"a huge distraction at the worst possible moment"

So says veteran Clinton troubleshooter Lanny Davis about Governor Blagojevich's Obama Senate Seat Deal.

(Hmm... Is "Seatgate" taken or would that be confused with a hard drive company?)

Obama said on Tuesday that he never spoke with the governor about the seat, and prosecutors said neither Obama nor his advisers have been implicated. At the same time, 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 Blagojevich's advisers.

Republicans have raised questions about Obama's refusal to say more and about his past ties with the main characters. Even if Obama remains untouched by the investigation, it shines a light on the corrupt politics of the state he emerged from and takes attention away from the agenda of change he would rather emphasize.

"This is a huge distraction at the worst possible moment," said Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel who did damage control for President Bill Clinton.

And it can grow if not handled properly. "It's like the whirlwind," said Chris Lehane, another veteran of the Clinton teams. "You get pulled into the vortex more and more."

I'm fascinated by vortices and whirlwinds, and I can't remember a time when president had to handle a scandal like this before he took office. Sure, Clinton had his bimbo eruptions, but can anyone imagine the outcry had corrupt Texas politicians been caught trying to sell George Bush's former office to the highest bidder in 2000?

Amazing.

However, I'm so swamped that Lanny Davis's characterization of the affair as "a huge distraction at the worst possible moment," might as well apply to me!

My thanks to M. Simon for keeping readers abreast of these developments.

Thinking out loud, if things were to get really bad in the near future (and I'm not saying they will), George Bush still has the power to issue pardons. (You know, for the good of country, and all...)

Plus, I seriously doubt that Bush would see this as "a huge distraction at the worst possible moment" as he's the lamest of lame ducks, and he has right up until January 20 to do whatever he wants.

Why, he could even clear any pardons with the incoming Attorney General Eric Holder, whose flexible pardon standards are a matter of public record.

Anyway, I'm getting hugely distracted from thinking out loud like this, but that's OK because huge distractions at the worst possible moments call for hugely distracting solutions!

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Politico has a list of questions for Barack Obama along the lines of, "What did he know and when did he know it?"

Glenn asks, "Will he hear any of these at his next press conference?" and links Ann Althouse, who focuses on Question 4:

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?"...

[...] More at the link. The key question is #4. It presumes he knew there was a sale going on. Does the criminal complaint not imply that he did? And if the answer to #4 is "no," what are we to think?

I don't know. I suppose we might think inappropriate historical thoughts about obstruction of justice, but again, that would be a huge distraction at the worst possible moment.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds keeps linking things I can't ignore, despite my hugely distracted state.

First, there's Michael Graham's characterization of the Blagojevich deal as Obama's Whitewater -- arising from a lifelong political realm of "open corruption, boundless greed and contempt for the law."

Additionally, Tim Blair documents that this is yet another in a series of "unwelcome" distractions.

Well, then, unwelcome to the club!

(Of open corruption, boundless greed and contempt for the law huge unwelcome distractions from change -- at the worst possible moment!)

MORE: Peter Wehner thinks Obama must be more forthcoming:

The best thing President-elect Obama can do is to be fully forthcoming. He needs to collect all the facts related to contacts anyone in his orbit had with Blagojevich and his aides -- and then he needs to reveal them as soon as its humanly possible. For example, what were the circumstances around which Valerie Jarrett's name came up as a possible Obama replacement, why did she take herself out of the running, and how did Blagojevich learn about it? Did the Illinois governor have lines of communication to Team Obama, as Blagojevich's wiretapped conversations seem to imply? Was anyone in Obama's circle contacted about a quid pro quo offer - and if so and they turned it down, thereby infuriating Blagojevich, were those conversations then reported to law enforcement authorities? (Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown pose seven excellent questions Obama should be able to answer.)

For a man like Obama, who ran and won on transparency, who said with him as President we would be entering an era when admitting mistakes is done without hesitation, and who made turning the page on the "old politics" and fixing "broken politics" the core of his campaign, to be fully forthcoming should be a fairly obvious and easy thing to do.

Noting that Obama built his career in the most politically corrupt place in America, Wehner expresses the hope that he will nonetheless live up to his reformist promises:
In this very early test, then, Obama can avoid the mistakes that so many politicians before him have committed -- succumbing to the temptation to reveal as little as possible, going into a protective shell, employing language that needs to be carefully parsed for clues (for example, shifting from "we" to "I" when indicating that no conversations with Blagojevich or his representatives took place), and all the rest.

I hope he does, for his sake and for the country's sake. We have enough challenges to face as it is; we don't need a president or his administration burdened or distracted by scandal.

Hmmm...

Perhaps they could start by not censoring questions.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all!

Comments appreciated -- agree or disagree, and I like the discussion over what to call this.

Years ago, I read Lanny Davis's book, Truth To Tell: Tell It Early, Tell It All, Tell It Yourself: Notes from My White House Education.

I think Barack Obama should read it and heed it.

(Interestingly, the advice offered in the Commentary piece I linked above is not that different from Lanny Davis's.)

posted by Eric on 12.11.08 at 01:39 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7783






Comments

Oof. It's a very bad sign if the pricks at Politico are beginning to savage Obama after blowing him all Fall.

dr kill   ·  December 11, 2008 07:47 PM

Turning a blind eye to hate (Wright) and evil (Ayers), Obama completes the trifecta and turns a blind eye to blatant corruption.

Roy Mustang   ·  December 11, 2008 08:51 PM

In my opinion, the best possible name is:

The Effing Mess

GaryC   ·  December 11, 2008 11:25 PM

Anything "-gate" is an attempt to link all political scandals to a Republican scandal. That practice should be stopped immediately. Michael Graham is correct. However, your idea suggests an evocative phrase:

"Seatwater".

I bet this affair is producing plenty of that in Chicago.

bgates   ·  December 11, 2008 11:36 PM

Given the results of Clinton saying he'd have "the most ethical administration" ever and Pelosi claiming she'd have the most ethical Congress ever and the subsequent results, I'd guess Obama's transparent government will be as dark as the inside of a cat.

JorgXMcKie   ·  December 12, 2008 12:02 AM

How about Blagwater?

or

Vichy? Oh wait. That has been taken.

Let's Make A Deal?

Money Machine? Machine Money?

Bribeathon?

Hair Today Jail Tomorrow?

What's It Worth To Ya?

M. Simon   ·  December 12, 2008 12:45 AM

My fear is that this is going to backfire and have Obama looking straight and honest, and that Republicans once again will give us reasonable conservatives a bad name by trying a little too hard to make a connection here. I think we should back off, especially since the guy was cursing out Obama for playing by the rules. I'm sure someone made contact with him, but it's pretty obvious there is no "there" there. Let's get Obama on the real stuff, like bad policy. This will look like a petty overreach.

D K   ·  December 12, 2008 12:46 AM

As a rule of thumb, if someone goes out of their way to tell you they are honest, they are dishonest. If they tell you they are straight forward, they are devious. If they say they aren't crooks, they are crooks. I call it the law of opposites. Obama has said he is transparent, yet his life and friendships remain remarkably shrouded. He claims to favor public service, yet did little for his constituents. What of Wright and Ayers? He was not honest about those relationships. At some point these character traits are going to become obvious to everyone and then what will Obama do?

chuck   ·  December 12, 2008 01:08 AM

During election season, I wondered frequently why the haigographic press didn't publish the stories as to how the 'O'ne was able to succeed in Illinois politics without falling victim to the corruption.

Now we know - he was hip-deep in it; they just didn't report it.

JAFAC   ·  December 12, 2008 01:27 AM

I've got a suggestion about a possible name for this political trainwreck:

Treason.

Quit letting the politicians get away with screwing over the American public by playing along with the Washington and New York chattering classes in coming up with the whatever-gate or whatever-water cutesy, putesy name and call these maggots for what they are - criminals selling out the people of this country for their own interests.

And I'm deeply sorry that Obama finds this a "distraction" but perhaps he shouldn't have found the nastiest bunch of political corruption in the entire country to launch his career out of. Lay down with corruption, come up with maggots.

Roark   ·  December 12, 2008 01:43 AM

Seatwater is nigh brilliant, Chuck.

Personally, I find it hilarious that Obama's administration is being licked by the flames of corruption even before he takes the oath of office. If we extrapolate at the rate of one scandal breaking every month and a half, that gives us thirty-six scandals to look forward to over the next four years, plus this one for a total of thirty-seven. One can only HOPE that this rate will CHANGE in Obama's favor, otherwise it will be a grueling four years.

Hucbald   ·  December 12, 2008 04:44 AM

Here's a thought, it has been hinted at that someone in the Obama Admin turned this over to the FBI (Rahm Emanual has been suggested) coul it be they "Obama Admin" were talking to Blago and someone in Justice tipped them off that he was being wiretapped so to make it look like they were clean they went to the FBI? Just a thought.

Oldcrow   ·  December 12, 2008 04:58 AM

US Attorney Fitzgerald acted precipitously using an arrest instead of the more expected indictment likely because he knew something was going down, fast and bad.
If Emannuel helped, be assured it wasn't for noble reasons. Emannuel's in the middle of almost everything going on with Obama now, just as he was for Blagojevich previously. Given that he's hiding- he was seen hanging with his kids in Chicago yesterday and wouldn't talk- there's grounds for more worry. Emannuel not talking is a very, very bad sign.
Keep in mind that the senate-seat thing is small potatoes in the Chicago Way, despite its gaudiness and headline-friendliness. There are serious things underneath that top line item, real crimes that go beyond just horsetrading.
It may not be a catastrophe if the incoming President is tied in knots and can't accomplish anything. It would, after all, lead to less government. But, should a real shoe drop, consider the possiblity of a Biden or Pelosi presidency.
My apologies for painting that picture.

WPZ   ·  December 12, 2008 09:28 AM

I vote for 'Seataquiddick'. No reason except it sounds silly.

David Gillies   ·  December 12, 2008 09:39 AM

Worst possible time? Nixon was stuck in the heart of the Watergate thing when the October War crisis broke out. Clinton bombed Iraq during his impeachment crisis. Someone in Reagan's administration was under indictment or under fire domestically during pretty much every moment of his presidency. If Obama and his people can't keep focus under pressure, then why the hell did they think they were worthy of running things?

This is why you nominate candidates with a record of performance under literal fire, if at all possible. The veterans-issues and national security credentials aside, it demonstrates the ability to perform under extreme pressure.

Mitch H.   ·  December 12, 2008 09:55 AM

Well, then, unwelcome to the club!

Nicely played, nicely played.

ThomasD   ·  December 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Call it Democratgate. Then all we have to do is tack on Roman Numerals to it to keep them all separate... Wait a minute, do Roman Numerals go past the thousands?

TomJW   ·  December 12, 2008 02:36 PM

I don't hold out much hope that Obama will immediately come clean with information about his, or his team's, contact with Blagojevich.

His MO throughout the campaign was centered around revealing as little information about himself than absolutely necessary ... why is there any reason to believe that will cease now.

I think Obama won because he's a mirror, or crystal ball ... people look at him, and talk to him, and no matter their political affiliation are convinced that he's on their side. There's a name for that ability, it's called sophistry. There are some who can see beyond the pretenses, like we skeptics who try to read between the lines ... and we worried (and still worry) about the Obama presidency. As Abraham Lincoln so famously said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". We are among those who can't be fooled all of the time.

Changing the subject IMNSHO, Obama's campaign was designed to position him for 2012, and he was probably as surprised as anyone that he won both the primary and the election.

Now he's proving that his statement about his unsuitability to be President, when he first entered the Senate, were more prescient than he realized.

AnAverageAmerican   ·  December 12, 2008 06:40 PM

There is nothing here.

Remember, Obama ran against the Chicago machine's chosen candidate in the 2004 Dem primary for the senate, and prevailed. He was not the chosen candidate. He owes very little to the local political machine.

Blago has been in Fitzgerald's sights for a long time, and everyone knows it. We have known that an indictment was eminent, if not exactly immediate, and we expect that many other local politicos will fall. I suspect that Daley will have his moment before long, though he is notoriously cagey.

But Obama will emerge relatively unscathed from this. His test will come when his badly conceived New Deal Redux policies meet with reality.

Laura Louzader   ·  December 12, 2008 09:56 PM

Day 1: Neither I not my staff had any contact with the Governor.

Day 2: I have asked my staff to investigate if there was any contact with the Governor.

Day 3: My staff is preparing a list of contacts that occurred with the Governor.

Thought experiement: if the White House had made these statements concerning contact between GWB and Governor Palin about replacing Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, do you think we might have seen this progression laid out on the front page of some major newspapers?

sherlock   ·  December 13, 2008 12:07 PM

"... Neither I NOR my staff..." duh.

sherlock   ·  December 13, 2008 12:10 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits