Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5th)
Photo: Getty Images
Names on that first list: Tammy Duckworth, Dan Hynes, Valerie Jarrett and Jan Schakowsky. After the election, Emanuel phoned John Harris, Blagojevich's chief of staff who has subsequently resigned, to add Lisa Madigan to the "approved list" of possible replacements.
Why would a campaign representative be talking to the governor? Because the Governor of Illinois would be appointing someone to take Obama's Senate seat until the next election, November 2010.
Obama's denial1 that discussions might have taken place was a clumsy effort to distance itself from Blagojevich, who was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday.
Why do I call his actions "clumsy"?
First, anyone with any understanding about how politics works knew that someone from the Obama camp had been talking to the Blagojevich Administration. Moreover, we all know how methodical the Obama campaign has been in anticipating and dotting all "i's" and crossing all "t's" due in no small part to David Axelrod's political experience. But "talking" does not mean "dealmaking" and it's a more than a little disconcerting that Obama was unable or unwilling to trust us to understand the difference. Clearly politics as usual; no change here.
Second, instead of being open on Tuesday, Obama et al stonewalled, the worst possible response to a communication crisis.
On Tuesday, Obama said he had not talked to Blago. But you need to understand this. Emanuel is the person Obama plans to make his White House Chief of Staff (a cabinet-rank position). The White House Chief of Staff is the second highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President. For all intents and purposes, when the Chief of Staff speaks, he is speaking for the President (in this case, the "President-elect").
So it is disingenuous to say "I" have not spoken to Blagojevich (as Obama has stated) when Obama told Emanuel what to say to Blago.
Rather than putting the story to bed (in other words, making it go away), Obama's stonewalling gave rise to a heated discussion in the blogosphere about (1) chief campaign advisor and presidential senior advisor Axelrod's November statement that he "knew" that Obama had talked to Blagojevich about the appointment (a statement he has subsequently retracted) and (2) the disappearance of two local TV station news stories -- from both the station website and Google cache -- that "reported" that a meeting between Obama and Blagojevich had taken place.
Then there's the Governor's press release stating he had talked to Obama on the day after the election about Obama's Senate replacement.
I can discount the press statement as typical political overreaching. But two (now allegedly) factually incorrect contemporaneous news accounts from two different reporters, albeit at the same news organization? And it's really hard for me to believe that Axelrod does not carefully craft every word that comes out of his mouth -- why would he misspeak so emphatically in November? I understand why he's issuing a retraction in December, but frankly it's harder to believe that Obama did not talk to Blogo than it is to believe Axelrod got it wrong a month ago. In other words, I get why the right has its collective Hanes in a knot over this.
Overlooked in this storm: assuming Emanuel, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, is appointed and confirmed as Obama's Chief of Staff, his House seat will be up for grabs as well.
Let's be clear: I don't think that there is anything nefarious going on around the Senate appointment on the Obama camp side. But I do think that this affair demonstrates how much Obama et al are like the politicos who came before them, rhetoric of change notwithstanding.
- Tuesday, 9 December - Obama: I had no contact with the governor or his office.
- Thursday, 11 December - Obama confident that no one on his team "had any part in any deals related to this seat."
- Friday, 12 December - Emanuel spoke with Blagovich staff on multiple occasions
Comments
I am surprised by the implications of what the author writes – that this group “et al are like the politicos who came before them…” There is nothing to support this statement but conjecture. We can assume what the author assumes but nothing more. In fact, why only assume this? Why not assume something nefarious? Or why not assume that things are as Obama has said? Perhaps he was not aware that discussions had already taken place? Whatever the case, even the tapes that have thus far been released indicate that the Governor was ticked off that the President-elect was not going to give him anything and he wanted something. So who cares if a conversation occurred and who cares if Obama knew or not. This would seem to be much ado about nothing. There has been a lot to care about with the current politicos. Why not focus on the real issue? A Governor trying to sell the senate seat.
Perhaps I was not clear.
The dissembling about who talked to the Governor’s office is politics-as-usual. This isn’t conjecture on my part, it’s an observation about events.
The “politics as usual” is the careful parsing of statements. Although there are at least four separate statements that Obama talked to Blago — Obama stated on Tuesday that he did not. The implication was that the campaign did not talk to Blago. However, Obama’s right-hand-man did talk to Blago, BEFORE the election no less.
There is nothing “wrong” with Obama or Biden or Clinton or any other Congress-person who is moving into the administration from talking to the person responsible for selecting their replacement.
I don’t think the incumbent – who has vacated the office – should have veto power over any proposed replacement. I also think special elections are the preferred method of replacement, but that’s not how the system works.