I'm gonna go with no on this one. We get to hear the full report from Obama's camp next week.

Honestly, why would a man who just got voted President go along with something like this? What could he possibly gain?

First of all, the question isn't whether Obama has ties to the incident, it's whether Obama's staff does. That, to me, is a huge distinction.

Anyway, I voted other. I honestly can't judge whether his staff is tied to the scandal until I see more evidence. With the evidence I've seen right now, I would be inclined to say no. But, I think we are going to find out lot more about his whole mess in the upcoming weeks.

I agree with lilkimbo, I can't judge his staff until I have more evidence. I feel like we haven't seen much concrete facts to suggest that anyone on Obama's staff was involved. Then again, if you watch Fox News, they seem to have a different opinion...

While the best answer is "I don't know" since we have little info so far, my gut says "no"

I'm not basing that on a belief of high morals of team Obama, but I am basing it on how careful Obama is with his people, that tells me anything this stupid (and this is one of the stupidest schemes) would have shown some red flags and Obama would have not even gone there.

It's going to boil down to whether someone on his staff knew what was going on and didn't say anything. Not that its going to impact Obama's reign but it could tarnish the crown a bit.

I saw that on Gallup.com and was really taken aback. Blagojevich said on tape that Obama's staff wouldn't give him anything other than their appreciation. I don't think it gets much clearer than that. Blago himself exonerated them, albeit unknowingly. He seems like such a braggart, if he though he had an "in" with the staff, I feel sure he would have been telling anyone who would listen.

I think Barack is behind the whole thing.

I agree with lilkimbo and piper - I doubt Obama has anything himself to hide, but maybe someone on his staff does.

However, I do think this incidence throws light on the political machine that is Chicago. The more people hear about how politics are done there, the more they will question Obama. Though I was shocked by the poll as well - it seems pretty clear that Obama wasn't going to play the game. However, people might wonder how he plans to clean up Washington if he didn't do so in his home state.

Overall, I'm afraid it might be a case of guilty by association. Transparency's a b*tch.

Other - I'm going with innocent until proven guilty. I can't yes or no until I hear more details.

And I'm with the others... Obama may not be guilty, but someone associated with him may be. Like kranky said, it may be a case of guilty by association.

I am also going to say No, but its too early. But my gut says no.

" my minds telling me nooooo but my body my boddddddies telling me yeeeeeesss!" Oops

I'm going with No like most it's a gut reaction. I mean R. Kelly's from Chicago too so it's obvious Barack Obama was involved in the pee'ing on of young girls! sheesh

"I mean R. Kelly's from Chicago too so it's obvious Barack Obama was involved in the pee'ing on of young girls! sheesh"

I really lol'ed at that one, as in actually laughed out loud!

So far, Obama has run a pretty tight ship so I would be surprised if some one from his staff is involved. I don't think I would be surprised, however, if some one on his staff knew about it and didn't report it.

No

Didn't Blagojevich complain about Obama wasn't being cooperative? Don't the feds have that on tape?

I'm saying yes, just to be argumentative...

"Didn't Blagojevich complain about Obama wasn't being cooperative? Don't the feds have that on tape?"

If that's the case then it would stand to reason that someone inside his camp knew that the Governor was up to no good and trying to sell his Senate seat. But like I said before, even if that proves to be true, it won't affect his presidency.

>If that's the case then it would stand to reason that someone inside his camp knew that the Governor was up to no good and trying to sell his Senate seat.

My understanding (and this is just from what I hear on the radio in my car) is that Blegojevich was trying to ascertain who Obama's pick was. It's hard to say what extent that conversation went to. If they wouldn't even tell him who they wanted, they may not have gotten to the bribery part.

But maybe they did. Who knows.

I haven't really been following this story enough to comment so I'm going to shut up about it now.

Same here. : )

The biggest things that stick out to me are:

1.) Fitzgerald, the man who is prosecuting the case, said Obama did nothing wrong.
2.) Blag said that Obama would only give him gratitude.

It seems like Fox News should start listening to people who are actually involved in the case, instead of just spinning it like they actually have a clue...which Fox News does not. The only concrete points that are public right now point to nothing inappropriate being done by Obama. The only reason Fox News has half a leg to stand on right now is because Fitzgerald asked the Obama camp to delay the release of their findings. Fox is tabloid news.

I think we all (on here at least) agree that Obama did nothing wrong. Again, the question is whether anyone on his staff was involved.

One question Jill - do you also feel that Obama's staff is completely free of wrongdoing as well?

And given the poll - it does appear that Fox News is not alone is thinking that Obama or his staff are at least tangentially involved.

Though I admit I was shocked when I read the poll results, we are all waiting until next week for more information, as you pointed out. (I must admit that a really mean part of me assumes the info will be released on Christmas Eve or Day to minimize exposure, no matter what the results say.)

Whoops.

When I said Blagojevich complained Obama wasn't being cooperative, I was using metonymy. I assumed most people can't just pick up the phone and get Barack Obama on the line, and that he was talking to various staff. By "Obama" I meant "the Obama camp."

Of course you meant the Obama camp, but just because Obama and some of his handlers are not guilty it does not mean that no one on his staff of thousands knew what was going on/was involved.

Although, I'm guessing Blagojevich did experience direct communication with Obama on at least one occasion. While "most people" can't pick up the phone and talk to Obama, I also think it would be foolish to assume that the governor of his home state has not spoken to him directly.

TS - good point and in this day and age of legalease it's hard to tell what people are talking about specifically. (I blame that on Clinton, but maybe it started earlier and I jsut never noticed.

What struck me is that Obama was very clear in saying that he and his staff were not involved with Blaggies' attempt to sell the Senate seat - and yes, the tapes certainly confirm that.

My immediate reaction upon reading that was - where they ever involved with him in any other way? Does anyone know what specifically the commission in looking into? Has Obama said anything about past dealings that may not have anything to do with the current issue? I know that they both have Rezko in their past, is that now an issue again?

It's probably due to the media knowing that they won't have much to report on until next week so they compensate by writing strange copy, but is anyone else kinda confused over this whole thing?

From what Blag said, no, I don't think Obama's staff did anything wrong. He clearly did not have the impression that Obama's staff was going to be accommodating to his plan. You know it will be on tape, so we will find out for certain eventually. I also think if there was some merit to that, then Fitzgerald would be also focusing on his staff, and he has already said that Rahm is not under investigation.

I think the rush to blame Obama's staff is premature. There is nothing to suggest that they did anything in appropriate. Nothing factual, anyway.

And let me also mention that I do not think that simply talking to the Gov about who they would prefer in the seat is inappropriate. A "pick who you want, but these are my favorites" type thing would not be out of line, IMO. In fact, I would think it was a bit lazy if that never came up.

And Blag hasnt even been indicted yet. Fitz is still putting together his case, it is in its very early stages, which sucks for the Obama camp because I think it is the delay which is making them look bad....not the facts themselves.

"While "most people" can't pick up the phone and talk to Obama, I also think it would be foolish to assume that the governor of his home state has not spoken to him directly."

There is no assumption needed here. Obama has said he did not directly speak with Blag.

I read and heard otherwise. I read that he did not speak directly with Blagojevich regarding this matter, but that they have spoken directly before.

Also, I don't see anyone rushing to blame Obama's staff. People are simply asking if it's possible that they could be involved. I don't see how that equates with them being blamed.

"they have spoken directly before"

I am sorry, but just because you have spoken to a person in your lifetime doesn't mean that something underhanded is going on!

"Has Obama said anything about past dealings that may not have anything to do with the current issue? "

Are people missing the election season so much that they need to drum up drama? The facts will all come out eventually. There really is no need to spin all of these stories out of thin air. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but this is really spinning out of control. The facts don't seem to matter anymore.

Since we haven't heard the tapes, we don't have the 'facts' yet to go on. Facts do matter but its not like people drummed up this situation. Its a story and people are commenting on it. Period.

"And let me also mention that I do not think that simply talking to the Gov about who they would prefer in the seat is inappropriate. A "pick who you want, but these are my favorites" type thing would not be out of line, IMO. In fact, I would think it was a bit lazy if that never came up."

That's the impression I'm getting (this is on the news 24/7 over here right now and that's what I've heard about it so far) as well, Jill. I too don't think that is inappropriate...I actually think it shows a bit of foresight.

Jill-

I agree that this is complete spin, and as Hainan pointed out many times - I agree that we should wait until someone is proven guilty.

However, I think that the average American was shocked, shocked! to learn about the level of corruption in Chicago. In these anxious times, I am not surprised that people have glommed onto this story and wonder how it could affect our future President.

And finally, my question wasn't trying to spin suppositions out of thin air. It was an honest question. Obama very clearly stated he had nothing to do with the Senate seat fiasco... has he also denied having anything to do with any of Blago's other corrupt dealings? If you say yes, then fine, my question is answered. I have not been able to find a source that tells me yea or nea either way.

There are facts, released by the prosecution. They are limited, but they are facts none the less.

I'm not saying there's anything underhanded going on. In fact, I have stated several times that, while I think it's worth investigating whether his staff has done anything, I will certainly withhold any judgment on the manner until I see evidence in one way or the other. You said they hadn't spoken, but they have, I was simply replying to your assertion.

People seem to be having such odd reactions to simple statements lately. Sometimes something means exactly what it says. They have spoken before. That's all I said, that's all I meant.

I'm going to nitpick just a bit, but I admit I don't think it's indicative of anything important.

Obama first stated that he had no contact with Blago about the Senate seat, but at a later time said he submitted a list of people for consideration. I believe that is why people are making a big deal about the list. It's not it's existence, but rather than Obama didn't mention it until later.

I'll just keep my opinion to myself until I hear ALL of the facts.

Just out of curiosity, though, where are people getting the idea that this is a story created by Fox News? I have seem possible connections covered on the Nightly News on NBC, in an article in the LA Times, even on CNN! The slant was typically, "Is Obama's staff connected?" The stories weren't accusatory in nature, but they did ask many of the same questions I'm guessing Fox News asked. (Although, I don't really watch Fox News, so I wouldn't know for sure.)

If that's true then that would that make CNN, LA Times and the Nightly News tabloid news too, right?

Fox News is tabloid for sooo many reasons, not this alone. But, yes, I do think that at the end of the day that ratings trump facts for mostly all media organizations. Of course talking about this kind of drama is going to be seized upon because one can only take so much of terrible recession news, and Blag is stalling, Fitz is stalling, but the mess still needs to be talked about, so they drum up a new angle. I see why they do it, but I think it lacks integrity to pump up a story that is 80% speculation. I think that Fox is the channel that is driving this angle of the story the hardest, by far.

"Obama first stated that he had no contact with Blago about the Senate seat, but at a later time said he submitted a list of people for consideration. I believe that is why people are making a big deal about the list."

This isn't a contradiction. He didn't speak to Blag. His staff submitted the "list".

I don't think this is an example of Chicago corruption so much as political corruption. I didn't think that Senator Stevens represented all of the Alaskan politicians, etc. There are a lot of bad apples in politics. They don't adhere strictly to one party, state, gender, etc.

While I generally agree that this is a corrupt politician rather than a corrupt Chicago politician, I think comparing Chicago politics to Alaska politics is inaccurate. Chicago has a long political history that is filled with corruption and machine politics.

And yes, there have been corrupt individuals from throughout the country, but in Chicago (in the past), the corruption was at an institutional level, much more so than in many (but not all) other places.

Jill-

Blargh. Legalease. Who the heck knows, but your explanation sounds reasonable as well.

I said Other. Again because I don't know all of the details. I have my assumptions. But they are just that. Obama promised full transparency. But I don't trust "internal" investigations. So I don't believe he is free and clear until the FBI investigates his team. I still don't think he had anything to do with it personally. But I have a feeling someone in his cabinet or staff did. My question is were they the ones that reported it to the fbi and if not and they knew about it they should be punished. And Jill enough with the fox news bashing now to. This story is on ALL of the network news channels. It's not about saying Obama's team is guilty. It is about unanswered questions. People have lingering questions and the stories didn't match. That leads to suspicion. It's human nature. The difference between Blagojevich and Obama is that people are asking Blago to step down. Which I don't think should be done until there is a full investigation into it. Innocentuntil proven guilty. No one is asking Obama or anyone in his team to step down. They simply want questions answered regarding it. I am going to be patient, because time will tell. I hope that nobody will be biased and they will give a full impartial explanation for things.

Just a quick thought on the Chicago corruption. I think Obama will have a tough time overcoming this because he has so many people from Chicago in his cabinet. He wanted to pick people he knew and was close to, but it is hard to look past that corruption. Time will tell.

General comment: I feel like the same sort of people who would believe that every politician out of Chicago is probably corrupt somehow are the same sort who would believe that every Muslim out of the Middle East is probably a terrorist or at least a terrorist sympathizer.

More specific to the post: Politics makes such strange bedfellows that I don't think anyone should be surprised at contact between the two offices. But contact doesn't equal complicity, so I'm holding off on disappointment and judgment until more actual facts come out.

Why why why is Illinois like this?