THE REPORTING GETS WORSE…. The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz noted this morning that “some conservative pundits” have tried to argue, evidence be damned, that Barack Obama has been tainted by the Blagojevich controversy.
That’s true, but the problem, alas, isn’t limited to conservative pundits. Most of the political media establishment has been making the same connection, despite reality.
On more than one occasion during his stunning press conference on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald bluntly said he has found no evidence of wrongdoing by President-elect Barack Obama in the tangled, tawdry scheme that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich allegedly cooked up to sell Obama’s now vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. But for politicians, it’s never good news when a top-notch prosecutor has to go out of his way to distance them from a front-page scandal.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what that means. Fitzgerald held a press conference on Monday, and presented the case against the governor. Reporters asked about Obama, and he said this doesn’t involve the president-elect. According to Time’s report, this is bad news for Obama. Why? Because Fitzgerald answered reporters’ questions and said Obama isn’t connected to the case.
In what universe does this make sense?
First, Fitzgerald didn’t “go out of his way” to talk about Obama. Reporters asked, Fitzgerald responded. That’s what we in the biz call a “press conference.” Second, Jamison Foser highlights the bizarre-world quality of the Time article’s argument: “So, the US Attorney who is going after Blagojevich says there is absolutely no evidence Barack Obama has done anything wrong. This, naturally, is bad news for Barack Obama. Also, up is down and black is white.”
Why do I get the feeling the reporting isn’t going to get any better?