Obama Calls Johnson Questions "A Game"

In a press conference this morning, Sen. Barack Obama responded to questions about his vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson, and Johnson's associations with Countrywide and other mortgage countries.

Obama:

"I am not vetting my VP Search Committee for their mortgages. You’re going to have to direct – it becomes sort of a – this is a game that can be played – everybody, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean at some point, we just asked people to do their assignments. Jim Johnson has a very discrete task, as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They’re performing that job well. It’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they’re giving me information, and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. So these aren’t folks who are working for me, they’re not people who I have assigned to a particular job in a future administration. And ultimately, my assumption is that this is a discrete task that they are going to be performing for me over the next two months.

I don't see where the story goes from here, pending more revelations, so Obama's answer today might be the last we'll hear of it, despite the McCain campaign/RNC's best efforts. That said, yes, the VP search process is a discreet task, but it is one that is extremely important and that has bearing on the future of the country. Johnson is a valued adviser to Obama. Obama's definition of "tangential" must be quite roomy.

Comments

And where are the questions to McCain about Phil Gramm? Besides, as with Rezko, there is no "there" there in Obama's case.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 10, 2008 1:56 PM

I think the point is that what he's doing is not related at all to his mortgage history and has no particular bearing on policy, etc. It's not like Phil Gramm setting economic policy for the McCain team and his involvement with UBS.

It's an important job, but it's not an influential job on future policy. He's there to find out if there are any skeletons in anyone's closet. Fairly minor details about his mortgage history don't really matter to the reality of what his job is.

It's this perspective that I think is the biggest lack in modern journalism. Does this story matter to the actual direction of policy? Gramm does because his economic policy background and current activities shed real light on the type of economic policy McCain would propagate. Johnson does not because his mortgage history isn't relevant to whether he's good at vetting or not, and he didn't do anything close to disqualifying.

Posted by Brian | June 10, 2008 1:56 PM

I think the point is that what he's doing is not related at all to his mortgage history and has no particular bearing on policy, etc. It's not like Phil Gramm setting economic policy for the McCain team and his involvement with UBS.

Well put, Brian. And for what it's worth, I agree.

Posted by Darius | June 10, 2008 2:00 PM

This is ridiculous... Obama is right to point it out. They really don't have much to attack him with if this is what's getting Hannity excited. What is alarming is how quickly the mainstream press run with this nonsense.

Posted by TDE | June 10, 2008 2:01 PM

"I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters."

Obama is wonderful.

Posted by former deaniac | June 10, 2008 2:12 PM

Seriously, Marc, how is this any kind of an issue when Phil Gramm's role in the McCain campaign apparently isn't?

This blog is turning into a Halperin-style joke, dominated by Drudge-esque pseudoscandals.

I hope you're happy with you've become.

Posted by TomT | June 10, 2008 2:28 PM

Seriously, Marc, how is this any kind of an issue when Phil Gramm's role in the McCain campaign apparently isn't?

This blog is turning into a Halperin-style joke, dominated by Drudge-esque pseudoscandals.

I hope you're happy with what you've become.

Posted by TomT | June 10, 2008 2:28 PM

Tangential? The man leading the effort to advise him on the single most important decision he will make before he takes office is not a tangential contact.

Posted by Tim K | June 10, 2008 2:34 PM

This reminds me of dear Hillary, looking for silly attacks and not promoting her agenda. People want to know what McCain will do to get us out of the dicth. I don't think people are worry about the mortgage of someone who is helping Obama with the VP search. Have we heard anything about Ms. Kennedy's mortgage or her husbands afiliations. There must be a story, don't you think?

Posted by carl29 | June 10, 2008 2:40 PM

Marc,

I know you're too smart to believe this is a big deal, so why are you suggesting otherwise? I mean, is your strategy here to tick off your readers in the hopes you'll encourage them to return?

Posted by Jake | June 10, 2008 2:52 PM

This isn't a conflict of interest. McCain's econ policy advisor had dealings with UBS. If Johnson was responsible for coming up with his economic platform, that would be another story.

Posted by Natascha | June 10, 2008 3:05 PM

Seriously, how hard could it be for the man to find somebody who's never been in legal trouble himself; and never knew, associated with, is related to, or attended classes under, anyone within two degrees of legal trouble? There must be at least six or seven people in the whole country for him to choose from.

Posted by Tel | June 10, 2008 3:15 PM

Jim Johnson's subprime antics are little league compared to Obama's Finance Director Penny Pritzker. She and her family money practically underwrote the entire recent credit crunch. They were very much a part of the derivatives market that brought about the Bear Sterns Fiasco and are costing tax payers plenty.

There are so many Obama aids that do exactly opposite of what Obama says to the public, you really have to wonder how such a stealth candidacy can continue. I really think some of in the neoliberal left are as braindead as the evangelical right. They simply believe a few speeches from the head on the screen with the fireworks on the side and ignore ALL those men behind the curtains.

Check Penny Pritzker out. Check Rezko out. FOLLOW the money. What happens when journalists follow the money?
They win pulitzers .... go and follow the money

Posted by Dakinikat | June 10, 2008 3:37 PM

More importantly than the fact that (as others have said) the VP vetter doesn't effect future Obama administration policy in the way that economic advisor for John McCain (and lobbyist for UBS) Phil Gramm would affect McCain administration policy, I have seen zero evidence that Jim Johnson did anything illegal, unethical, or even unsavory. We have speculation that he got favorable mortgage terms without knowing anything about his underlying financials.

This is the kind of "even handed" coverage that makes me want to tear my hair out. Marc should know better than to engage in this sort of idle speculation.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 10, 2008 3:44 PM

Obama did not say that Johnson or his task were tangential to the campaign. What he said was that once they play the game of examining every aspect of Johnson's life and holding Obama accountable, then the same would happen with regard to people who *are* tangentially related to the campaign.

Posted by TKD | June 10, 2008 3:49 PM

At some point, it really does become absurd to spend too much time picking over advisers' connections. In all campaigns there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people with major influence on political and policy decisions.

All of these advisers are powerful people, and most of them are also rich. How hard is it to find examples of back-scratching among the rich and powerful? Isn't back-scratching how people become rich and powerful?

Posted by MR | June 10, 2008 4:13 PM

If Obama is the change canidate, shouldn't the process change? Why use a politcal insider like Johnson in the first place? Furthermore, Obama is right. This IS one of the most important decisions he will make. Infact, it's his first MAJOR decision as the nomoniee. Choosing the right person for the right job is the name of the game in the Excutive branch. This reflects on his judgement. Bad choice bud, bad choice.

Posted by John | June 10, 2008 4:29 PM

If we get comrad Obama as president he can do a lot of favors for these people who are voluntarily helping him. Despite the fact that some of them are wealthy doesn't lead to a conclusion that they want nothng but to serve Obama.(ambasssadorships,a funny little earmark,a strange ruling about some out of the way piece of land that one of them owns, no oil drilling within my view at my summer beach home etc adnauseum.) Politics is all about returning favors and this South Side Chicago political hack certainly knows that.

Get real folks.

Posted by Hunthorse | June 10, 2008 4:30 PM

This is a bad ‘Tumbleweed proposition’ and a ludicrous attack on common sense …. What happens when you have to ‘Vet’ the Vetters of the Vetters of the Vetters ad infinitum ….

Remember the final decision still rests with the two candidates … or so we are told & led to believe … I do give some credence to Mr. Obama that he will make his own choice … but as for Mr. McCain I’ve sensed a slip from “Straight Talk” to something a bit less forthright of late.

Posted by Barrie O. Ward The Canadian Geezer | June 10, 2008 4:36 PM

This is what happens when the majority view holds that government is corrupt or has relationships with those that use influence as a means to plunder the collective futures of our people.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, such as:

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. – Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Randy | June 10, 2008 4:38 PM

Hey Dakinikat,

Give me some concrete shit and not some vague crap. 'Follow the money'. You follow the money douchbag. You can follow it all the way to my nutz.

Posted by Greg | June 10, 2008 4:39 PM

Hunthorse hit the nail on the head. Besides, when anyone runs for office, especially President of the United States, he/she should expect to be examined under the microscope. Obama does not seem to think that is fair. Wonder why.

Posted by Birt | June 10, 2008 4:45 PM

Is this any different than the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard working for John McCane?

Posted by Pat Buchanan | June 10, 2008 4:45 PM

"Discrete" means "distinct." "Discreet" means "prudent" or "not ostentatious." Obama used the former, as in "Doing background checks on potential candidates is a discrete task from regulating the lending industry." You used the latter in a way that made no sense. What is your analysis worth if you can't be bothered to understand what the candidate is saying?

Posted by Seamus | June 10, 2008 4:49 PM

Would you be less likely to vote for McCain knowing that he had forced sexual relations with other men while he was in prison.

Posted by Karl Rove | June 10, 2008 4:49 PM

This guy didn't even do anything against the law. This is a joke. This has nothing to do with Obama.

Posted by Mike M | June 10, 2008 4:52 PM

I appreciate all but the last sentence of Seamus's comment.

Posted by Civilian | June 10, 2008 4:54 PM

Where is the connection of Phil Gramm to the mortgage crisis? Attempting to tie Obama to the mortgage crisis through Jim Johnson is ridiculous.
Phill Gramm's bill (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act) deregulated the safeguards that were put in place after the great depression. This created the environment for laissez-faire capitalism.

How is this connection not being discussed?

Posted by benAmerica | June 10, 2008 5:02 PM

"I did not have sexual relations with that prison guard."
— John McCain, 1968

Posted by Karl Rove | June 10, 2008 5:14 PM

Ya know Birt, if you put McCain under a microscope he wouldn't be fit to run for president. I don't know why Obama has not put all of McCains trash out there for the world to see. A loan between two people has nothing to do with Obama. I didn't see the cops locking up anyone for making a loan. Is this all they can come up with. John McCain had to fire a handfull people in his campaign for lobbyist ties and all he can come up with is a legal loan. Give me a break.

Posted by Mike M | June 10, 2008 5:27 PM

sometime this week.

This is a given.

The sweet deals with Countrywide are a minor thing to what is about to be exposed on Mr. Johnson.

He will be resigning from the VP search committee this week.

Book it.

Posted by Jim Johnson Resigns | June 10, 2008 5:45 PM

It’s preposterous for Obama to claim that the leader of his V.P. selection committee isn’t working for him. Barack Obama has castigated Countrywide Financial, but now that Jim Johnson has been exposed for taking sweetheart deals from Countrywide’s CEO - Obama is in a state of denial. It’s that brand of weak leadership and hypocrisy that shows why Barack Obama has no record of taking courageous stands or making change in Washington.

Posted by Frank | June 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Seamus articulated my reaction to this post precisely. There's a much bigger difference between "discrete" and "discreet" than between one choice of one "VP search committee chairman" and another. Ambinder's error -- be it a typo or a misunderstanding of the words themselves -- reveals just how much thought has gone into his political reporting.

What supposed political items like these do is brainlessly to crank the rusty gears of one in an endless succession of daily "news" cycles. Ambinder's post is entirely devoid of content because it does nothing more than perpetuate the shifting and circulating of a yet another "news story" that is in fact little more than an empty vessel: a meaningless headline or label to which all manner of innuendo and speculation may attach themselves -- like flies to flypaper -- in the service of unspecified ideological/political aims.

Ambinder should be ashamed of himself, or at least embarrassed. Fortunately it doesn't matter much to the readers/voters, because we can all see it for what it is. It just gets tiring, is all.

Posted by Tom | June 10, 2008 6:09 PM

OK, my first question is.... does the "journalist" commenting on the topic recognize the nuanced difference between the words "discrete" and "discreet"? Judging by the writer's follow up commentary to the topic, I presume not....

Perhaps this will help:

discrete |disˈkrēt|
adjective
individually separate and distinct : speech sounds are produced as a continuous sound signal rather than discrete units.

discreet |disˈkrēt|
adjective ( -creeter, -creetest )
careful and circumspect in one's speech or actions, esp. in order to avoid causing offense or to gain an advantage : we made some discreet inquiries.
• intentionally unobtrusive : a discreet cough.

So! Obama saying Johnson has a "discrete role" doesn't mean "having a sensitive, low-profile, and influential role".... it means having a "very narrow, specific, and definable role"...

Mountains out of molehills.... truly.

Leave it to Fox News to spin meaningless drivel into a "scandalous issue". I just wonder why everyone else parrots their claptrap so readily....

peace.

Posted by blatherful | June 10, 2008 6:09 PM

Seamus articulated my reaction to this post precisely. There's a much bigger difference between "discrete" and "discreet" than between one choice of one "VP search committee chairman" and another. Ambinder's error -- be it a typo or a misunderstanding of the words themselves -- reveals just how much thought has gone into his political reporting.

What supposed political items like these do is brainlessly to crank the rusty gears of one in an endless succession of daily "news" cycles. Ambinder's post is entirely devoid of content because it does nothing more than perpetuate the shifting and circulating of a yet another "news story" that is in fact little more than an empty vessel: a meaningless headline or label to which all manner of innuendo and speculation may attach themselves -- like flies to flypaper -- in the service of unspecified ideological/political aims.

Ambinder should be ashamed of himself, or at least embarrassed. Fortunately it doesn't matter much to the readers/voters, because we can all see it for what it is. It just gets tiring, is all.

Posted by Tom | June 10, 2008 6:10 PM

Hunthorse & Birt have a point which would be well made with G.W.Bush as a prime example of the valid statement (the venom you added says a lot more) & compared to that, clear eyes see Obama as humble and well educated adult contrasting a spoiled child. How dare you point the finger at one who is alleged to have...while ignoring (and therefore supporting) those who have so clearly and methodically dismantled the integrity of our highest office? Do you actually think the bar can go lower? There are real issues at hand and a great deal of damage to repair. Help or get out of the way!
No Kidding.

Posted by Serious Craig | June 10, 2008 7:35 PM

Obama said his veep vetters have a “volunteer unpaid position,” and that “These aren’t folks who are working for me.”’

1) They are working for you. Just because you aren’t paying them doesn’t mean they aren’t performing a very important job for you.

2) The entire statement is an excuse for poor judgment - the poor judgement of Obama’s assigning tasks to ethically-challenged individuals. (”It’s too hard to get ethically-responsible people to vet my VP.”) That was a failure on Team Obama’s part and their response is to make excuses why it would be burdensome to do things correctly and successfully.

Don't forget: along with Johnson, and what-credentials-does-she-bting-to-the-table-besides-her-name Caroline Kennedy, don't forget Eric Holder: "the former Clinton administration deputy attorney general Eric Holder, [who] had a role in one of the most controversial pardons Bill Clinton issued as he left office – of fugitive financier Marc Rich." (WSJ)

How Obama handled the Wright issue was the same thing: make weak excuses for failed judgement on his part. Excuse failure away.

Is this how Obama treats all challenges? Make excuses for failure? I know Harvard is good at instilling this kind of thing in its students (It’s not X’s fault that they did Y). I know Wright’s racist message is based on this (it’s whitey’s fault).

Example: Obama’s logic: “If I pull troops out of Iraq and it crumbles into mayhem and massacres flourish that make our withdrawal from Vietnam look like Disneyland - it’s not my fault. It’s Bush’s fault for getting us in there in the first place.”

This country deserves a president who makes wise decisions. It also deserves someone who, when making decisions, takes responsibility for those decisions and all their actions.

Posted by John Hondo | June 10, 2008 9:59 PM

"...The entire statement is an excuse for poor judgment - the poor judgement of Obama’s assigning tasks to ethically-challenged individuals...."

Give us break, John Hondo. Pointing out the absurdity of your and Sean Hannity's; half-baked allegations is the >opposite of "poor judgment."

Poor judgment is, like the Bush White House, expending all of your time and energy managing spin control and PR -- sometimes referred to as "propaganda" -- in order to cover for the ineptitude of your decision to send thousands of Americans to their deaths based on a big fat FIB that you told to the American people.

Good judgment means focusing on what's important and not letting the petty bullshit of the full-time, professional pundocracy set your agenda for you. Grow up. Or better yet, just shut up and stop wasting our time.

Posted by Beth | June 10, 2008 11:50 PM

"The entire statement is an excuse for poor judgment - the poor judgement of Obama’s assigning tasks to ethically-challenged individuals. (”It’s too hard to get ethically-responsible people to vet my VP.”) That was a failure on Team Obama’s part and their response is to make excuses why it would be burdensome to do things correctly and successfully."

"Assigning tasks to ethically challenged individuals."

This strikes me as a rather vague phrase. If Johnson was alleged to have cheated on his wife, say, or to have hired a company whose employees were illegal aliens to mow his lawn, would you then argue that he ought not to retain his position? If he was discovered to have nicked a plush bathrobe from the Mariott during a stay? It just seems to me that "ethically challenged individuals" covers a multitude of sins so vast as to be innumerable. You could clone Ceasar's wife a hundred times and still not manage to staff a campaign with people who lived up to that standard.

The more relevant question here is, should Obama and his campaign been aware of from whom each of their senior advisors obtained their mortgages, and the conditions of that mortgage? Should they be aware of, say, their advisor's stock holdings, and whether or not any of them are acquainted, with, say, any of the executives of the Fortune 500 companies? Oil's in the news now -- I think one could easily write a similar story if any senior staff of either campaign were discovered, say, to have pal'd around with Rex Tillerson. ("Hypocrisy exposed! Candidate Slams Big Oil, But Some of His Best Friends Have Pockets Stuffed with Black Gold!" --- I lack the pith of the NY Post, but you get the idea.)

Personally, I find it a bit ironic --- the depth of scrutiny that would have brought such personal financial details to light is exactly the kind of bug-under-microscope examination that candidates pay millions to administer to their Veep Short List.

Posted by C. | June 11, 2008 5:06 AM

All these indignant harrumpfing excuses for Obama miss the point. The man is insufferable in his holier than thou contempt for ordinary politics and his belief that HE is the answer. This story doesn't prove him unusally expedient, sure. And yes, they all do it, including John McCain. So what? That's our point, those of us not in rapture. As the bard said, "name me someone who's not a parasite and I'll go out and say a prayer for him." So all those of you praying for Saint Barak, you can stop praying. No need. Sinner man (as are we all) where you gonna run to?

Posted by Jon Burack | June 11, 2008 1:47 PM

"The man is insufferable in his holier than thou contempt for ordinary politics and his belief that HE is the answer. This story doesn't prove him unusally expedient, sure. And yes, they all do it, including John McCain. So what? That's our point, those of us not in rapture."

I'm proud to consider myself a cynic. But I cannot agree with you there, my brother. To say that no man ---and particularly no politician--- is free of sin is not to say that there exist no differences among them. Niccolo himself wrote his book because he believed in the depth of his heart that there were such a thing as good politicians and bad ones, and that his country would be much better off --- hell, would only be a country --- if it was led by good ones. What peopel generlly quibble with is NM's idea of "good."

I don't think Obama walks on water. But I do think he's a decent man, and one who has a shot -- not a guarantee, of course --- of moving us beyond the poisonous atmosphere of the past fifteen years or so. The revelation that a senior advisor to his campaign may have gotten a sweet deal on a mortgage through his connections does not destroy Obama as an icon, for me, because I only ever thought he was a man.

Posted by C. | June 11, 2008 7:11 PM