In their latest NYT article, Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny write about the Obama camp’s handling of the Blagojevich scandal and their potential involvement in it. This particular bit is pretty choice:
Republicans have raised questions about Mr. Obama’s refusal to say more and about his past ties with the main characters. Even if Mr. Obama remains untouched by the investigation, it shines a light on the corrupt politics of the state he emerged from and takes attention away from the agenda of change he would rather emphasize.
And then they go on to quote Clinton hack-artist Lanny Davis of all people. For what? Wisdom?
The only reason this would take attention away from his agenda is because hype seeking reporters, frustrated in their inability to get new information due to the media saturation of the story, are now reduced to talking about a hypothetical but unsubstantiated instance of some kind of wrongdoing.
Does the fact that the lead investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, has definitively stated that President-elect Obama was in no way involved in Blagojevich’s shenanigans?
Hardly. Not when you got newspapers to sell and you are facing potential lay-offs.