A Quick Round-up: Blagojevich and Obama

At the National Governor's Association, Dec. 2, 2008

1) The LATimes has a finger-wagging piece about the downfalls and corruption of power. Yawn.

Blagojevich’s dramatic downfall is the first big Democratic scandal story of the Obama era. Granted, Obama has yet to set foot in the Oval Office (though right now he’s probably wishing his transition headquarters wasn’t in Chicago). But there was no way for Obama to completely avoid comment on a scandal involving the Democratic governor of his home state — especially when Blagojevich’s downfall was integrally related to his illegal efforts to profit from Obama’s success.

—————

Read the rest ->

All the same, Blagojevich’s downfall should be a cautionary tale for Democrats still basking in the reflected glory of Obama’s win. It’s a reminder that even at this magic moment of victory and party unity — even as the Clinton lions are lying down with the Obama lambs, and as Democratic dreams of vast infrastructure investments and a renewed commitment to international diplomacy are coming true — powerful Democrats aren’t immune to human weaknesses.
—————–

In our heads, we Democrats know that. It’s just that in our hearts, we don’t want to believe it. Because we’re the good guys, right? The ones who honed our progressive values during years in the political wilderness and who finally saw those values vindicated in November’s electoral victories.

Well, if she’s just coming to the idea that Democrats are just as capable of bad behavior, she must have missed ALL of her history classes. Also, there’s a little more tying Obama to Blagojevich and its name is Rezko.

This article is not worth your time. I’ve excerpted the mildly interesting bits. The author only talks about the potential for problems while completely ignoring the bread crumbs leading to real questions.

2) The WSJ realizes this, of course.

What remains to be seen is whether this episode [Blagojevich corruption] will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media’s “almost willful” fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago’s political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama’s Chicago connections.

To date, Mr. Obama’s approach to Illinois corruption has been to congratulate himself for dodging association with it. “I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics,” he told the Chicago Tribune last spring. At the time, Mr. Obama was being grilled over news that he bought his house through a land deal involving Tony Rezko, a political fixer who was later convicted on 16 corruption counts. Rezko is mentioned dozens of times in the 76-page criminal complaint against Mr. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics. “We have a sick political culture, and that’s the environment Barack Obama came from,” Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News months ago. Though Mr. Obama did support ethics reforms as a state senator, Mr. Stewart noted that he’s “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians.”
————-

Mr. Blagojevich won [first election to governor, with Obama's support], but before long, problems surfaced. In 2004, Zalwaynaka Scott, the governor’s inspector general, said his administration’s efforts to evade merit-selection laws exposed “not merely an ignorance of the law, but complete and utter contempt for the law.” Nonetheless, Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Blagojevich’s re-election in 2006.

When problems with the governor continued, state democrats split between state house speaker Michael Madigan who wanted to pursue impeachment and Emil Jones, the powerful state senate president and political midwife to Barack Obama, who rebuked Madigan for his efforts. At this point, legislators looked to see who Obama would back. He kept silent.

The WSJ ends hoping that Obama, as he has promised, will return often to Illinois.

Perhaps during one of those trips he could find time to forthrightly address the corruption issues that the state will be sorting through in the weeks and months ahead. A president has a powerful bully pulpit. A few words from Mr. Obama could force real and lasting change in Illinois.

3) Politico has a few questions for PEBO.

1 – “Did you communicate directly or indirectly with Blagojevich about picking your replacement in the U.S. Senate?”

2 – “Why didn’t you or someone on your team correct your close adviser David Axelrod when he said you had spoken to Blagojevich about picking your replacement?”

3. “When did you learn the investigation involved Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to ‘sell’ your Senate seat, or of the governor’s impending arrest?”

4 – “Did you or anyone close to you contact the FBI or U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to sell your Senate seat to the highest bidder?”

5 – “Did federal investigators interview you or anyone close to you in the investigation?”

6 – “When did you and Blagojevich last speak and about what?”

7 – “Do you regret supporting Blagojevich?”

Think he’ll answer? Maybe we could have a pool on the number of “uhs” should he bother.

4) The NYT, perhaps not surprisingly, makes a fundamental error in today’s story titled “Scandal Is an Early Test for Obama Team.”

Exactly what role he or his team played will be a focus of intense scrutiny in the weeks to come after the arrest of Mr. Blagojevich on accusations that he was plotting to trade or sell the Senate appointment. In that sense, the furor could be the first test of the Obama team’s ability to manage a growing scandal in an era when intense media scrutiny and partisan attack machinery can escalate any flap into a serious political problem.

Mr. Obama said Tuesday that he had never spoken with the governor about the seat, and prosecutors have not implicated Mr. Obama or his advisers. At the same time, Mr. Obama’s team has declined for two days to answer questions about what discussions they had about the seat and whether intermediaries had any contacts with Mr. Blagojevich’s advisers.
—————–

Mr. Emanuel was among the few people in Mr. Obama’s circle who occasionally spoke to Mr. Blagojevich. He declined to answer questions on Wednesday, waving off a reporter who approached him as he walked across Capitol Hill.

A Democrat familiar with Illinois politics and the Obama transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there probably were calls between the Blagojevich and Obama camps about the Senate seat. It was not clear if any calls were recorded by federal agents, who had tapped the governor’s phones.

This piece suggests that Obama and his team face a test about how they will handle this scandal. I don’t agree. It may be a test, but it’s a “do-over.” Obama made choices to support Blagojevich years ago, to associate and profit from relationships with Blagojevich, Rezko and Jones and to REMAIN SILENT on Illinois corruption. To suggest he faces a test only now is myopic in the extreme.

Still, worth the read for a reminder of some Chicago politics history.

5) AOL adds this:

But Obama and his handlers are desperately spinning and ducking tough questions on the scandal. Obama’s terse, one sentence statement on the day the scandal broke satisfied none but his most sycophantic supporters and actually raised more questions than it answered. His denial that he met with the governor or anyone on the governor’s staff is not believable, and worthy of skepticism. This is especially so since his remarks contradict his chief political strategist, David Axelrod, who told a Chicago television station that the president-elect and the governor did indeed meet and that Obama approved of the names of potential replacements on the governor’s list. Axelrod’s retraction of his remarks, again, on the day the scandal broke, is even more unbelievable than Obama’s denial of a meeting taking place. Most analysts realize that Axelrod was spinning to protect Obama from the fallout associated with meeting the governor about the Senate vacancy. That’s what political strategists do.

Yeah, there are multiple “understandings” here. One for those “in the know” and one for the lemmings occasionally watching on the telly.

6) Redstate comments on the Obama transition question site removing impertinent questions.

So, at the Obama transition site the President-elect’s team is entertaining questions concerning the issues of the day. For its pains, Team Obama is being confronted with a whole host of questions concerning the Blagojevich scandal and matters associated with it.

So, what happense in response? Obama supporters flag and remove all of the questions.

The author goes on to discuss whether the site is actually a public forum and what could justify the apparent censorship. An interesting question in light of all the ‘net scrubbing going on.

7) In a piece at The Stump, Obama’s relationship with IL state senate president Emil Jones is lightly explored. While Obama has been preaching “post-racial” politics, he has actually been quite adept at practicing old-fashioned racial plays. Anyone watching the race-baiting during the campaign probably wondered how Obama could justify the one while claiming the other. Well, here is an interesting bit from the article.

For his part, Obama’s relationship with Jones seems to have genuinely softened his thinking on machine politics, at least so far as it concerned delivering for people who would otherwise go without. Late in Obama’s state senate career, Jones held an education bill hostage until it provided additional funding for a mostly black high school on Chicago’s south side. It was the kind of inside manuever goo-goos typically denounce as a racial shakedown, and you can imagine the young Obama doing the same. Instead, Obama praised Jones, telling The Chicago Tribune that “if you talk to him, you see it’s grounded in the sense that, for years, a predominantly African-American institution was short-changed by the state. … He’s playing the insider game to make sure money is going to these projects.”

So, racial politics isn’t OK, except when it is. We saw the practical application of this during Obama’s run for president.

8 ) Also on the WSJ is an interesting piece on that marathon phone call about Obama’s now vacant US Senate seat.

Among the hundreds of hours of conversations involving Illinois Gov.
Rod Blagojevich secretly recorded by the FBI since Oct. 22, one phone
call is drawing particular scrutiny among politicos, journalists and
others in Washington. It was a marathon conference call on Monday,
Nov. 10.

The call lasted about two hours. On the phone were Mr. Blagojevich,
his wife, his general counsel, an unnamed adviser, and John Harris,
the governor’s chief of staff and his co-defendant in this week’s case.

But what’s drawing the most interest is who was on the line from
Washington, and the sequence of political events that followed that
same night and in the ensuing days regarding Barack Obama’s close
friend and adviser, Valerie Jarrett.
—————————
Mr. Obama’s people are not commenting on details about the case. But
the reason that question is on so many minds today is because of what
happened that very same Monday night.

At 7:56 p.m. Eastern Time, CNN reported that “two Democratic sources
close to President-elect Barack Obama tell CNN that top adviser
Valerie Jarrett will not be appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate.”

That was an abrupt turnaround. While we can’t vouch for CNN’s
reportage, the network had reported that same weekend that Ms. Jarrett
was Mr. Obama’s top choice. (Ms. Jarrett herself confirmed that she
was out of contention two days after it was reported by CNN, and two
days after the marathon conference call. She told the PBS show The
Newshour with Jim Lehrer, “Well, you know what? I`m actually not
interested in the Senate position.”)

At a bare minimum, the timing of Team Obama’s decision to remove Ms.
Jarrett’s name from contention, or at least to remove her name from
the public speculation about the post, seems extraordinarily lucky. It
came on the very same day the FBI secretly recorded Mr. Blagojevich
telling a huge conference call loaded with politicos, in Illinois and
Washington, that he wasn’t about to give the Senate spot away for nothing.

It’s also the same recorded conversation in which Mr. Blagojevich uses
an obscenity to refer to Mr. Obama, before the governor makes clear he
won’t give the president-elect the seat for free. “F— him. For
nothing? F— him.”

Did the Obama team know? Oh, come on! They certainly did. Did someone other than Blagojevich act badly? I don’t know. But, as the church lady used to say: “How conveeeeenniiiiieeeent.”