Newsweek: Who's Under Arrest Here??

There's a tone to Michael Isikoff's latest piece in Newsweek that I find both offensive and troubling.  Why is the onus is being put on Barack Obama tell what did he know and when did he know it?  

Not the guy who was actually arrested, all the spotlight is shining on the President-Elect. Arguably the victim of said crime.

Isikoff's one of the good guy's, normally, but ain't nobody above an ass whoopin'.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  "Obama's the higher profile guy right now," the Press bleats.  "He's the sexier story, plus Blagojevich's Lawyer won't give us anything on him, so we have to turn to Obama."

Which is why people don't trust the Press anymore.

I understand the journalist's viewpoint in that, we have to clear the decks just in case Obama did something untoward...but no one seems to be asking the question, what if he's done nothing wrong??

The Journalists response would be that no one should fear having to answer a few question, but they, you and I all know that's now how the game works. We're watching it right now. The Journalists of the world are playing their typical, lazy-ass game of drama-inflation. They get to sell a few more papers, put a few more eyeballs in front of the screen, yet we get no closer to what actually happened. But what actually happened doesn't matter in journalism anymore. It's just about hitting that number...

Look at Mr. Isikoff's very first question: "Define "inappropriate," make good on your pledge of transparency and show us the internal report. All of it."

If there is a reason for the inherent hosility between Government officials and Journalists, it's because of questions like this. I'm also missing the part where the U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, asked the Office of the President-Elect to keep a lid of this stuff until December 22nd.

Second question "Explain what happened with Senate "Candidate 1."

Again, the onus being that Obama is actually the one under possible indictment.  Why not just ask "what did you do to make the guy actually under arrest so upset?"

The third question is actually the easiest to answer: "What did you know about Blago's exit strategy?"

Nothing, next question.

The fourth question is almost too insulting to repeat: "Have you shared everything you have on Rezko?"

My first answer would normally begin with a four-letter expletive. My problem with the word Rezko, it's become a short-hand, not for any actual corruption, but short-hand for possible corruption. It has been long known that Rezko was going to be a far bigger problem for other Illinois politicians not named Obama. Yet again, Obama is the one taking the heat.

And finally we come to "Will you promise to leave Fitzgerald alone?"

Of course, if Obama replaces Fitzgerald (which by the way, it's his right to do) Obama MUST be guilty of something.

I want Fitzgerald left alone. I actually think Fitzgerald will be left alone.  I think Blagojevich has a better chance at going to jail if Fitzgerald is left alone.  At the same time, what if he's let go...what does that prove exactly?  It's just one more story point that the press can hit and claim its doing its job.