Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THINGS YOU SHOULDA DONE WATCH.
Josh Kalven reports that Jan Schakowsky and Lisa Madigan have both called on Rod Blagojevich to resign. Here's my question: Why hasn't Barack Obama done the same thing? The Feds have Blago dead to rights, he was attempting to strong-arm the next president of the United States into buying a Senate appointment with a favor, and he's accused of several other ethics violations that are abhorrent to the level of comic absurdity. Even if Obama was beholden to Blagojevich in some way, I'd say trying to embroil the president-elect in corrupt behavior qualifies as a betrayal of trust, even between friends.
Whatever Obama's relationship has been with Blagojevich in the past, it seems really unwise for Obama to offer meager Bush-like statements about "ongoing investigations" when it's quite clear from the report that Blagojevich engaged in some pretty disreputable behavior, and as of now Blagojevich simply lacks the legitimate moral authority to be the chief executive of the state of Illinois. The complaint suggests Obama refused to curry favor with Blagojevich, so it doesn't make sense for Obama not to call for his resignation. Under what circumstances can Blagojevich remain the governor of Illinois?
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (6)
Maybe the former constitutional law professor is hung up on that "innocent until proven guilty" thingy.
Posted by: Bud | December 9, 2008 6:04 PM
Or maybe the president elect of the US doesn't see the need to involve himself in a state matter.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:25 PM
The short answer is that it is a bad idea for Obama to say anything that would compromise the prosecutor's ability to seat a jury to try Blagojevich.
For example, saying "Governor Blagojevich is guilty of a heinous abuse of his office," although (in my view) certainly true, would present a serious problem as regards seating a jury:
"So, who did you vote for? Are you aware of any comments that President Obama made regarding the Governor? You respect President Obama's opinion, do you not? Do you think, given your respect for President Obama, and given President Obama's comments, that you could give the Governor a fair trial?" Etc.
Posted by: alkali | December 9, 2008 6:39 PM
To pile on, though it is his state, and his empty seat, it seems strange to require Obama to weigh in on this. He has no roll, so far as we can tell at this point.
Best to keep it that way, especially with the seat empty and the mechanism for getting a new Ill. senator very unclear. Obama saying anything will at least smell, if not reek (once the media gets done with it), of trying to get his pick in the seat.
Posted by: abject funk | December 9, 2008 9:26 PM
I think he just wants to remain above it all. (Or, if you prefer the cynical take, to appear to be above it.) Remember how cautious he was to keep presidential politics from being injected into the bailout crisis?
Seriously, what does he gain by calling for Blago's resignation at this point? That Blago should resign is beyond self-evident at this point. It's not as if he'll be seen as a great reformer for saying it publicly.
And then he'd be faced with a myriad of follow-up questions all about Illinois politics, which, even in the best of seasons, he wouldn't want to get his transition mired in: if Blago doesn't resign, should he be impeached? Should there be a special election? Who would you endorse to fill your seat? Who should replace the governor?
There's no upside to getting involved in that rumpus, politically, ethically, or practically.
Posted by: Royko | December 10, 2008 2:14 AM
Perhaps Obama wishes to avoid the appearance of seeking to influence the process for selecting the replacement for his Senate seat.
Posted by: Xenos | December 10, 2008 10:57 AM