If every politician is corrupt, then every reporter has an agenda. That's where all this seems to be headed. So okay, The New York Times ran this piece here in a small corner, and this piece under the Ed Rendell story across the bottom of the page.
We're so tired of rehashing vague innuendo from a desperate press in endless gotcha/gotta sell a paper or get eyeballs on a tv screen or I'm out of a job mode.
We're so done with stories that try so hard to lump a minor event in with so many major events. Help us understand why this matters at all, given the connections of the Clintons or McCains to several even more strange and mysterious folks in their past, including Giustra and Abramoff. Shady folks who want to hitch their wagon to a star, even if it's just to be in the same airspace? Help us understand how these connections distort the abilities of the Clintons, McCains and Obamas to do the people's business. Otherwise, the press is wasting our time.
It is so very common for these power seekers to seek out elected officials. We non-elites used to call 'em "scrubs" (yes, from the song "No Scrubs.") And not every one of these transactions is much more than they attended the same function. A/K/A so what, he was or was not there. If I'm staying in a hotel with a visiting dictator, by the current standard I'm party to his crimes. Even worse if it's the same men's room.
However, I understand the idea is to take Obama down a few pegs, because there are many who don't understand how a guy like him can motivate and energize an election when they clearly cannot. Nor can they argue policy without notes or earpieces because they actually understand the policy or problems without notes or 42" prompters.
I also understand there are people who would rather Obama tour the country in a suit from Target. But he probably would look about the same.
I had an high school Honors Senior History teacher (him white, me black) who actually told me he didn't understand me and couldn't teach black history. It wasn't taught to him, and had no significant experience with black people. And that's not a dig at McCain - there are probably others with that pre-busing life experience. So I do understand the NEED, I said the NEED for a mostly white media to understand him at all in the same way as that teacher. I also understand how a black media talent like Tavis Smiley has been rendered useless by the Obama candidacy. Basically, Obama went around most of the usual kingmakers, and bruised some egos. Who now want to ding Obama up somewhat.
I've pointed this out to some, like Jake Tapper and Ben Smith, who seem to go on 'tee hee hee' sprees on occassion. They've both had this one up on their pages, so here goes.
From the UK's view, this Auchi guy sounds more like Dodi Fayed. Including how the British media looks at him. Could that be a cultural difference as well? "Obama was cleared by a republican department of justice investigation, and Auchi has acknowledged not meeting Obama....On the 20th anniversary of his business in 1999, Mr Auchi received a greeting card signed by 130 politicians, including Tony Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy, who were then leaders of their respective parties. Defence lawyers said that Mr Auchi lent the $3.5 million for legal and family expenses. Most of the money had gone directly to law firms and there had been no attempt to flee. "While the Government attempts to besmirch Mr Auchi’s character," they said, "he is one of Britain’s wealthiest men, has been a guest at the White House and met with two of the last three presidents, was Co-Chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is President of the Anglo-Arab Organisation, and has received numerous awards and honorary positions from heads of state, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope John Paul II, and King Abdullah II of Jordan.""
Auchi actually said he does not recall meeting Obama. The New York Times article cleverly but not surprisingly omitted that. I wonder what it's like to be working at a newspaper whose reputation no longer has its lustre. But I digress. Everyone else likes to use the terms like 'denied meeting' because they want it to be true. And if you don't recall meeting someone, isn't it usually because they didn't make an impression or the passage was uneventful. Because to look at it as a skeptic, there's no transaction between Obama and Auchi of interest either.
"Auchi couldn't be reached Monday. His lawyer, Alasdair Pepper, told the Sun-Times in February his client "has no recollection of meeting Senator Obama." At least the SunTimes included that. And "Obama is not accused of any wrongdoing." Just being on the same planet works for those hunting for juicy gossip. Last night, their post was headlined "Obama Bomb Drops." However, you could hear a pin drop.
In the Chicago Tribune piece, and culled together, Obama appears no more than a guest invited by Rezko, since it's Rezko's house. Where's the illicit deal making in making an appearance for what was only a social call. There is also no sense of whether the two men actually met, or how long each stayed, or whether paths crossed, or were even at the event in the same time frame.
The AP piece Tapper notes simply notes there are no accusations of wrongdoing. And "Auchi's attorney, Alasdair Pepper, has said his client doesn't remember meeting Obama."
Much ado about nothing. But a lot of energy and money spent on making all politicians look equally corrupt. Which serves what purpose, what master?
Oh, and about the student loans....See what we fall for these days? The loans were not paid off in 2003, or April 2004. When Rezko and Auchi were around to pay them off, quid pro quo. The way I see it, if Obama needed money, and they had it, why were the Obamas not out of the red sooner? Because the books paid the loan, not the creepy slimy people.