home

Will Obama Get the Clinton/Gore Treatment?

Jamison Foser writes:

To anyone who lived through the media feeding frenzy of the 1990s, during which the nation's leading news organizations spent the better part of a decade destroying their own credibility by relentlessly hyping a series of non-scandals, the past few days, in which the media have tried to shoehorn Barack Obama into the Rod Blagojevich scandal, have been sickeningly familiar.

I lived through the feeding frenzy against Hillary Clinton in the Dem primary (that one was cheered in certain Left circles), the frenzy against Al Gore in the 2000 election, through the Media feeding frenzies of the Iraq Debacle, and the various and sundry other Media feeding frenzies of the last 8 years. In my view, Obama has gotten nothing compared to that over Blagojevich. Indeed, the attempts to start the frenzy have been nonstarters for the most part.

Don't get me wrong - I admire the vigilance of Foser, Media Matters and others on the Left against the Media. We must always stand vigilant. But that vigilance was sorely lacking in the last year when the subject of the attacks was Hillary Clinton. The good news is that, by and large, President-Elect Obama remains a Media Darling and will be difficult to touch in the next year. More worrisome to me frankly is the likelihood that legitimate progressive criticism of Obama will be shouted down. We must be vigilant against that as well.

Speaking for me only

< Brian Nichols to Get Life in Atlanta Courthouse Shootings | GA. Prosecutor Wants Feds To Bring Death Case Against Nichols >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking for me only (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    I always felt there were two things that really hurt Bill and Hillary with the press.  Bill was a smart "bubba";  too many in the media saw him as "white trash".  Even our so called liberal media gets caught up in class wars.  They did it to Jesse Jackson too.  Somehow Bill and Jessie did not have the creds the media needs.  Maybe it was their accents, language patterns.  

    Maybe it was that Bill's alcoholic abusive stepfather bothered them despite Bill overcoming his rough beginning.  I still remember reading/hearing/seeing the Broder types looking their noses down at Bill.  He didn't belong there.

    Hillary was never going to be a media darling.  She is a woman my age who "should act a certain way"...i.e. showing deference to men and their decision making and their intelligence.  The fact that Hillary is a serious, intelligent peer of many of those media types (Broder, Matthews, Russert) hurt her.  And younger men seem to not get Hillary at all.  I don't know why.  Heck I don't know why when it happens to me.  You feel it, you knows it's there, and yet you don't know why. There's a resentment.  Many women feel it or have felt it.  Many of us simply don't know how to deal with it, because it is usually denied.....and put on us as being, too sensitive, too this, too that.

    Obama was smart enough to learn looking at what happened to others who were not from the "blue blood families" of politics.  He has it all; the looks, the education, the right speech patterns.
    I am glad.  But what happened with the media and the Clintons still angers me...

    I'm with you (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by BernieO on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 07:44:51 AM EST
    It drives me crazy to hear Republicans blame media bias on their supposed liberal beliefs. These clowns hated the Clintons - and Gore, by association. And let's not forget they thought Bush was a really cool guy and were largely responsible for him getting elected.
    The media, not the far right, should bear the bulk of the blame for the Clinton "scandals". It was the media, particularly the NY Times and Washington Post, that kept flogging the bogus Whitewater mess even after TWO Republican-led investigations had cleared the Clintons of any wrongdoing. In fact they were victims in the Whitewater deal.(Robert Fiske and Jay Stephens of the Resolution Trust Corp. investigated.) The media buried these inconvenient facts and kept trashing Clinton until he caved and appointed and independent counsel. They did little to counter the charges made by many on the right, including journalists like Bob Novak, that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered!
    The only reason that makes any sense is that journalists think they are still in high school and are picking prom king. The fact that Clinton was seen as a hick from Arkansas, but was clearly smarter than they were just galled them. They were also dismissive of Jimmie Carter for his Southern roots, frequently referring to him as a peanut farmer. And a lot of the animosity to Palin was rooted in their disdain for people from states like Alaska. Being female just made it worse. Argue all you want about her lack of experience, but compared to George Bush whom they loved in 2000, she was a much more experienced, successful governor. And she hadn't run two businesses into the ditch or spent most of her life drunk.
    It is time for Dems to wise up to this adolescent media mentality and realize that these people are not our friends.  Their ego driven immaturity is a big threat to our democracy. Just read dailyhowler.com to get a taste.

    Parent
    But how do we stop them? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    The so called liberal outlet, MSNBC, STILL cannot let go of its CDS.  And progressives still buy it.
    Ditto with Huffpo.  Nuprogressives adore this horrid women who wordshipped Reagan and spent the 90s trashing democrats, most especially the Clintons.  Now she is the progressive voice on so many television shows.  The woman is a freaking hypocrite and she is given creds by the progressive community.
    Ditto Matthews, and all the NBC boys who helped put W into office.  Now Matthews is hailed as some "anti war" icon by the left. HUH?  The man STILL adores Reagan and speaks about him as if he is speaking of a sainted hero.  He trashed Gore along with the Clintons and drooled over W AFTER the invasion of Iraq and he is still given creds by the left.

    I don't get it.  We have a plutocratic media, millionaire pundit class and still the left blogosphere is clueless; yet many of us who are not clueless feel powerless to do anything.

    Parent

    Obama-Blago (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    There are absolutely legitimate questions about who in the Obama camp knew about what Blago was up to and when, and whether they had any contacts with Fitzgerald's operation.

    Obama has issued a series of carefully worded denials that convey absolutely nothing (and people complained about parsing Bill Clinton's words?) leading up to some predictable mumbling about how they were going to have some sort of internal investigation to find out who knew what.  This is patent nonsense.

    Chicago Tribune has a well detailed story about Rahm Emanuel's contacts with Blago on the subject of the Senate seat, starting even before the election.  Does anybody imagine Obama needs to have an internal investigation to find out Rahm was talking to Blago? Ridiculous.

    Yes, it's certainly pretty much beyond question that the Obama camp was not even considering any "pay to play" crap with Blago, but how the contacts with Blago were handled, and specifically whether the Obama camp knew Fitz was investigating it before it became public, and if not, whether they tipped off Fitz when they understood what Blago was doing would tell us some reasonably important things about the Obama way of operating.  I'd really like to know that.

    I cannot, nor should anybody, forget that according to Obama, Rezko was "some guy I did 15 minutes of legal work for," Wright was "just the pastor of the church I attended," Ayers was "just some guy in the neighborhood."  His very bad, IMHO, instinct is to deny and minimize to the point of outright deception his associations with unsavory characters and hope the story goes away or moves on without him.

    In other words, however noble his intentions, he has a lousy record on coming clean on this kind of thing, so there's very good reason not to accept his minimizing of this one.

    Blago's shenanigans aren't the most important thing in the world to non-Illinoisians, but how the Obama camp dealt with them IS important in getting a handle on his operating style.

    In trying to shout down the (very minimal, IMHO) media/pundit arm-waving about Obama's association with corrupt Chicago/Springfield politics, Foser and Somerby et al are also refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of some very real questions that need to be asked and answered.  It's a really, really bad mindset to go into the next four years with.

    Obama is the media darling of the corporate press (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    BTD, kudos for maintaining your critical stance against the STFU herd mentality. You have been exemplary and courageous in the face of vitriolic opposition. So, credit where credit is due. However, I have yet to see you suggest that there may be an unsavory aspect to Obama's status as media darling.

    How can you not see the downside? You know mainstream media is the antithesis of a free press. They are NOT dedicated to serving the public interest by providing checks and balances on rampant misconduct in government and big business. Instead, the modern press is a corporate entity that wholeheartedly serves and protects our government's rapacious pursuit of global corporate interests. That is their primary, if not sole, function.

    An honest public servant would excoriate this ungodly alliance.

    So, why did the media turn its fawning, self-serving gaze toward Obama in this election year? Imo, Obama became the media's new darling because they correctly assessed him as the candidate who was most willing to go along to get along. They pretty much media elected him when they selected him; and they will get their quid pro quo. Forget about "change"; we can expect precious little more than business as usual (literally).

    Parent

    He is the most flexible (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    So they flocked to him.  Yep.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:29:25 AM EST
    and there were also legitimate question about the Clinton's and Whitewater (far more legitimate than there are here) but they spun out of control and that's what people are worrying happening about here.

    Parent
    I'd like to see them try (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by blogtopus on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    A lot of so-called journalists, editors and others who thrive on this kind of thing will be under a LOT of pressure from folks like MoveOn, Kos, the Daily Show, and the part of the press who legitimately like Obama and think he's doing well for us. It will probably bite them in their *sses.

    Agree on the other side of the coin, too: Abject worship is not an option.

    Too bad people can't seem to exist in a non-binary world these days.

    Chicago project, here we come. . . (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 01:12:13 PM EST


    My impression? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by zyx on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    is that most of the media's attempts to tie Obama to Blago are anemic. I have already been thinking, if this was a Clinton, it would be an entirely different media frenzy, boy howdy.

    Yeah, the really rightie nutcases will howl, but I think the others will only give it a drive-by.

    I guess we'll see. But my impression is that if it were Bubba or Hillary, no matter how untainted, we'd never hear the end of it. Never. And yes, some people will always mention it about Obama, but--fewer and nuttier people.

    Guess it comes down to a matter of degree, in the end.

    A matter of degree...and evidence. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:41:59 PM EST
    I'm waiting for evidence...unlike Jason Robards' character in "A Thousand Clowns," whose sister communicated with him "mostly by rumor."

    Parent
    Sue, you are damn well right... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    But, thankfully, you are not nearly as "Sweet" as your moniker suggests.

    The power of the press is terrifying. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Salo on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    They broke Hillary into bits.  They could easily do the same to Obama. If Obama moves from orthodoxy they will tear his throat out.

    No, they didn't (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    They tried, and they're still trying and will always try, but they can't.  She's still standing and about to become secretary of state.  Not what I'd call "broken to bits."

    They broke Gore to bits, then Howard Dean, then John Kerry.  But they couldn't and can't break either Hillary or Bill Clinton.

    If they turn on Obama-- which I doubt they will do in any real way anytime soon-- the question will be whether he has the unbreakability of Hillary or is made of stuff more like Gore/Dean/Kerry.

    Parent

    They broke her (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    bid for the Presidency. That's what she had wanted and worked for - and deserved more than Obama.

    She is S of S I suppose because she lent whatever prestige she had left to the Obama campaign. Much of his cabinet reads like a bunch of payoffs to people who supported him in his campaign.

    She was way ahead in the polls.
    Then in what is laughingly called the debates, what are laughingly called the moderators began to give lots of time to Obama. They excluded everybody but Obama and Clinton. Then they allowed all of the assembled bodies to savage Clinton (thanks, Timmie). That left Obama.

    She is still standing, but not where she wanted to be standing.

    Parent

    Well, I can't disagree with that (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    But she herself is not "broken to bits," just her hope of the presidency.

    Parent
    Hillary is still standing tall (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by S on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    frankly, with has come out the big winner...She is in a significant position at a historically significant time in our country's crossroads...

    She is in a position to focus like a 'lazer beam', to use Bill's words, and be the person to get big things accomplished...

    Obama, on the other hand, as SNL hinted, is walking into the worst of all conditions...probably due to get much worse by the sounds of all the fraud that is being discovered every day with respected investors being charged  and more 'wealth' evaporates...

    ...and now the shadow of Chicago may even catch up with him...the one the MSM avoided vetting at all costs during the primary...in fact, essentially all they reported is that he was a 'community organizer' - Fitz may have thrown the hidden floodlights on to the underbelly of the corrupt cesspool of hardball Chicago politics and frankly none of us really know the inside story to Obama's incredibly fast rise and unprecendeted amounts of money he raised...he broke all records...no questions asked

    Parent

    We all know about the money: (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 06:10:27 PM EST
    $750,000,000 Dollars was raised in small donations from moms and pops from their meager savings.

    Parent
    She lacked (none / 0) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:32:40 AM EST
    The talent of Obama, she was an incredibly accomplished Technocrat like Gore or Kerry (though less accomplished than either) and like them lacked what made both her husband and Obama president- charisma and polished eloquence.

    Parent
    It is not likely (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    that Obama will move from orthodoxy.


    Parent
    moveon.talkleft.com (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nycwahoodem on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    seriously, it really is time to move on and stop having restrained "protection" of obama because some in the media and politics said mean things about hillary.

    I'm a NYC dem. I voted for her proudly both times, and in the primary. I think she rocks. But, it was a primary, one which she and her team ran very poorly, and yes some things were too much, but it's over.

    we don't need to keep rehashing the protection of hillary talkleft took on as a mantle back then. our job is to use the current administration to improve this country, not make sure Hillary has a legacy. that's her job.

    Our job is also to keep the record straight. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    Some things bear repeating...others need to be countered...like this one:

       "But, it was a primary, one which she and her team ran very poorly... "  That's a judgment call, of course, but not one I'd agree with...unless you think there is such a thing as a problem-free, error-free campaign.  If so, I've never seen one.  This one essentially ended in a tie and one was chosen and one was not...hardly a "very poor" result.

    The "very poor" campaigns were run by the other 5, 6, 7 candidates in the primary contest, none of whom even came close.

    Just to keep things in perspective...

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by miguelito on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    that its the Obama apologists on this board that need to "move on" from their knee-jerk defense of anything related to Obama and their persistent denials of what happened during the primary.  You need to move on from the fact that Hillary got more votes, won every debate and had delegates stolen from her.  "Ran very poorly" indeed.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:36:12 AM EST
    Ad you and yours need to move on from the fact that Hillary at her very best only came up to Obama's average in speechmaking, that her campaign team didn't know how to win, and that Obama appealed to a segment of the electorate- the young, the politically engaged and those who never supported the Invasion of Irag- that the Hillary wing viewed with bemusement at best and more often with something approaching contempt.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 12:33:19 AM EST
    What you mean "we?" (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 06:06:17 PM EST
    Is anyone forcing you to read?

    Parent
    The media darling... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    As Gates begins to come out, and the barracks are being built in Afghanistan for 20,000, I do not take any pleasure that Obama is a media darling. Bush was a media darling. He still is. Consider the crimes he has committed and the total lack of interest on the part of anyone to hold him to account.

    The press tends to fawn. They want access. They are thinking of their careers. If they play ball they can make lots of money. They could even wind up like David Gregory with a show of their own.

    I want a savage press - a press that identifies with the people not the rich and powerful.
    The trouble is that they are only investigative when the issue is a non-issue. When it comes to war and peace, or poverty, they are nowhere to be seen. They hide and wave the flag with the rest.

    "I want a savage press" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 07:22:35 PM EST
    And I want a 12 inch #%*%@ that jumps when I snap my fingers and sings The Battle Hymn of the Republic on command.

    I'm not going to get my wish....and neither are you.

    Once upon a time, news divisions of corporate entities were not part of their "profit centers," and enjoyed considerably more freedom than they do today. Somewhere along the line the whizz kids of Wall St. said, "What the (bleep) is this? A special calling? Not a profit center? Bulls#@t! They don't need to know the news; they need entertainment....packaged as news."

    I believe it was during the Reagan Administration that the term, "The Dumming Down of America" gained warp speed. You may not be surprised that a large majority of college students can't find Iraq on a map; but fully one third can't find The United States of America either.

    Fix the schools, and everything else will begin to recover.

    Funny how no major "Leader," including Obama, wants to touch that baby. Why, when our entire Government is a "Pay to Play" Club, would they want intelligent voters?  


    Parent

    you hit nail on head (none / 0) (#43)
    by S on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM EST
    NYShooter says:

    Funny how no major "Leader," including Obama, wants to touch that baby. Why, when our entire Government is a "Pay to Play" Club, would they want intelligent voters?
    *********

    ...you have hit the nail smack on the head...this is the problem...our whole system is corrupt...or 'barely legal'...and hide any appearances that look tawdry...

    ...to put it bluntly, it seems every pimple is beginning to burst...and what is coming out is not pretty...our whole government is beginning to feel like one big ponzi scheme with elected officials and insiders protecting the appearances...

    how many more Madoffs? calling the SEC?  after Enron...and we end up in the mess we are in...no one watching the store...blatant thievery and convoluded schemes to create illusions of wealth...

    ...one big illusion bursting right in front of our own eyes...and everyone is stunned...huh?

    who has been watching the people in charge?  who was it who said "who is watching the watchers?'

    Parent

    Beg to Differ... (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MSS on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 11:32:41 PM EST
    Dear Hillary fan,

    I understand and share your outrage at the media treatment of Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

    But I do not agree that she was treated worse than Obama.

    Both Hillary and Obama suffered fawning reports and disturbing stories, at the hands of many in the media and in the blogsphere. This site, for one, was no fan of Obama.

    Please don't buy the current MSM meme suggesting that Obama was treated better than McCain and Hillary. For the most part, McCain was treated as a paragon of virtue, until he selected Sarah Palin and became quite unhinged in the comportment of his campaign; they could not fail to notice.

    Obama has been quick to respond to media assaults, and has been smart and mostly effective in his responses. His speech on Rev. Wright was thoughtful, was accepted by some as a groundbreaking talk about race, and rejected by the morons who continue to try to tie Obama to Gov. Blag in Illinois, and who continue to try to tie Hillary to Whitewater.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by mugshot on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 03:01:51 AM EST
    lol this post is rich.

    Parent
    I just shake my head (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 05:44:28 AM EST
    and keep on walking.

    And Obama's groundbreaking speech on race has yet to yield any results.   I'd love for somebody, anybody to write the groundbreaking speech on gender that reaches the audience that it needs to.  The Favreau responses said it all "We don't see any problem.  No response is necessary.".  That is the problem.   How do you convince people who see no problem that there is a problem?

    If someone solves that conundrum, let me know.  At least MLK,Jr. could work with "There is a problem, but it doesn't affect me.".  If you can get people to admit there is a problem, then you just need to convince them it does indeed affect them.

    And the more I talk about this, the more I am reminded of the debate about Climate Change/Crisis and Global Warming.  
    Step 1: Make it clear that there is a problem.
    Step 2: Make it clear that the problem affects everybody.
    Step 3: Make it clear that it is everybody's responsibility to solve the problem.

    WRT gender, we are still, still, still struggling with Step 1.

    Parent

    So then its kind of like (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:32 AM EST
    Hillary's speech in China on Human rights?

    Parent
    Did it reach the audience (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    it need to in order to make a real change?

    I'm not knocking Hillary's speech, but MLK,Jr and like minded folks had to do a lot of speechifying and protesting and letter writing and so on to reach the audience they needed to.

    There are Landmark Speeches, but a single landmark speech by itself is not enough.  That's why Obama's speech on Race isn't enough by itself.  History will judge whether Obama's speech was just a political gesture to defuse a potential problem or part of something bigger.

    Right now we have a media that is complicit in gender bias.  Women who are abused, assaulted or murdered aren't part of a larger problem, they are just juicy headlines.  No one seems to notice that the headlines keep repeating themselves or that the men who kill women often have a history of violent, abusive behavior towards women.  They never ask the obvious question: Could this have been prevented?

    When a seriously mentally ill person goes on a rampage and they'll ask "Could this have been prevented?" (usually by locking up the perpetrator) but when a woman dies they don't ask that question.

    Parent

    Bad Analogy IMO (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    Not that I am in anyway downplaying the murder or abuse of women.

    When a seriously mentally ill person goes on a rampage and they'll ask "Could this have been prevented?" (usually by locking up the perpetrator) but when a woman dies they don't ask that question.

    Usually a mentally ill person goes on a rampage it is a surprise, and people ask the question because after the fact it sometimes looks like there were tea leaves to read that could have possibly predicted the rampage.

    When there is a history of abuse whatever combination of gender involved, the question is not asked because the answer is obviously yes or at least there would have been a good chance of preventing the murder/abuse. IMO that is why no one wants to ask the question.


    Parent

    True. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    I suppose we should ask why no one asks the question.  I think it comes down to random violence having the potential to strike any of us.  (Even though the chances are very, very small.  Most victims of violence are F&F - friends and family.)

    When it comes to domestic violence, we feel safer - there was no chance that we could be the victim of that particular perpetrator.  (Even though there is a good chance that we know someone who is a victim of DV.)

    Safety and security is about perception, not reality.  The trick is to get people to perceive things - back to Step 1 - Convincing people there is a problem.

    Parent

    A long column but worthwhile (none / 0) (#2)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    and it would have been even longer (!) if he'd mentioned Gore's campaign or the primary.

    His frame is what the press did (and is beginning to do) to Democratic presidents and his examples are stunning, including the current ones.

    The press is being warned off and we are being warned to pay attention.

    Obama might be personally... (none / 0) (#4)
    by EL seattle on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    ... corruption free.  But if his career has benefitted from the corruption of others, he might have to be pro-active and very public about making sure that no one who's helped him in the past receives any benefit from his election.

    For instance, remember the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics scandal?  Chicago wants to hold the Olympics soon.  Are there any people who were significant Obama supports also supporting the Chicago Olympic bid?  If so, they'd better be pretty freaking totally clean, otherwise their muck will rub off on both Obama and the Chicago Olympics bid.  If SLC wasn't able to hide corruption problems, it might be harder for Chicago, especially if the people involved have just one degree of separation from Obama.

    Obama is not an innocent. (4.14 / 7) (#16)
    by robert72 on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST
    There is the land deal where Rezko bought Obama's lawn for $600,000. Not an empty lot next door, but his lawn. Then there are Michelle's board jobs - the hospital one where she got a $200,000 raise when her husband became senator - and other boards she sat on.
    Who else would get away with this?

    Parent
    Facts are always helpful. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JThomas on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM EST
    Rezkos wife bought the adjacent lot to Obama's and later sold it for a very nice profit. She made a smart investment..you got a problem with that?

    Michelle Obama's salary was commiserate with her position as a VP and far less than they could get a Princeton/Harvard Law experienced person anywhere else.

    We have a democratic president...time to support him. Some on here are becoming what they claim the far right were to the Clintons in the 90's..obsessed with taking down the President-elect. At least they never claimed to be democrats as they tried to destroy President Clinton. High school is over. We have an economy on the brink of disaster and our democratic president elect has not taken office and he is getting hammered on here. This is sad.

    Parent

    "Boneheaded" move, (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    as the President-elect stated.

    Parent
    Yep, He Stood Up About It (none / 0) (#44)
    by daring grace on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    Which is another reason I feel comfortable moving on from it as any kind of relevant issue now.

    Parent
    Yes, he did--after the indictment. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    Sure. (none / 0) (#51)
    by robert72 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    What a laugh!
    The famous 'empty lot' is still Obama's lawn, no matter who owns it. He is having the lawn cut.
    Michelle's hospital got a million dollar earmark after she got a 200K raise.
    Crooked.

    Parent
    yes, and it already started, (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 08:51:59 AM EST
    during the primaries.

    Will Obama Get the Clinton/Gore Treatment?

    witness many a maureen dowd (the doyenne of the (supposedly liberal) nyt's op/ed pages) column during said primaries: obambi, barry, etc.

    granted, ms. dowd is a special case, being clearly, certifiably insane (she hears "voices"), but she's still employed by the nyt's, the country's ostensible "paper of record".

    bear in mind, the primary source of the attacks against the clintons/gore/kerry were not the "conservative" publications/columnists, but the purportedly liberal/progressive ones. the republicans and such as the wsj merely picked them up and ran with them.

    heck, they've been doing it with the blogo situation: in spite of fitz's pointed statements to the effect that obama has nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with the actions gov. b stands accused of, supposedly "liberal" columnists like eugene robinson insist that obama "explain" himself.

    BTD, you know better than to even ask such a silly  and self-evident question.

    I dont think Obama was a media darling (none / 0) (#35)
    by ai002h on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    as much as HRC and Gore were unfair targets. Obama had his fair share of scrutiny. Lets not kid ourselves, among the 2 biggest stories this election were Wright and bittergate, 2 stories that arguably ran too long.

    Also people keep on forgetting that there's this channel called Fox news, which was absolutely brutal towards Obama. Far from a media darling. Now the real problem is how they treated HRC and Gore in 2000, that was ridiculous.

    Nope (none / 0) (#42)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:35:06 AM EST
    fitz's pointed statements to the effect that obama has nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with the actions gov. b stands accused of,

    Fitz never made such "pointed statements." The ONLY thing he said was that the current, specific instances of this investigation did not involve Obama. "This" investigation of Blago, IOW. We still don't know what Obama's involvement was or who the "presidential adviser" who served as the go-between is. Fitz's wording was very careful and lawyerly. I'm not saying that there is anything there tying Obama to what was going on in Chicago, but to spin Fitz's words as complete 100% exoneration of Obama is to, well, spin.

    'Careful and Lawyerly' (none / 0) (#45)
    by daring grace on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    True enough.

    But the presumption of innocence is not something that needs to be so precisely parsed which is why most people, looking at the available information so far, would decide Obama has nothing to hide or worry about here.

    Most people except the most rabid of ODS zealots like the RNC who even John McCain is ridiculing.

    Parent

    i believe, (none / 0) (#50)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    that would be, well, um, nothing, zip, nada, zilch.

    Fitz never made such "pointed statements." The ONLY thing he said was that the current, specific instances of this investigation did not involve Obama.

    unless "did not involve" means something else in your version of reality.

    Parent