|
Fabricating A ‘First Obama Scandal’
Writes the NYT on its front page:
The Obama team is dealing with its first scandal in an era when media scrutiny and partisan attacks can escalate any flap into a serious political problem.
"Its first scandal," according to the NYT, is that the Obama campaign and transition had hardly any contact with the corrupt governor of Illinois with regards to his selection of a new Senator.
With a new administration to build and a financial crisis worsening by the day, Mr. Obama and his advisers had bigger issues on their plate. Moreover, they wanted to keep their distance from Mr. Blagojevich, who was already known to be under federal investigation into possible corruption.
So the Obama team was not involved at all. But then the NYT goes on to quote two side figures from the Clinton aera:
“This is a huge distraction at the worst possible moment,” said Lanny J. 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.”
The involvement of two Clinton figures pushing the story is ominous.
Yesterday the NYT had similar piece. It first described how Obama pushed, successfully, for an ethics law in Illinois which eventually was helpful to indict Governor Blagojevich. Then it went on:
Beyond the irony of its outcome, Mr. Obama’s unusual decision to inject himself into a statewide issue during the height of his presidential campaign was a reminder that despite his historic ascendancy to the White House, he has never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics.
Josh Marshall's summerized that NYT take:
By lobbying for ethics reform, Obama showed he could not escape the murky world of corrupt Chicago pols.
This is a transparent campaign to fabricate a scandal around Obama where none is.It seems to me the NYT is trying to instigate a new Whitewater witch hunt.
That is certainly a good distraction from the currently ongoing gang robbery of taxpayer money camouflaged as bailouts.
In next weekend's NYT edition: "Obama's non-involvement in child porn distribution ruins his education policy agenda."
never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics
Hoo, hoo! “Murky” is one of those small stinky words, like a silent fart, that by saying nothing very specific seems to imply very, very much. Do they mean corrupt? Do they mean to say that politicians (all of them, including Obama) are influenced by money (over half a billion from corporations in Obama’s pres. run), and that is why the rich make possible their running for elective office by funding their campaigns in exchange for having their advisors appointed and their policies pursued? Well, they can’t say that because it is literally true, and to say it would be to give the whole game away. The charade must be maintained at all costs. So, the word “murky” implies small-town corrupt — some local Polish meat-packer providing money under the table in exchange for using cadaverous meat in their sausage, or some such local Chicago matter. Big corporations aren’t corrupt. They actually run things: The Supreme Court was VERY explicit that money equals free speech, and money is generously provided for think-tanks to keep those temporarily out of office (it was the very dems Obama is now hiring, now it’s the repubs) in highly paid sinecures complete with vanity book publishers; and money is also provided every two years to support the media, an army of highly paid mercenary consultants, and keep people from having the time to form actual citizen movements. Well, that can’t be reported, the charade must be maintained by deflection or projection. Nothing “murky” about any of that; it’s clear as day for anyone willing to see, and accept.
Even better is the word “insular.” Insular is meant to imply inbred, which Chicago politics certainly is, and a tendency to follow what might be generously called “their own interpretation” of the rule of law — kind of like the Supreme Court’s “one off” (cannot ever be used again as a precedent) ruling in Bush v. Gore, perhaps the very definition of just how insular our “democracy” has become. Insular might be the recent elections in Kenya or Zimbabwe, where, due to American-led pressure, the one who lost was catapulted into a power-sharing agreement with the one who won — something the Supreme Court, not being insular, would never have done in Bush v. Gore.
This is the New York Times writing the word “insular.” Perhaps they mean that in Chicago they elect people from Chicago — so very heartland and insular — unlike New York, where they have no compunction whatsoever about electing Senators from Chicago! or Massachusetts. No, those doughty New Yorkers are not insular at all; they think globally.
In any event, this is the reason why top reporters at the New York Times are paid well in excess of 100K/yr. They have the ability, by saying nothing, to imply everything; by using a few measly words, always carefully vetted by staff legal counsel, to sway the opinions of millions around the globe. YES THEY DO— and don’t think that they don’t use this power, or are in any way shy about it.
So the real question to ask is, (and it should have been obvious to all but the most starry-eyed here) is why didn’t they use this power in the past election. They criticized Obama just enough so that one couldn’t level a charge they they gave him a free ride, but not a hair more. Yes, I know people here spent their own time and money on “get out the vote” efforts for Obama’s campaign, and they would like to think that their work made a difference. But it is patently obvious to anyone who has followed American politics over the past 10-12 years that the press has the power, by pushing some meaningless scandal relentlessly, by planting a seed of doubt, by publishing baseless charges and giving them credence (as the “swiftboating” of Kerry), by innuendo, by manipulating sound levels (the Dean “scream”), by catching you farting or picking your nose or burping or scratching your crotch (or anything every human does), by innuendo again, by a million tactics, some too subtle for you to consciously notice (manipulating skin tone in photoshop to make one candidate look healthy and the other appear sick), to sway the minds of millions, and then their votes.
And the corporations, by controlling advertising revenues, have the power to control the press.
So the real question is, why didn’t they do that to Obama this past selection — why didn’t they “swift-boat” him? It would have been effortless — as you will see over the next four years if Obama does not do the power elites’ bidding.
Is it just possible that Obama was the corporation’s preferred choice? And that that is why he was provided with funds “beyond the dreams of avarice” for his election, as well as with coverage which couln’t have been bought at any price.
And is it possible, just possible, that by the miracle of marketing — of making something look like what it’s not (which Obama admitted his campaign was intentionally doing: allowing people to see what they want in him)– that people who have spent the last five years grousing about the power of corporations were “hoodwinked” into doing the corporations bidding?
Nah, too nefarious. It simply couldn’t be true! Besides, they “didn’t have a choice.”
In any event, Obama is now choosing second and third tier political appointments. The first tier couldn’t have been done better by Bush, McCain, or Kissinger himself. Perhaps Obama feels some pressure to assuage his liberal base at this point, and this is just a small shot across the bow, “Hey buddy! Remember who’s boss around here. We made you from nothing in four short years, and we can break you even faster.”
Don’t believe it could happen in a “Democracy?”
Well, the answer to that, if one were even prepared to face the frightening truth, is, of course, both “murky” and “insular.”
Posted by: Malooga | Dec 11 2008 16:36 utc | 6
|
