>>>>>LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, OF COURSE he's lying by assumption of the logic I already posted. I just don't understand why. He had nothing to lose by admitting that he and/or his staff was working with Blag on the transition of the Senate seat if they weren't complicit in the scandal. I truly believe that Obama would not have played along in this scandal and Blag's cursing him out in the tapes seems to back that up.
>>>>>
>>>>>The thing that bothers me is that assuming I'm right about Obama not playing games with Blag (good for him), why the knee-jerk reaction of a bald-face lie? Is this how he's going to react to any controversy going forward - lie to us and hope it sticks? If I were an Obama supporter listening to months of how open and honest he was going to be I'd be seriously perturbed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here's what Obama said: ""I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat."
>>>>
>>>>Where's the lie? He didn't say that no one on his staff had talked to the governor. He said he hadn't and that he was sure his staff wouldn't have been part of a deal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. There is nothing wrong with a governor who is going to name a replacement Senator to get the thoughts of the departing Senator, even if it's just a polite gesture. In this case it's on the wiretaps reported by Patrick Fitzgerald last week that Blagojevich expressed disgust with Obama for not offering anything but "appreciation" for choosing one of his recommendations.
>>>
>>>I don't know how well known Blago was nationally a week ago. He is a very well known quantity here, i.e. as crooked as the day is long. Obama is way too smart to get anywhere near him. The same thing was suggested by Jan Schakovsky (sp.?), a U.S. Rep. from Evanston who was one of the names the Obama staff gave the governor's office. She said she had called Rahm Emanuel, who she served in Congress with, and got a sense of wariness about getting involved with Blagojevich.
>>>
>>>Oh well, get used to the next 4 or 8 years. Some are going to make it an endless quest to find something to stick to Obama. They have had no success so far but are not going to stop trying.
>>
>>Don't be ridiculous. While there will be 'some' doing that, it is not everyone.
>
>Maybe that's why I said "some."
>
>> Don't forget it is typical to question everything a President does and investigate if there is any suspicion of wrong-doing. That is just good sense. If the watchers aren't watching, then what country are you living in? Who will ensure there is no corruption or illegal dealings? It's just good sense. It has been the case of every president and Obama is no exception (other than some articles already dissappearing off the web as I posted to Tamar...)
>>
>>I certainly HOPE they NEVER stop trying. It is just good sense to keep the government as clean as can be. Would you want anything else? Do you want every President (or only Obama) to have a free hand and no oversight?
>
>I never said that. I just find the endless efforts of SOME partisans to dig up something, anything, to be tiresome.

Now that is a repeat of the Bush years to be sure....