Obama silent on public option; Jarrett jeered

President Barack Obama’s new New York Times healthcare column has nary a word on the public option. Claims that he still backs one, made to Kossacks by WH special advisor Valarie Jarrett, didn’t get her booed, though they would if she showed up tomorrow; she did take heat over The One’s torture-abetting.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is also junking the public option. Sounds like the sellout is official and coordinated.

Next question, per the mind of GOP Sen. Jim DeMint: How much of a Waterloo will Obama ultimately suffer and how much will he spin it?

Emanuel pushing Jarrett by name is NOT ‘pro forma’ phone call

Obama camp leaks to friendly Stephanopoulos to plow ground for release of official report, while MSLBs continue to peddle the “nothing there” line

Nice to see that Mr. Angelic Funk, George Stephanopoulos, has joined the Obama PR staff.

• “Sources say” Obama chief-of-staff to be Rahm Emanuel only had one phone conversation with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich? Obama campaign sources I’m sure, who have no problem leaking info, while still using Patrick Fitzgerald’s “cone of silence”

Question No. 1 — Why are "sources" talking (I assume Mr. Angelic Funk's sources are inside the Obama camp), or rather, why are they leaking? Didn't Fitz say he wanted a "cone of silence" and didn't The One agree?

• Besides the "just one" phone call with Blago, how many times did Rahmbo talk with Blago chief of staff John Harris? That's answered — four, and none of them pro forma.

Question Set No. 2 — How much was Jarrett discussed? Other candidates?

Question Set No. 3 — What is the timeline for where the direct phone call fits in with the four to Harris? Was it before all of them, with Blago then saying to Rahm: "Harris speaks for me, carte blanche"?

Question No. 4 — How does this timeline relate to when Obama pulled Jarrett from consideration by appointing her to a White House position?

• Harris mentioned “appreciation” in exchange for tapping Jarrett, in one of the phone calls between Rahmbo and Harris. So, in response to Question Set. No. 2, we know Jarrett got more than “pro forma” discussion.

Question Set. No. 5 — How much was Jarrett discussed, at all, after the “appreciation” comment? Did Obama pull Jarrett out of the mix immediately, or were some negotiations going on? If Obama removed Jarrett from consideration immediately after that phone call, did Rahmbo still talk with Harris about other potential nominees? Was the “appreciation” discussed in any more specific detail?

Meanwhile, at Washington Monthly, Steve Benen, typical of MSLBs, continues his past Obama flackery by claiming the latest reporting says that any reporting on Obama connections with Blago is continues his just a dud.

If it’s a “dud,” Steve, why didn't Obama say so right away instead of giving us non-answer pseudo-answers?

This is obviously a friendly leak to a journalist perceived by the Obama camp to be in its pocket, as part of softening up the ground for Obama’s public statement, which will be released not Monday, but Tuesday or Wednesday, to promptly be buried under Christmas fuzzies feel-good news stories.

And, for all we know, the Patrick Fitzgerald who decided NOT to prosecute Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame case may want it that way too.

What Obama SHOULD have said on Jarrett and Blagosphere

Instead of letting authorized flak co-sign misstatements or having his staff and himself spin out a series of non-answers “answers” to the timeline of what did he know and when, and to whom anybody did or did not talk to afterward, here’s what President-elect Obama should (and could) have said about the timeline of events on both sides of the Nov. 10 conference call between Obama’s and Blagojevich’s staffs.

First, I’d like to talk about Valerie Jarrett and my former U.S. Senate seat.

Yes, it is true that Ms. Jarrett was one of four people I preferred to have replace me as representing Illinois in the United States Senate, and it’s true that Rahm Emanuel conveyed a list of those names to Gov. Blagojevich. Yes, when Gov. Blagojevich’s staff contacted representatives of my team Nov. 10, they soon sensed that something more than a normal quid pro quo of modern American politics was at stake, and immediately relayed this information to me.

Acting on their analysis of the conference call, I determined that both for her sake and for mine, I needed to remove Ms. Jarrett from the governor’s cross-hairs. Still wanting her to serve Illinois and our country in a capacity equal to her skills, I offered her a position in the White House.

Next, I’d like to talk about how this relates to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation.

It’s true that nobody from my staff, nor I myself, thought if reporting Gov. Blagojevich’s Nov. 10 call to Patrick Fitzgerald. There are several reasons for that.

First, what my staff heard Nov. 10 apparently did not strike them as rising to the level of an attempt at bribery. While it seemed enough outside the political norm for them to decide to let me know about it as soon as possible, it did not seem like a criminal action. Knowing nothing else, and having their information being passed on to me at second hand, I took no further action out of lack of knowledge.

I obviously did not know that Gov. Blagojevich had a whole list of potential Senate nominees and that he was apparently prepared to play each nominee — and his or her political supporters — against each other as part of his enterprise. I did not know that supporters of at least one candidate were, by this time, already apparently conducting fundraising operations on his behalf. Nor did I know that this had come to the attention of Mr. Fitzgerald and had already come under his investigative eye.

Had I known any part of this additional information, let alone all of it, I would have contacted his office immediately.

Unfortunately, we got exactly none of this.

I’ve said before that I’m confident Obama did nothing wrong, and 99.9 percent sure of that with Emanuel. But, Obama has indeed come off looking like Just.Another.Politician.™ in this episode.

Since he ultimately has nobody to blame for that but himself, no, it doesn’t set a good impression as he comes into the White House.

And, while MSLBs have excoriated the conservative blogosphere for fixating on something apparently minor like Obama’s refusal to initially give Tom Brokaw a straight answer about his smoking, if seen as part of a pattern, it should be of some concern.

Note: I’m basing this suggested speech for Obama on the premise that Fitz’s unplayed cards don’t offer any exculpation for why Obama didn’t actually make a speech like this.

Obama camp still has non-answer 'answers' on Blago, Jarrett

I don’t think Obama/staff are guilty of anying criminal, but …

Update, 8 p.m.: Per Josh Marshall at TPM, I went to Roland Martin’s blog about the Jarrett timeline.

Let's put it this way. Josh is seeing, because he’s seeking, exculpation of Obama’s apparent poor judgment or communication skills on the Jarrett part of the issue, and Martin as having high explanatory value here, because Josh wants to see that. Well, I don't think it's there.

And, Josh conveniently fails to note that Martin is ... basically an Obama surrogate, or close to it, himself.

So, move along, nothing new here.

Original post: So far, President-elect Barack Obama, and surrogates David Axelrod, have skilfully evaded answering the Politico’s question list about his background in the Blagojevich pay-to-play scandal.

Basically, Kenneth Vogel and Carrie Brown want to know:
• When Obama and Blago surrogates last spoke, as well as head-to-head contacts;
• Were any of these talks about Obama’s opening-up Senate seat;
• What’s up with “correcting” Axelrod, including why it took so long to do it;
• Did Fitz’s office or the FBI talk to you;
• When did you learn Blago was under investigation;
• Did you or your staff contact Fitz or the FBI if you had any reason to sense this was a pay-for-play push by Blago, especially re point No. 1.

I would add a couple of rhetorical questions of my own to which we may not get the answers, either:
• How much less cohesion is there in your inner circle than was portrayed in the campaign, given the number of statements Axelrod had had, not just to retract on his own account, but has had retracted for him?
• Why didn’t you say “Blago must resign” Tuesday rather than Wednesday?
• Do you have any info on any of the “six candidates”?
• Re Politico’s question No. 1, were any of these contacts before you decided to give Valerie Jarrett a White House job?
• Why is your staff letting Obamiacs censor Blago questions on your website, especially since appropriate questions, not just winger trolling are being removed?

That said, let me offer some tentative answers:
• Obama and Blago staffs talked until mid-November or so;
• Valerie Jarrett was offered the WH job AFTER Blago started pushing for “consideration”;
• In spite of this, nobody at Obama’s office (contrary to the early Rahm Emanuel rumor) contacted Fitz or FBI;
• Obama’s inner circle ISN”T that coherent, but Obama, yes, B.O. himself, ultimately, is determined to still be that tight-lipped with the press, or even the public, or your most loyal minions are.

Result? Contrary to MSLBs decrying the MSM for over-covering this issue, etc. you, President Obama, probably will get yourself a Whitewater-type “cloud” that is, as far as the handling of how things have unwound, that is and will be at least partially your own fault.

And, from Obama's Thursday presser through follow-ups later Thursday evening by the Ax and Rahmbo, we're STILL not getting answers

Obama says he has had no personal contacts with Blago since the election, claims his office was not involved with any deal-making, and that he’s still gathering details on who all from his staff had contacts with Blago’s staff.

Analysis?
• Statement No. 1 is a duh; I don’t think Obama is that dumb, and never have.
• Statement No. 2 says nothing; Blago’s “motherfucker” statement already attests to its veracity.
• Statement No. 3? The real question is, not what Obama knows about staff contacts, but what his “rounding up” means. Some sort of “massaging” will happen, as Obama wants to make sure he has tracked every comment down before making any further statement, so that there are no more forced retractions by Axelrod, etc.

Other than that, Statement No. 3, and the rest of Obama’s presser, did nothing to address the “timeline” questions vis-à-vis Jarrett’s appointment to WH staff, etc., what Obama knew a week or two ago about staff contacts, etc.

Obama may well answer these questions in the future. But, anybody who thinks he said anything new Thursday is guilty of wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, Ax gave a non-answer answer Thursday night to part of the Jarrett timeline question, saying she removed her name from consideration for the Senate seat without knowing anything about Blago’s scheming, BUT ….

Because Obama wanted her to work at the White House.

Still unanswered is why he would (suddenly?) want the person reportedly his favorite choice to replace him in the Senate to suddenly come work at the White House.

Simple, Ax said — Just.Another.Politician.™ wanted her at the Big House, not the Capitol, all along.

And, I’m sure Ax checked in with Obama transition staff before making these statements, so nobody will have to withdraw them for him later today. (Unless the Obama recollection of just where he wanted Jarrett when undergoes further, err, clarification.

And, Rahmbo channeled Sarah Palin using kids as human shields to duck answering questions about whether he’s the “Obama advisor” on one Blago tape.

And, Oops! On Jesse Jackson Jr. friends!

Dunno how much Jesse Jr. knew what his friends were doing, but if they were actually responding to Blago’s $1 million fundraising appeal:
• He needs to fire them and get some new friends;
• WE need to ask just how his friends heard about this and why they actually acted on it!

This also lends new intrigue into who was allegedly pressuring Blago NOT to name Jess Jr. to the seat.

Instead of Obama worrying about a tar baby, it may have been a representative of one of the other candidates.

As for Blago calling Obama a mofo, this isn’t something totally out of the blue; there’s some history behind it. The story underlines my subhead; I do not beleive Obama(land) is guilty of anything criminal.

BUT... the mishandling of talking about this issue grows by the day, mushrooming in the same soil environment in which mushrooms, well, mushroom.

What’s the old political saying?

“It’s the cover-up that gets you.”

Well, before the cover-up can come the appearance of impropriety, or of not shooting straight.

Obamaworld looks like it needs some target practice, at the least.


This just gets better by the day.

As Terrell Owens would say here in Dallas: “Getcha popcorn.”