Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Chicago Tribune weighs in on the first day.

Sun-Times:

Did Barack Obama use indicted campaign fund-raiser Tony Rezko as a conduit to get jobs for people in Gov. Blagojevich’s administration? The question arises from a list of 39 people Rezko’s lawyers said in a court filing he urged Blagojevich to give state jobs. Among those on the list were two people who appear to have Obama links and a third who’s now an Obama presidential campaign staffer. … ..

Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesperson responds:

“We do not know how decisions were made to fill specific state positions, and we have no records of any individual recommendations we were asked to make or made,” says Obama spokesman Bill Burton “But we do know that Tony Rezko, among others, was helping to gather names for the positions coming open with a new administration, and, if it is established any names came through our office, we would have no reason to doubt it.”

Providing names to Rezko for jobs in Blagojevich’s administration wouldn’t
be out of the ordinary. The perception problem is that Rezko got indicted for
what U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald calls a “pay
to play on steroids.”

Obama has also gotten caught more than once saying
one thing in public to potential voters, while doing another
in private. The fact that Obama won’t answer questions fully is another
challenge for him, regardless of no proof whatsoever of any illegal wrongdoing
on his part. What’s the problem with being forthcoming? Truth is if Obama would have answered all the questions a long time ago this would be a non-issue. I don’t understand his reticence if there’s nothing there.

But let’s face it. When your home town paper is printing its phone number in a
column, as the
Sun-Times did yesterday, chiding Obama to call them, it’s not exactly good
PR for the candidate touting hope and a “different kind of politics.” If Obama has nothing to hide why is he ducking reporters? I hate to use a Chris Matthews line, but it’s apt: If you’ve got a problem, hang a lantern on it.

If this story was about Hillary Clinton it would get non-stop play
throughout the media, especially on the big Obama blogs. No doubt Keith Olbermann
would lead with it nightly. “Countdown” motto these days: If the
Clinton campaign is seen to be bleeding, it’s leading. A cable standard
Edward R. Murrow would not appreciate, particularly because Olbermann rarely
if ever has pro Clinton guests on to balance the pro Obama theme that’s taken
over every broadcast. That’s the antithesis of Murrow’s journalism creed. Can’t you also just hear Eugene Robinson if this was Clinton tied so closely, after a 17 year relationship, instead of Obama, to Rezko, regardless of any missing illegality theme. The sanctimony would be overwhelming.

The way Obama is handling Rezko worries me. Not because I believe he’s done anything illegal. But because he’s keeping it alive when he hasn’t. It’s an amateur mistake Democrats cannot afford in the general. His further apprehension in not talking to reporters is also troublesome. It’s the easiest way to keep the story alive and sew doubts about Obama’s integrity. Like it or not, Rezko helped Obama rise in Chicago politics. Obama also did a real estate deal with his good friend when everyone else was walking away from Rezko, which comes with unanswered questions. Obama evidently believes saying it was a “boneheaded” mistake is enough. But until the press fills in all the answers it will dog him. If Obama’s our nominee it will dog Democrats too.

UPDATE: Sun-Times and I are on the same page::

“I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that we have been trying to hide the bone on this,” Obama told reporters prior to his exit. While I enjoyed the colorful turn of phrase, I have to admit that’s exactly what we suspect Obama of trying to do. From the start, he and his campaign have made it difficult for us. … .. A couple of weeks ago, the Obama campaign tried to solve this problem by sharing with Bloomberg News some e-mails between the couple and the campaign that seemed to back Obama’s story, but then they wouldn’t give the same information to anybody else, part of this annoying “hide the bone” strategy. The overarching questions are whether Rezko did Obama a favor and whether there was some financial benefit to the senator, and until we know all the details of the transaction — and of Rezko’s relationship with the senator — we can’t really say. … .. Just because Obama made it past the first level of inquiry doesn’t mean the questions will stop. If there’s a loose thread, somebody will pull on it. If there’s a sore spot, somebody will push on it. The process only intensifies as he gets closer to his goal. Did Rezko do Obama a favor, and was there some financial benefit to the senator?

No tags for this post.