the impact of rendering that absolutely transparent might be."
This is flawed reasoning. We do KNOW what the impact of rendering absolute transparency will be. Fitzpatrick already told us. Fitzpatrick said that Obama nor his staff were involved in a 'paytoplay' scheme as the complaint charges.
That means that whatever is revealed will have no relevancy to the core charges. So why is there a pursuit for information in hopes of some transparency that has already been made evident by the Federal prosecutor?
Which goes to why you sound nitpicky. Your entire issue rests on the Fitzpatrick being a liar. If you do not believe Fitpatrick then impugn HIS character. Fitzpatrick is the one who can provide more disclosure. Not Obama not emanuel.
Emanuel and Obama are cooperting with Fitzpatrick in terms of when and how they relaease additional information that could result in Fitzpatrick not being able to gather information he needs for his indictment.
The only person who should be being under a microscope here are those charged in the complaint and the only one who can provide futher disclosure is Fitzpatrick.
Anything else is to disrespect the ongoing investigation of a Federal complaint...not a coverup. Rather, cooperation with the legal authorities and how america pursues justice and due process under the law.
geez!
December 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We do KNOW what the impact of rendering absolute transparency will be. Fitzpatrick already told us."
Knowing what Fitz told us about the recordings and in the focus of the investigation certainly speaks volumes but is far from what I was actually getting at--knowing the FULL nature of Rahm's involvement. You speak of several things that certainly make sense to me, but are you simply sure they are true, or do you fully know they are?
"So why is there a pursuit for information in hopes of some transparency that has already been made evident by the Federal prosecutor?"
I've already said why more than once above and below. It would be great if we didn't ever have to respond to crap like the press and repugnicons are spewing, but that just isn't the case IMHO.
"Your entire issue rests on the Fitzpatrick being a liar."
No, it relies on repugnicons pushing bogus scandals to a compliant press who then--all too reliably--spew it to a public who just isn't paying close attention.
December 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the significance of the 'full' nature of Rahm's involvement IF there was no paytoplay involved? Fitzpatrick said that...so what is there to disclose? No matter what is learned further, it did not involve paytoplay ..so what the heck is the point of the endless probing. You can't find what isn't there.
What I know to be true is that Fitzpatricks statement exulpates Obama AND his staff. What I want to know is what you want to find? Is this just an endless probe or what? What is the point of the probe? You say I speak as if I know the truth but you speak as if Fitzpatrick is a LIAR. Why do you not believe Fitzpatrick when he said there is nothing there?
What I know to be true is that Blago's statements on the wiretaps EXONERATE Obama,...why do you not belive that?
In short, if you don't beleive the Federal prosecutor and you don't beleive the tapes, what can Obama tell you that you can believe? Obama has nothing to disclose. You have all the transparency needed between Fitzpatrick and the tapes.
What is it you are searching for...do you even know? You assert some 'full' involvement that complete ignores the taped statements and Fitzpatricks. Whatever Rahm said will not change THE KNOWN FACTS which are as Fitzpatrick stated Obama NOR his staff were involved in a 'paytoplay' scheme as charged in the complaint.
So what the hell is there to look for? There have been no mistatements.
Please explain why you do not believe Fitzpatrick or the tapes.
In other words, you don't have to beleive Obama, the FACTS exonerate him.
This is like an Alice in Wonderland quest..down the black hole.
December 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is the significance of the 'full' nature of Rahm's involvement IF there was no paytoplay involved?"
Personally I think it likely that it will indicate close cooperation with the investigation and will then obliterate the attempts to smear the O-team.
"What I want to know is what you want to find?"
Lots of repugnicons crying because they failed again.
"You say I speak as if I know the truth but you speak as if Fitzpatrick is a LIAR. Why do you not believe Fitzpatrick when he said there is nothing there?"
I've never once indicated that I didn't believe Fitz or that I thought he was a liar. Exactly the opposite in fact. Perhaps if you cooled off and come back to my comments later you'll see that I believe what Fitz said was conclusive enough that the PE shouldn't have to say squat.
"What I know to be true is that Blago's statements on the wiretaps EXONERATE Obama,...why do you not belive that?"
This is silly. Did you not read what I wrote? Nowhere did I say or even indicate that I felt that way--nowhere!
What I believe is simply that he has to get it out of the news by responding quickly and completely and not let it drip out.
Get a rag and mop up all that spit on the monitor and go read what I wrote with less anger. I think you'll find is that you've mistaken what I've been saying.
December 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no spittle on my monitor, thankyouverymuch. I simply speak in declarative sentences with vehemence not anger.
You said:
What I believe is simply that he has to get it out of the news by responding quickly and completely and not let it drip out.
OK, how does he do this in the midst of an ongoing federal investigation? Do you think he can go ahead and release information before Fitzpatrick says to do so,and jeopardize Fitzpatricks investigation? Do you think Emanuel can do this and jeopardize the investigation, which you and I both agree was probably initiated by him calling Fitz to begin with?
Do you beleive that Fitzpatrick clearly understood that, and that is precisely why he made the forceful statements to exculpate Obama and his staff.
If we agree on that, then Dean's advice is unwarranted and serves no purpose other than to inflame the situation by insinuating that there is not only a cover-up but based on his felonious experience the cover-up is not being handled well.
That is unacceptable and warrants repudiation. I take Fitzpatricks words over the specious speculation and 'advice' of Dean.
Everyone and especially the media needs to be saying that Obama and his staff is fully cooperating with the prosecutor and we know there is no involvement on the part of the incoming administration in a paytoplay scheme as Fitzpatrick, the federal prosecutor has assured the public of such.
Furthermore, Until such time as Fitzpatrick asserts otherwise we will cease reporting on this and let justice and due process under the American system of laws play out it's course.
Without regard to any specious level from a man involved in one the biggest scandals in Presidential history.
December 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"OK, how does he do this in the midst of an ongoing federal investigation? Do you think he can go ahead and release information before Fitzpatrick says to do so,and jeopardize Fitzpatricks investigation? Do you think Emanuel can do this and jeopardize the investigation, which you and I both agree was probably initiated by him calling Fitz to begin with?"
You really out to have a cup of tea and calm down. The world isn't full of people who agree 100% with you.
For the record--and as I've already said--I believe Obama must get whatever he has on this out quickly and correctly. Nobody but you are trying to conflate that to getting in Fitz's way. But then you do seem to like conflating things.
Remember when I said
Can you not see in that the acknowledgement that there could be other reasons for not putting information out? No of course not. Instead you took this as me looking for something from Rahm instead of me pointing out that some things should not be made transparent.
"Do you beleive that Fitzpatrick clearly understood that, and that is precisely why he made the forceful statements to exculpate Obama and his staff."
That would be irrelevant at this point. It Seems to have had little value for the press and the two statements from Obama have only served to guarantee the story is alive another couple days.
"Everyone and especially the media needs to be saying that Obama and his staff is fully cooperating"....
They're not saying the things you wish they would--not many of them anyway--and they're not likely to start. And the more time they spend acting like Obama has something to hide the more damage it is likely to do. It was Obama who said he was going to put the contact info out there, I am simply asserting that he should get it done quickly and completely.
December 13, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright I see how I read what you said differently than what you meant regarding the full impact of the unreleashed facts. Gotcha.
I did have a cup of green tea. I have been on a tear today. I had dental implants and am just able to hang at home today with a golf ball size swelling of my jaw. I decided to take some Motrin and relieve some of the swelling impinging on the nerve...that along with a cup of green tea, does seem to have dissipated some of my ferocity. lol
December 13, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Five Stars ... * * * * *
To fr33d0m...
For you going the distance in this particular sub-thread with WRB ...
You reasoning appears to have trumped the emotional rhetoric , at least in this sub-thread
My regards.
~OGD~
December 14, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so you're convinced and there's no further need for discussion on your end. But, some aren't. Dean noted above that, while Obama stated that he's certain that there was no dealmaking in regards to his Senate seat on the part of his staff, it would be wise for him to proactively investigate to verify that and if he finds any information to suggest otherwise, that should be thrown out for public examination by Obama himself. I think that's very sensible advice - I don't understand the outrage.
December 13, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean noted what Obama said while ignoring that the federal prosecutor exculpated him. Dean focused instead on claiming mistatements by Obama rather than the known facts and that there are no mistatements. Dean makes like it is just Obama's words being challenged vs. the federal prosecutor and the tapes having clearly exonerated Obama.
Why is Dean stirring up specualtaion and suspicion when there is no evidence to suggest anythign other than full transparency based on the federal prosecutors own statements.
Why would Dean a supposedly fine lawyer not understand that speaking out immediately would jeopardize the federal investigation. Instead, he infers that Obama's staff can be involved in direct contradiction to Fitzpatricks owns words to offer advice to Obama on how to handle transparency based on his having been involved in a cover up.
Dean is out of the box on this and he is smearing Obama and his staff by not asserting the true process and procedure and legalities involved.
What is there for the public to exam that the federal prosecutor has already refuted...why does the public not trust the federal prosecutor. Why does the media not trust the federal prosecutor. Mr. Fitzpatrick was very clear, there is no involvement on the part of Obama NOR his staff.
So, what is the public looking for when the federal prosecutor already said there is nothing there?
December 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems sensible enough. However, I do understand WRB's outrage here. In Nixon's case, there WAS a crime, and Nixon knew it. Dean's point is that, even so, Nixon would have survived had he not covered up.
But in this case, there was NO crime. Nothing to cover up. So we're asking Obama to come up with reams of evidence of the ABSENCE of crime. But by definition, there's no end to that. Hard to establish an absence. So, by putting out information, O runs the risk of feeding the fire, because folks digging through the pile will ALWAYS be able to manufacture the next "nagging question."
That said, IF Obama could extinguish the fire by putting out "all" the information, I might think it wise. However, doing so might well screw up the very real investigation into Blago's very real misdeeds. Don't want to defend against false charges and in the process screw up the prosecution of real misdeeds.
It's pretty clear the Republicans are trying to turn this into Obama's White Water...the scandal that just never ends, no matter how many times it's proven false. As it drags on, the casually attentive public gets the idea that there's something "fishy" about Obama. They can't put their finger on it. And they certainly aren't going to read transcripts or all the who-struck- Johns, but hey, where there's smoke there's fire.
Common sense will tell you that, right?
So the Republican plan is to keep the smoke billowing, keep the headlines flowing for as long as they can.
I had a ridiculous conversation with a friend a few days before the election where he asked, "Why won't Obama release his birth certificate?" I said, "He has." "But what's he hiding and why are the numbers crossed out?" I said, "Because certain personal information is confidential. You wouldn't want your SS number published, right?" "Yeah, but I'm not running for president. What's he HIDING? I just don't trust folks who don't release everything. Why doesn't he just come 'out with it' if there's nothing to hide?"
And so it went.
I think we're trying to combat the paranoid style in American politics. Once paranoia and distrust take root, it is VERY hard to combat them. Nagging doubts ALWAYS persist. And to the paranoid, even the smallest detail or hole in the information or discrepancy is reason to keep the "quest for the truth" alive.
December 13, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well stated.
It is just like the folks who claim they have nothing to hide when they agree to relinguish our civil liberties.
I ask them do they have curtains up to their windows....when they reply yes, I say...do you have something to hide?
December 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Erline,
you wrote:
"This article in the Tribune sheds some light. Emanuel apparently gave Blagojevich a list of "acceptable" candidates for the Senate office. Acceptable candidates imply unacceptable candidates.
I could see how this can become embarrassing for Obama and possibly fracture relationships he'd like to maintain."
You are really on to something here given that JJJ sister Sarita is Malia's godmother. Michelle and Sarita are good buddies. It will definitely fracture family relationships if JJJ's name was not on the list.
Based on what we know of the evidence rolling in so far, JJJ was willing to 'paytoplay' and most likely Obama knew that his character was not of sterling quality despite him being a preacher's son.
Obama did not come through Illinois without being able to identify which politicians were there for what they could get and which are there for public service.
December 13, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why didn't John Dean write an open letter to John McCain when McCain's campaign director in Arizona, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was indicted on 35 federal felony counts early this year?
Was Gov. Bagofshit selected by Obama, was he working for Obama, was Obama asking for a percentage of the 'senate seat' profits? No.
Agree with whiterosebuddy, I don't think Obama needs advice from Dean on this issue.
December 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Dean wasn't a McCain supporter.
2. McCain wasn't the PE
December 13, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that Dean is a supporter of Obama? Please. He is a felon who conspired with Nixon. Not the type who would believe in the kind of change Obama brings.
December 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From his endorsement of Obama:
"If Obama is rejected on November 4th for another authoritarian conservative like McCain, I must ask if Americans are sufficiently intelligent to competently govern themselves." - John Dean
December 13, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he may have been someone who came to support Obama, however, that does not take away from the vile comparison of Obama to Nixon in terms of inferring a Watergate level cover-up.
Dean is like someone who speaks and demonstrates the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He just doesn't get that it. Obama is accused of nothing. Nixon was. Obama has been exculpated by the prosecutor Nixon fired Cox.
There just is no way that anything he said in the letter was helpful. It was inflammatory and a scurilous attack on Obama's character.
It seems that lots of folks who are Obama supporters don't get he has been fully transparent based on this being an open investigation, him not being a target and his staff and him being exonerated in Blago's own words, as well as the prosecutor.
Nor can those individuals clearly explain what they are looking for. They just are asking questions to create suspicion.
I am still unclear as to why you are asking for more information from Rahm, as if that information will exonerate him or Obama when you refuse to believe the tapes and/or Fitzpatrick.
Something is just so skewed about the biases of who folks are willing to believe in an endless quest for something that has been determined to be meaningless from the outside. i.e. there was no 'paytoplay' involvement from Obama or his staff.
December 13, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not looking for more information from Rahm. I'm looking for a response that shuts this attempt to cut Obama off at his knees down.
December 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. Agreed.
Then we have to demand accoutability from the media. We have to force the media to explain why Fitzpatrick is lieing and why they are looking for what Fitzpatrick has said is not there?
That is what is wrong. No one is pushing back.
Is the federal prosecutor a liar?. Only Schuster and Maddow raised this point. It needs to be repeated over and over and over.
The federal prosecutor has cut this off at the knees, the press is ignoring Fitzpatricks statements to run amuck with speculation, innuendo and tabloid journalism...to spin spin spin.
December 13, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Uhhh . . .
WRB ... This is uncalled for. Yes Dean was an indicted co-conspirator and felon but the rest of your comment is total rhetorical bullshit!
~OGD~
December 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well due to the placement of your post, I can't quite figure out which one of my posts you are responding to...since there are so few of them...hehehe
December 13, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Come on . . . WRB
It's not to hard to link back to the post I was referring to.
The link is found at the "in reply to a comment from whiterosebuddy"...
Here's what you had said:
Everything other than "He is a felon who conspired with Nixon" is pretty much BS that is easily refutable, and in fact has been refuted in this very sub-thread...
No more Motrins for you . . .
~OGD~
December 14, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
OGD
I am so glad you are back. I am learning so much about navigating in this new changed format. See, I did not know I could click on that and go right to the post you were replying to.
This new fangled format just is too darn confusing I don't even know how to find my own posts. Like before I could go and find who replied to me and I could search back, now I don't know how to find anything but what is listed on the first page under the post tabs, plus I get a long list of replies by folks I follow. It is so darn confusing.
I appreciate your sharing what you know.
And it was nice of you to grant those 5 stars too!!
lol
I like seeing folks I use to chat with like you and CvilleDem...we had such an influx of voices after the primaries started and now it is like the cafe is hearing from old and familiar voice, kinda like going home and meeting up with old friends after you move away.
I hope you are going to have a blessed holiday season.
December 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should heed Dean's advice and learn from history. If Obama doesn't follow this advice he will start his administration with a "Whitewater" type story in that it will dog him for his entire first term just as Whitewater dogged Clinton.
The Republicans will be only too happy to beat this to death and the media's (especially the cable shows) never ending need of grist for their mill will be only to happy to comply
December 13, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are alot of doofuses on this site who don't get it. obama did nothing.
he doesn't have to disclose dick because there is no blowjob. it is our job to reject the premise for the smear. not to critique obama about how he explains his refusal to get his dick sucked or whatever. john dean is a former cocksucker so he may be a pro at dealing with blowjob scandals. he should advise blago not obama.
December 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listening to Pat Buchanan this morning, I'd say while you are right on points, the reality is the GOP is going to hammer away at this with the MSM in tow. The facts of the case matter less than how it's handled. The release of any contact records is not likely to put things to rest, either. I hope you are prepared for that.
Because while you can claim Obama "did nothing wrong," a little less than half the voting populace is not be inclined to agree so quickly.
Just because Obama wants new politics does not mean people will suddenly stop trying to tear him down. This is only the beginning, and it's clear the GOP will be granting no quarter.
I would like to hear more NO and less LET's TALK with the GOP. I would like to see GOP Senators blacklisted and made to sit out for at least two years. The GOP acts outrageously for a single reason: they are permitted to do so, despite abject electoral failure.
And I would like to see Obama channel the country's outrage and disillusion. It's high time for some old-fashioned podium-thumping oratory, and I'm not hearing it.
Instead, I'm seeing typical D.C. scandal CYA nonsense. I fully expect to see Rahm thrown under the bus at this rate.
Pax,
M.
December 13, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think very many are all that confused about what Obama did or didn't do. That just isn't the point anymore.
It was obvious to everyone--including repugnicons and members of the traditional media--who watched Fitz's news conference that Obama did the right thing.
But the repugnicons and press know full well that they can fool some of the people and so damage Obama.
We would all be doofuses to allow that simply because we feel like he doesn't have to respond. We've tried that before and should know better than that by now.
December 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Dean,
Thanks for a very honest, very interesting letter and for sharing it with all of us.
However, I must also remind you of the precedent of the Clinton obstruction of justice scandal. You remember how dozens of Clinton aides came forward to say, "He's innocent"? Look how that ended up.
While from a PR standpoint, it would be great for Obama and team to say to the press, "We're not guilty and had absolutely nothing to do with this," this is a legal matter, not just a PR matter. And Obama cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one in his staff spoke with the governor or gov's staff about an appointment.
Obama is taking a smart approach. This is a legal matter and he is working at the pace of law enforcement and the federal prosecutors, NOT at the pace of the 24-hour news cycle.
He is being as honest as he can be about what has happened, but is not making a spectacle of this event.
I fully support Obama's approach because it sails through both the Scylla of obstructionism and the Charybdis of premature declarations of innocence.
December 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's anything to indicate that Obama needs Dean's advice, but Dean definitely needs an editor, both for content and length. There's a sense in which Dean is still twisting in the wind, 35 years later.
December 13, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean's advice is no threat to PE Obama. The hysterics here on that front are exactly that and no more. One must actively choose to be haunted by Nixon's Ghost at this point.
The claim "Obama is being transparent" speaks to a future that is not yet written. As of this moment, no records have been released, so claims of transparency cannot be accurately made.
This is a big test for our new PE. My concern is that he confuses the old politics for old-fashioned podium-thumping oratory. His personality may simply not be suited to being the vehicle for outrage and injustice the country needs. Sometimes, this is called for, and loudly.
You want pay for play? Just look at the behavior of the GOP Senate. As is evident from their auto industry disgrace, the GOP has to be told NO, NO, NO, over and over again until it sinks in, and then a thousand times more, just to be safe.
And I'm not hearing it. Now is not the time for subtlety. There will plenty of time for that when he is actually president, and armed with more votes in both Houses.
In the meantime, let us see the contact records, and let the evidence steer us to to what happened.
On that day we can talk "transparency."
Pax,
M.
December 13, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been an interesting and valuable discussion.
I voted for BO. But I was chagrined to hear him make this statement: "What I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal making around my Senate seat." No one can be certain of any other person's past behavior, not BO, not anyone--that is simply a fact. Even if assured by a staff person does not necessarily make it so. This is one reason that Dean's advice is worth taking--lies are to be expected in difficult circumstances, as when your job is on the line. When BO stated it that way, he entered the world of rhetoric, not fact, and left himself open to unpleasant surprises later, as more information comes out. I hope that doesn't happen. I also hope Fitzgerald's comment that he has "no evidence" of BO's involvement is sustained as his investigation continues.
BO is normally very careful about his wording, and I am sympathetic with his very difficult position as President-elect, but I feel that with this statement he has put himself at risk, needlessly. On the other hand, this is an opportunity for him to demonstrate transparency in government and I wish him well.
Just my two cents.
December 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe when you start to refer to the President-Elect by his name instead of "BO" I'll start to pay attention to what you say.
Barack Obama has had plenty of time to get to know his staff. Undoubtedly he has asked them if they did any dealing, and that is why he is expressing faith in them. Would you like it better if he said, "My staff has assured me that they did no dealing with Blago about this senate seat, and although I can't be sure they aren't lying weasels, I'm passing what they told me onto you."
Dean's "advice" doesn't make sure of anything. It assumes someone is lying; that there is something being covered up. If I (and many others) are wrong, Mr. Dean could have taken the time to come back and respond to set the record straight.
I disagree that this is even advice. If he wanted to give Obama advice I feel certain he could have gotten through on the phone, or written him a private letter, or even met with him. This "Open Letter" was not about advice, it was a statement. It was a statement reiterating that this is somehow an "Obama Scandal," which it is not unless the press (and Mr Dean) succeeds in making it so.
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Where is the Open Letter to George Bush about telling the truth? Where is the Open Letter to Dick Cheney about secrecy and lies?
This is just an insult!
December 13, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said:
"No one can be certain of any other person's past behavior, not BO, not anyone--that is simply a fact. Even if assured by a staff person does not necessarily make it so."
OK, you're right no one can be certain of another's behavior. But, in this case, we do not have to take Obama's words. Fitzpatrick said the same thing.
Why not believe Fitpatrick? Is Fitzpatrick a Liar? Is the federal prosecutor who is making the charges also a liar when he says...there is no involvement of Obama NOR his staff in a 'paytoplay' scheme?
What about Blago on tape, when he says that MF thinks he can get a MF senator and not pay nothin but appreciation.... does what Blago said on the tape also mean we can't be assured of what the staff offered?
Please explain who you would beleive here, after Obama has merely said the same thing as the federal prosecutor and the individual who is the focus of the complaint?
Is there someone else you think has beleiveable facts?
December 13, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pure unmitigated bullshit. The media will pin scandal on Obama NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES. And Dean knows it. He's just helping that process take place, under the guise of 'advice'.
Classic concern-troll.
December 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
AbSOfrigginLUTELY!!!
December 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key thing with Nixon and company is that they were guilty of crimes. At this point, there's zero evidence to suggest Obama or his people have done anything wrong. The prosecutor and even the Gov on the transcript said as much.
For Obama to take the time to accurately gather and document the details of what they do know about what took place is a smart way to proceed. If they rush to put it out there and it has errors, then the media will have a bigger field day than they presently are. Even if the details took a month to compile, if they're accurate and show that there was nothing sinister going on, there will be no long term effects on his presidency. Accuracy has to prevail over timing as the media will swing with the story of the day and an inaccurate story will cause more problems than a late one.
December 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to agree with Whiterose, who posted earlier in the day. I don't share his dislike for Dean, whom I respect, especially after reading his concerns about authoritarianism and "neoconservatism" in his book "Conservatives without Conscience." But I do think he's being a bit naive -- perhaps even disingenuous -- about Richard Nixon.
In his book "Brothers," David Talbot reviews research on recently released JFK Assassination archival data that suggests Nixon's direct involvement in ordering the Watergate break-in. But Nixon was not being outrageously paranoid as we assumed for years. In fact, he was concerned about how much the Democrats' peace candidate George McGovern and his campaign staff knew about "The Kennedy Thing," as Nixon referred to it; i.e., the assassination. We've not gotten there yet, but Nixon's complicity in the assassination and coup d'etat that eventually led to his presidency is resurgent in the minds of many researchers now that they have uncovered the more realistic motivation for his paranoia. Halderman was even arrogant and stupid enough to utilize some of the same operatives of the renegade Miami Station that had participated in the coup. Nixon was at the very top of what came to be known as the Mongoose operations against Castro during the Eisenhower Administration. When the Watergate impeachment investigation began to get close to the secret coup, Nixon HAD to step down, least the entire structure of the coup be exposed, even if he was only the eventual beneficiary at the political level.
Sound insane? Keep reading the research that is becoming available as the Cold War generation passes away. George H. W. Bush's day is coming. This research is slowly sweeping out from under the carpet what the Warren Commission acted to cover up at the height of the Cold War. Now THAT was a cover-up.
If John Dean seems ignorant about the real Watergate skinny -- indeed, he is asserting Nixon's original innocence, which is laughable -- than he is either being nefariously disingenuous or extremely naive. In either case, given that he seems to have fallen into the game on innuendo surrounding Blagajevich, he's lost his credibility with this letter, if not by his having fallen in line with the Republican slime machine -- innocently or not -- then simply through his exculpatory explanation of Nixon's role in the coup's aftermath.
It seems, even the Watergate cover-up (which as it turns out was only a side-show of the assassination and coup cover-up of '63) has a self-perpetuation life of its own as it's members can't keep their mouths and their egos in check.
It's okay, John. They're not going to bury you beside Jimmie Hoffa. You can talk freely now.
December 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, very fascinating..'the Kennedy thing' as the basis for Nixon being a sociopath rather than paranoid.
Any sources to read for greater detail on that?
I kinda respect Dean, but not here in this completely disngenuous 'open letter' to Obama.
December 13, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Dean felt it necessary to give his excellent advice to help end this unfortunate series of events as quickly as possible so the press will not carry on trying to create a scandal where none exist.
Love John Dean but disagree with him on one point. Watergate was just the tip of a huge iceberg of corruption in the Nixon administration. He acts as if all would have been well without a cover up, forgetting the "suit cases of cash" being tossed about in the reelection campaign and the gross pay offs taking place across the country by special interest groups. Corruption was every where matched by a slew of illegal campaign tactics. The Watergate break in and cover up was just the key that brought the house down but Nixon was doomed from the start simply by his belief that he was an untouchable king, above the law and acting without restraints. Nixon had all this baggage besides just 'Watergate' whereas Obama has no such baggage or intentions of executive privilege.
All the scandal being pushed by the right about Obama is fabricated without a grain of truth to any of it and even the possibility of involvement with Blago makes them swoon. Dean's advice makes sure there is not even a hint of a scandal that involves Obama. Thanks Dean. I believe Obama was doing this anyway but your letter makes it more intentional.
December 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone here think that if John Dean wrote a letter to Barack Obama he wouldn't read it? How about if he called him? So why the "Open Letter?"
If this were truly meant as a well-intentioned bit of advice it would have been offered privately. If it were meant as a thought-provoking discussion on TPM Cafe, he might have responded to some (or many) of the well-reasoned posts that we have left here.
I don't appreciate drive-by bloggers, and I particularly don't like the way this was dressed up, as though Obama needs a lesson in truthfulness.
I enjoyed Mr. Dean's testimony all those years ago (I was working night shift at the time and watched every minute of it), and I think he's smart. I think his ego got in the way this time, however.
Why the hell didn't he write an Open Letter to George Bush, or Dick Cheney? Why? Why didn't he?
December 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. You're right. I see what you mean. Why the 'open letter' process? Thanks for posting.
December 13, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point CvilleDem. This was nothing but inflammatory 'scholarly' Limbaughian.
December 13, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be of interest to commenters on this thread. The RNC has released a web ad suggesting Obama isn't being truthful about Blagojevich. The bastards mean business! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2M1zMaZPmI
December 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
URGH!!!
The absolute highest level of transparency during an ongoing federal investigation is NO COMMENT!!
Why the hell does the press not do their job? WTF does Wolfe mean about vague comments, Obama CAN't comment.
It is the federal prosecutor whose words have to be taken as the holy grail right now!!
Unbelievable...and then folks wonder why I went off on Dean with his specious Nixonian analogy coupled with Cheney actions as reason for him to advise Obama as if his actions are at all analogous when the federal prosecutor already exculpated him and his staff.
Guess we need to have the DNC make a rebuttal tape.
Explain the judicial process. And the importance of due process.
aaarrrgh!!
December 13, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for useful information!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of download youtube videos
December 16, 2010 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has already promised to report fully on any contacts his staff had with blogo, but I don't think he's acting quickly enough for PR purposes. The MSM will badger him about it as long as he remains silent.
I don't for a minute think John Dean is acusing Obama of anything. Dean is as rabid as any of us about the republican party. I think he's trying to help Obama.
December 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
His change of party notwithstanding, Dean is a righteous prick. He should go to bleeping hell.
December 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn Skippy!!
December 13, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
F I T Z G E R A L D
Not Fitzpatrick.
Think of it this way. His given name is Patrick. His parents would have had to much sense to name
him PATRICK FitzPATRICK.
December 13, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops...OK..thanks
December 13, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome. But I misspelled too.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.
December 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO such word as ludicrousness.
You and a few others, including wrbuddy, think Dean and the rest of us are anti-Obama.
You're completely missing our points. Many of us are angry with Obama's involvement with persons we thought were done, technically. That he would clear the place of back rooms and the deals made in them.
None of us believe he's done anything wrong, other than make a few really anal appointments.
But all Bill did was to play hide the cigar when no one was looking.
With Obama it's more like over-protectionism - there, see -that's not a word either so now we're even.
We all see his good nature and are concerned with his hanging around the hell holes of D.C., kind of like us anxious parents.
So I'll defend Obama as I did Clinton: neither screwed anyone.
But for just a few minor errors in the beginning that were never corrected, a 24/7 press on meth and a Republican party fired up by Satan, good people like Bill and Barack are incredibly vulnerable.
Dean and the rest of us would be there in a heartbeat to protect Obama - so relax.
December 13, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now just hold up Hazmaq,
I do not think you are anti-Obama at all. I think you just disagree with my opinion on Dean's letter and it's intent. That does not make you anti-Obama. I am not being pro-obama so much as I am outraged at the speciousness of the 'open letter to Obama, when I set out to methodically take it apart. Even though I am a huge Obama supporter, Dean is just plain out of order.
Now, I do not know what folks you are angry with that you want done that Obama is involved with but I certainly can identify with Clinton fatigue on my part. However, I do believe that Obama wants the most experienced folks he can find. I think his record of rising above all the corruption in Illinois which is a cesspool also speaks well to his ability to do the same no matter who the players are he choses to execute his powers. Obama is confident in his ability to not just set the policy but to ensure it is carried out as he wants it. Obama believes in oversight and he believes in moving forward with consensus. He has a track record of being able to do just that in the most contentious and controversial situations.
Obama after all is responsible for the sweeping ethics reform legislation in ILL that Blagojevich was rushing to get in under the deadline. Now, given the depth of corruption in IL you would think that Obama would be hailed for that but instead there is an outrageous attempt to attach him to that corruption.
I will staunchly advocate and defend Obama as long as I have the facts to credibly do so. I was a staunch defender of HRC too, in the 90s and much to my chagrin there was a vastrightwing conspiracy that had more to do with the media, think tanks and shaping of public policy than being after Bill Clinton.
So, for the most part I think we are on the same page Hazmaq...but it is great to also have issues of disagreement as that is the only way we learn new things.
I welcome the polemics and do not take it to heart personally. I just got off to incredibly fierce defense today because of the words Nixon and Cheney who were being used as role models for what Obama should do.
That just singed my buns.
Nice chatting with you, hope to do so more in the future.
December 13, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put WRB.
December 14, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks OUTLEFT - and thank Mr Whitman for me. Brilliant!
December 13, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy to pass along your appreciation but, unfortunately, old Walt passed away in 1892. He railed against the corruption in politics but he also said that was no reason to avoid getting involved as he explains below:
It is the fashion among dillettants and fops (perhaps I myself am not guiltless,) to decry the whole formulation of the active politics of America, as beyond redemption, and to be carefully kept away from. See you that you do not fall into this error. America, it may be, is doing very well upon the whole, notwithstanding these antics of the parties and their leaders, these half-brain'd nominees, the many ignorant ballots, and many elected failures and blatherers. It is the dillettants, and all who shirk their duty, who are not doing well. As for you, I advise you to enter more strongly yet into politics. I advise every young man to do so."
December 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
o.k. some people are still really having difficulty understanding the situation. in case they check in again, i will leave one last attempt to help them get it.
since obama did not try to buy the senate seat that blago tried to sell him, THERE IS NO SCANDAL FOR OBAMA. this is blago's scandal.
not complicated.
December 14, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Rahm talked to Gov. Narcissist and made Obama's druthers clear. Does anybody think anything else? Rahm is not so dumb as to be agreeing to deals when he knows the feds are after the governor.
It strikes me that the real story here is Fitzgerald's timing. He apparently had to act before the tainted appointment of Jessie Jr. became an accomplished fact. The scandal is Junior's downfall. Junior felt he was entitled. Hard to imagine that Junior's supporters would be thrilled to learn that Obama was cooperating with Fitzgerald, which he might have had to do.
December 14, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Fitzgerald did not contact Obama during his investigation speaks volumes. Obama is too silent and stuttering to have known about the investigation while it was ongoing.
I understand Fitzgerald is also re-investigating the mansion and lot deal between Rezko and Obama.
I read where Blags wife received a commission from that real estate deal. Also, a man who had appraised the property for the real estate office learned that somebody had changed the appraisal. When he questioned this, he was fired. He now has a lawsuit concerning his firing.
It may be that Rahm was only a go-between for Blag and Obama.
Also, when Blag mentions Obama and Rahm gave him appreciation, they also told Blag to wait two years. Maybe to distance the timing of the pay-off.
When Fitzgerald arrested Blag, Blag was still playing "let's make a deal." And no deal was off the table.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Obama keeps his word on complete transparency and an end to politics as usual.
December 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you understand that based on information from a source worth trusting? It's hard to see why Fitz would consider that a useful thing to do. The Chicago press explored the transaction in great detail and described it in great detail. You could look it up.It's on the web.Roughly like this.
o the owner wanted ,say, $1.2 million.It was advertised at that price. Obamaa could only pay $700K-which says something about his career to that point.
O Obama ( or probably Michelle who I think was handling the matter)asked to buy just the house and not the house and adjacent lot. Owner refused.
o Obama and Rezko visited the site. Obama one way or another asked R to help which Obama now says was stupid .
o Rezko's wife than agree to buy the adjacent lot for something like $600K with Michelle also paying $600K for the house. So between the two of them she and Michelle they were paying the total $1.2 million the owner wanted.No special favor.
The owner has confirmed that again and again.
o Then Mrs. Rezko sold Michelle one sixth of the lot for $100K That was a proportionate price.
o Later Mrs. R sold the balance of the lot for, say $650K. So in total she got $750K for a lot which she bot for $600K. So it was a good deal for her. Not surprisingly. The Rezkos are in the real estate business.
oWhere's the beef?
I've used rough numbers here to keep it undersandable but the transaction has been covered UTA by the chicago press .
Obama was wrong to ask Rezko's help. "Stupid" is the word he used. Clearly he'd solicited a favor and that's an undesirable thing for a politician to do. On the other hand , not much of favor to ask someone to enter into a transaction on which he made about a 25% return.
I haven't a clue about the appraisal . There's a limit to how much time the matter is worth to me.
Or Fitz.
But as others have written here, if Fitz were investigating Obama on a separate matter it would have been odd for him to make his statement that Obama wasn't involved in the Blag affair. By doing so he was in effect saying " I have no problem with Obama". Not an appropriate thing for him to say if he were in fact investigating Obama on a separate matter.
Clearly you're unhappy Obama won the election and thus are too ready to believe and repeat any
thing you hear to his disfavor. Why not relax and let him be President? And then resume griping when you can complain about that?
December 15, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Rated: Five Stars ... *****
For Flavius taking the time to dance with the "... oracle of 'truth' ..." whose total of five posts here at the Cafe will most likely be the last.
~OGD~
December 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fitzgerald says neither Obama or anybody else outside of Blago's staff are complicit in Rod's alleged scheme to sell the seat.
Many people in IL pushed Obama to name his favorite for the senate seat, if for no other reason than they didn't want the eventual nominee to start his or her senate career tainted by being seen as beholden to the already widely despised governor. Obama obliged by touting Valerie Jarrett. Then suddenly her name was withdrawn and she was tabbed for a job in the WH. Obama then said it wasn't his nomination to make. Other prospective nominees also took their names out of consideration.
Apparently Blagojevich's terms were beyond the bounds of political acceptability and possibly legality. I say possibly because Fitzgerald hasn't indicted Blagojevich for anything after over 5 years of investigation.
It'd be my guess intermediaries for all the prospects spoke with representatives of the governor. I'd also venture that one or more of them complained to Fitzgerald's office after hearing Blago's terms and asked the US attorney to finally do something about him. Evidently Rod was poisoning the selection process and thus anybody who got the seat with his demands.
Why hasn't Fitzgerald indicted Blagojevich yet? This latest complaint has nothing to do with the Rezko case he's been building for 5 years against Rod. Rezko was convicted in June. His sentencing hearing was initially scheduled for September but was pushed back twice and is now supposed to be this coming Tuesday. Despite all the drama of the trial by press conference in the court of public opinion last week Fitzgerald has substituted a much weaker case with the latest wiretap evidence. I'm not an attorney but I don't think you need to be to know he only has conspiracy charges here while in the Rezko case he might have evidence of actual crimes committed instead of just discussed.
Yeah he wanted to stop the sale of the senate seat. And he also wanted to bring down his great white whale Blagojevich. Maybe he did it to prove to Rezko that being Rod's last friend is a fool's errand. Showing Tony that any promises Rod made to him to keep his mouth shut can't be fulfilled might be Fitzgerald's bigger motive behind this.
December 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting speculations, markg, thanks for sharing them.
December 14, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is for whiterosebuddy. I think it's from a story in The Washington Post:
"I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever," Fitzgerald said. "We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it. . . .
"There's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say."
Legal experts said it was unusual for a prosecutor to make such a blanket statement while an investigation was continuing.
"That carries a great deal of weight," said Jan Witold Baran, a Washington lawyer who represents politicians on ethical complaints and campaign finance matters. "It is really unusual for a U.S. attorney to say someone is not implicated.
"Could evidence pop up in the future to the contrary? Sure, it's possible. Is it likely? I think that, based on what he said yesterday, the answer is no," Baran added.
December 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fitzgerald said:
"I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever," Fitzgerald said. "We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it. . . .
"There's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say."
Fitzgerald is careful to reference the complaint in both those statements.
The complaint only names Blagojevich but that doesn't mean Obama and company can't be charged after further investigation. (Also, I believe the Grand Jury hands down indictments)
Do you really think Rahm Emmanuel would negotiate a deal on Obama's senate seat without Obama's knowledge?
Remember,from my earlier comment:
"Also, when Blag mentions Obama and Rahm gave him appreciation, they also told Blag to wait two years. Maybe to distance the timing of the pay-off.
When Fitzgerald arrested Blag, Blag was still playing "let's make a deal." And no deal was off the table."
Although Valerie Jarrett was pulled from consideration, that just might have been playing hardball or maybe Obama then was pushing for someone else. After all, Jackson was Obama's campaign chairman and maybe Obama was using Jackson's emmissary.
I think you have to read between the lines.
I know Obama supporters are trying to spin this positively, but there seems to be more there, there.
December 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to spin anything. It makes no sense to me that Senator Obama would sponsor legislation to clean up pay-for-play etc. then turn around and indulge in just that as PE when he's got so much more to lose. I'm sorry but your scenario, at its face, assumes that he, or Emmanuel for that matter, is pretty damn stupid. After all, Obama actually supported Blago's rival in the gubenatorial primaries. He must've realized at the get-go what a dick wad Blago was, only backing him after the nomination was sewn up. Unless you're Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman you gotta back the Democratic nominee, party unity and all.
Like I said before, I don't think Obama is perfect and can do no wrong but I also have to give him more credit than you do in the brains department. Besides, how do you explain to what ridiculous lengths his vetting questionaires go regarding positions in his administration? If there's anything in your background that can remotely be construed as embarrassing---you need not apply.
Seems to me he really, really means to keep scandal out of his administration. To indulge in a little dealmaking with a governor under Federal investigation before you're even sworn in makes no sense whatsoever.
December 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked:
Do you really think Rahm Emmanuel would negotiate a deal on Obama's senate seat without Obama's knowledge?
I forgot to answer your question. No, but I also don't think he'd authorize his chief-of-staff to do such a stupid thing either. The cardinal rule when indulging in nefarious undertakings is Plausible deniability and that just doesn't pass muster.
December 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
outleft:
Obama distanced himself from Blag when Fitzgerald was investigating Rezko; because Fitz was also spreading a wider net around Illinois pols.
Actually, during Blag's campaign, Obama was part of a team that was running his campaign and met frequently.
As far as Obama's vetting questionnaire goes, if Obama had to complete one, he would not be hired.
Obama is - Do as I say, not as I do.
To engage in dealmaking with a Governor under Federal investigation before you're sworn in, doesn't make sense. But that's the Chicago Way.
Why would Emmanuel talk on the phone and possibly in person when Blag's office may be wired? Stupid, maybe? But, that's what Emmanuel did. The Feds have hours of tapes.
The MSM have presented Obama as this pristine candidate, even though he came up from the mud of Chicago politics.
We'll have to see what comes out of the wash. For Obama's sake, I hope the wash is clean.
December 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Feds have hours of tapes yet according to a source close to the investigation and confirmed by a source close to Emanuel he was told he was not a target. If this turns out to be the case there are 2 possible explanations, either the tapes exonerate him or he's actually part of the "sting" as it were. Regardless, I found this on someone's blog and thought it was pretty funny:
Rahm Emanuel Getting Death Threats
By Tommy Christopher
Dec 13th 2008 2:16PM
Filed Under:eDemocrats, Barack Obama, Scandal, Media, Obama Administration
Which means, by logical extension, that the people making the threats are receiving much worse threats, in return.
According to ABC News, Emanuel is not pleased with the media siege around him:
Back at his home, Emanuel appeared "beet-red," according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emanuel to use his bathroom this morning.
"I'm getting regular death threats. You've put my home address on national television. I'm pissed at the networks. You've intruded too much, " Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.
A spokesperson for the White House Chief of Staff-Designate later denied that Emanuel made the statement, claiming that the cameraman had an "active imagination."
I have one of those, too. Here's how I think those calls might have gone:
Caller: I'm gonna kill you, Emanuel.
Rahm Emanuel: What? Who the (expletive) is this?
Caller: You're a d...
Rahm Emanuel: You listen to me, you (expletive), I will put on a set of (expletive) Lee Press-on Nails and tear out your (expletive) heart, then serve it to you tartare-style, drizzled with a reduction of your own arterial spray!
Caller: (whimpers, hangs up)
(Caller's phone rings)
Caller: Hello?
Rahm Emanuel: I will waterboard you with your own (expletive) piss! I will become your (expletive) boxing trainer, for the sole purpose of making you jump rope with your own intestines! (beep, pause) Hold on, I got another call.
Caller: (crying a little)
Rahm Emanuel: You called the (expletive) cops on me?!?!?
There's a chance that Emanuel was just saying he got threats to rattle the media, but either way, the battle shaping up between Rahm and the media is sure to make this an interesting 8 years. He let a Chicago Sun-Times reporter have it earlier in the day:
"You're wasting your time," Emanuel said. "I'm not going to say a word to you. I'm going to do this with my children. Dont do that. I'm a father. I have two kids. I'm not going to do it."
Asked, "Can't you do both?" Emanuel replied, "I'm not as capable as you. I'm going to be a father. I'm allowed to be a father," and he pushed the reporter's digital recorder away.
I find Emanuel's directness refreshing. The standard play is to repeat the approved talking point ad nauseum, but Emanuel flipping out a little actually gives the reporter something to write about. I find it a whole lot ruder to waste a reporter's time reciting excerpts from press releases.
As for the questions surrounding Emanuel's role in the Blagojevich scandal, it will all come out, but we should all remember that this is a federal case, so if Emanuel's not free to speak about it just yet, don't make a federal case out of it.
Comments [56] PermalinkShare:EmailLinkedBlogsRelated Articles
December 14, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Where the hell did that come from...
Wowzer!
Trying to decipher that is like trying to make sense of a slap hazard written blog from an AOL news board without the formatting...
Geez ... Give the folks something they can work with.
~OGD~
December 14, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OGD
I'm sorry about the sloppy copying and pasting. I'm new to this stuff and don't know how everyone else gets their quotes in those neat windows. If you were indeed talking about the Emanuel riff, I copied it from the guys (Tommy Christopher) blog and pasted it here because I thought it was funny. The guy was actually defending Emanuel.
Any advice regarding how to include material from outside sources would be greatly appreciated and obviously needed. Again, sorry.
December 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it IS a Federal case. Lots of people in public life have gotten death threats. Even poor Joe the Plumber got death threats.
Emmanuel is more ticked about being pressed by the media than anything else.
Thou doth protest too much.
December 14, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
..."poor Joe the Plumber..."
Surely you jest. Oh wait, that's right, poor Joe was "appalled" by McCain's campaign. It made him feel "dirty". I guess that's what happens when you allow yourself to be used as a plant. At least he got his 15 minutes and he apparently got off on Palin too, so it's all good.
Just read a Wash. Post piece from the CBS website detailing Obama's history with Blago. Not as cozy as you make it out to be. It's actually quite the opposite and always has been.
Sorry, but there doesn't seem to be much for me to protest about. Perhaps you're projecting.
December 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
outleft:
First of all, Joe the Plumber only asked Obama a question when he came in Joe's neighborhood. The MSM and the Democrats then went out to destroy Joe. Joe went with McCain because he was mistreated by the MSM & Dems and didn't like Obama's plan for the re-distribution of wealth.
What you fail to mention is that Joe, in that same interview, said he liked Sarah Palin and that she was the "real deal." Look it up for yourself.
On Blag and Obama's relationship, Obama distanced himself from Blag only because the Feds were closing in on Blag.
Obama met weekly with Blag when Blag was running for Governor. Obama's campaign tried to backtrack from that but they can't get around the fact.
The fact that Obama and Emmanuel knew the Feds were pressuring Rezko to dime out Blag, should have been a warning to not get their hands dirty with the Senate Seat. Same with Jackson, Jr.
In Chicago, they think they can get away with anything, and a lot of times they do.
There's nothing wrong with Blag's mental health, he's just arrogant, greedy and above the law. Just like the rest of Chicago Combine. Read John Kass, he has covered them for a long time.
The mental health thing is an Obama talking point, so if Blag talks they'll say he's crazy.
By the way, the Washington Post is a lacky for Obama. Just like the rest of the MSM. They're holding back from telling the whole story and truth about Obama.
I suggest you do your own vetting of Obama if you want to know the truth. As I did.
Unless the truth hurts.
December 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the whole Joe the Fake Plumber interview. The guy was a plant. He has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. He lied about being a plumber and even if he actually intended to buy into the business of the real plumber he worked for he would've gotten a tax cut under Obama's plan. The Dems didn't go after him, the MSM did. He was the story du jour that news cycle and from what I saw, he loved every minute of it. Palin the real deal? Google her gubernatorial debates, then watch her VP performance. The VP folksiness was an act worthy of an Academy Award plus she set the Women's movement back about 40 years with all that winking.
I find it incredulous that the Post could go from being a Bush apologist to an Obama water carrier. I guess it depends on your point of view. Judging from your POV I think you're on the wrong site. Next you'll be telling me Fitzgerald is in the bag for Obama and that's when I'll have no further comment.
December 15, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you have some telepathic powers you have no way of knowing what Obama's reasons were.
So if you're trying to convince anyone,you undermine, destroy is a more accurate word, your credibility when you make as if it were a statement of fact something that can only be a speculation.
More likely you're not actually trying to convince but rather enjoy stirring up resentment. Like the Monty Python character who pays to have an argument.
And no, I'm not exhibiting my own faux telepathic powers by this speculation about your reasons.
You write sufficiently coherently and with sufficient evidence of a reasonable level of education and/or intelligence for it to be inconsistent with claiming to know what's in Obama's mind. But nevertheless you've spent hours posting statements like that which you know will be scorned.
I don't have the professional qualifications to suggest a diagnosis such as masochism so I've turned to the "Monty Python" explanation.
But I won't abuse you. That's in the next office..
December 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To outleft: The fact that you think Joe the Plumber was a plant and a fake plumber is far-fetched. Although Joe didn't have a license, in his state, you don't need a license if employed by a licensed plumber, which he was indeed.
I, too, find it incredulous that WaPo went from supporting Bush to supporting Obama. I guess that's how much they hate all things Clinton.
I go on any site I choose to make comments. A little debate is healthy.
To flavius:
I'm not trying to stir things up, I don't have to. Obama and company seem to be doing a good job of that all by themselves.
Glad you think I write "sufficiently coherently" and with a reasonable level of education.
I am not a masochist. As I wrote to outleft, a little debate is healthy.
If everyone is like-minded, then there is a limit on a person's openness to other ideas and thoughts. Sort of like, ummm, socialism.
On Obama/Blag relationship, it appears that since Obama did help Blag with his last campaign, by meeting weekly with Blag to strategize, they were at one time close. During the Rezko investigation, the Feds were pressuring Rezko to sing about Blag and Obama. Remember Rezko's letter from Aug 08? In 2006, when Obama started thinking about the Presidency, he started to shy away from Blag.
You should get out of your comfort zone, and check out Obama for yourself. Good places to start are the Chicago Sun Times archives and investigative reporter Evelyn Pringle. Just google her name.
Happy vetting!
December 17, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the article was very useful article facebook video
November 12, 2010 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I am interested in issues and agree with the idea of the article. I think I'll continue to follow the ideas and themes on this web destination. Good job! mrsa contagious
March 6, 2011 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution program
April 2, 2011 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this very useful information.
Custom Dissertations
Custom Essays
April 16, 2011 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. This is a wonderful post!!
Custom Research Papers
April 16, 2011 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink