Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down

On MSNBC earlier today, Chris Cilizza was pretty hard on Barack Obama for his dismissal of criticism about his appointment of Jim Johnson to his VP vetting team, saying he did himself "little good" yesterday when he insisted:

"I am not vetting my VP Search Committee for their mortgages," Obama said Tuesday in St. Louis, Missouri, where he was campaigning.

"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," he said.

The controversy surrounding Johnson:

Republicans had been hammering Johnson since the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that he received a good deal on a mortgage from Countrywide due to his friendship with the company's CEO Angelo Mozilo. Obama has criticized Countrywide in connection with the subprime mortgage crisis.

The fact that Obama had lost Cilizza, who is a pretty reliable honest broker when it comes to analyzing the small p politics of political situations, led me to suspect that perhaps Johnson would not be long for this world, and indeed, today Johnson has stepped down.

From Obama's statement:

"Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said in a statement.

I'm glad the Obama campaign realized this is not a battle worth waging. The fact is, Obama is likely to be held to a higher standard than McCain is on various measures over the coming months because Obama has staked his campaign largely on judgment and a new kind of politics. Who Obama surrounds himself with, whether in an official paid capacity or not, matters and it's good that they've learned that lesson now rather than later.

Update [2008-6-11 16:4:26 by Todd Beeton]:On MSNBC a few minutes ago, Howard Fineman broke down why Obama had to cut Johnson loose:

Obama picked as his top VP vetter a guy who was a very symbol of the world that Obama claimed to want to change and that's what bit him here and that's why he had no choice but to get rid of him, in part because Jim Johnson...raked in a lot of cash from his various government-related jobs, especially the one at Fannie Mae.



Display:


I agree (none / 0)

Not a battle worth fighting.  That said, it still pisses me off that someone serving the campaign in such a limited (although important) capacity needed to be vetted.  I suppose we'll need to have vetters for the vetters for the vetters pretty soon.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM EST

Re: I agree (2.00 / 1)

someone vetting your vp choices is serving in a limited capacity ?

- that is really bizarre


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Limited to (none / 0)

choosing a VP -- is that unclear?  One among three.  One who is a volunteer.  One who will not choose himself, as did Dick Cheney.  If you believe that only pure outsiders are capable of being on this committee, then good for you -- start a campaign against Carolyn Kennedy.


by gchaucer2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

Yes, checking if the VP choices have any dirt in their closets the candidate should know about is a very limited position.

It doesn't shape policy or strategy.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

What's bizarre about it? Obama has cast himself as the only candidate able to walk on water, since, well forever, and in that role, everything he does, or anyone he associates with, will come under intense scrutiny. Better get used to it.


by muggle on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (2.00 / 1)

Obama should be the one to vet the vetters.  In this case he didn't do it.


by Upstate Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:53:35 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Do you have a link to the fact that he didn't vet Johnson and determine that he was capable of the job?  Please post.


by gchaucer2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Kinda Politics Comes Up Lame (none / 0)

Obama needs to get control of this. He is trying to send a message that McCain and his crew are dirty with PAC/Lobbyist ties and now this.

Not good


by mikeofminnesota on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Are you saying he Vetted Johnson? If so, then he failed miserable.


by muggle on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

"he failed miserable."  As in Les Miserable????  That musical sucked.


by gchaucer2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

"Obama should be the one to vet the vetters."

Personally?  Like he's got to get their financial documents and make a determination?  Isn't he kind of busy running for president?  


by Headlight on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lesson no. 1 - - (2.00 / 4)

dispense with the knee jerk defense of EVERYTHING Obama does.  
When he's wrong - - Wright, Johnson, etc. - - a good loyal democrat tries to get him to auto-correct before he hurts himself.  
In the long run, blind loyalists are not good friends.
PS - Since Obama obviously became worried about the potential negative impact of Johnson, does this make Obama a concern troll?  Because anyone worried about Johnson 2 days ago was called a concern troll!
I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:02:13 PM EST

Re: Lesson no. 1 - - (2.00 / 2)

Say that again buddy. I was dismissed as a son of satan for even suggesting this was a problem.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember when only a racists (2.00 / 1)

with no appreciation for the black church had anything negative to say about Wright or TUCC - - until Obama dropped one and quit the other?


I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson no. 1 - - (none / 0)

Well you were keeping some pretty seamy company.  I think people can be forgiven for questioning you on this, because 90% of the people who were were folks who are pro-McCain.

Literally.  I am not going to name names under the nose of Todd, but by the time you mentioned it people had their claws out.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson no. 1 - - (none / 0)

Self excusatory bs.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson no. 1 - - (none / 0)

I didn't criticize you at all, so you're wrong.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And if a Republican digs up dirt that's TRUE (2.00 / 1)

do we act like Republicans, and deny reality, because we don't like the source of the truth?
I thought we were the reality based community.
I have no respect for "loyal bushies".  I have no patience for "loyal Obamacans".
Crooks are crooks, whether they're ours or theirs, and they need to be fired ASAP, regardless of who informs us of it.
I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And if a Republican digs up dirt that's TRUE (none / 0)

Because it's not dirt.

It would be if the guy was in a position to influence policy or enrich himself.  Or occupied a position of importance.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's picking the next VP - - (1.00 / 0)

he should have clean hands.
Or, are you saying Obama is wrong to dump Johnson?
Help, I'm confused.
I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's picking the next VP - - (none / 0)

Just checked dailyobama, and couldn't find any mention of this. At least here, everyone isn't in denial.


by muggle on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And if a Republican digs up dirt that's TRUE (none / 0)

When the Republicans come out with an attack ad about Obama's "relationship" to Scarlett Johansson, let me know.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But if he's mocked on all the late (1.00 / 0)

nite shows, because some immature suporter is blabbing to the gossip columns?  That would be worse.  We don't need that.


I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson (2.00 / 1)

I wonder if all those Obama fans who were pooh poohing this matter this morning are now having second thoughts. This was clanger but any definition. He doesn't need this sort of stuff.  


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:03:07 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson (none / 0)

Unless you're in the tank, there are no free passes handed out.


by soyousay on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (2.00 / 1)

My concern (and no I am not a concern troll) is that this is one more instance of semi bad judgment on his part.  Is it fatal?  Obviously not.  But if he keeps having to distance himself from people he allegedly trusts it doesn't look good.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

He should have handled this like Hillary Clinton did.  Look how long she hung on to Mark Penn, who was lobbying for foreign governments while he was running her campaign, and Sandy Berger, who was fired for bringing home classified documents in his pants.  It was full speed ahead with everyone she was connected with unless they were in jail.

That's just off the top of my head.

I'm sort of annoyed at this, and annoyed that Clinton supporters would question his judgement over this, when just about everyone in their campaign had their thumb in the pie.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

She allowed the wife of Marc Rich to donate to her campaign.

I'll stop.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

What does any of that have to do with Obama?  Mixing the two situations just makes you look uber defensive.


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (2.00 / 1)

Seeing Clinton "Supporters" jump on every little nit they find is getting old.  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

And seeing the Obama supporters acting completely unable to offer any criticism of him has gotten equally old.


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Why should we ring the same ring tones as the right wing or MSM?
It makes no sense for this to be come an "I told you so" type of post.
Is this a national issue?  No.
Is it a judgment issue? No.
Is it much of anything?  Not really.

The folks who never were on board the Obama train ought to stop finding reasons to be snarky our Nominee, it only helps McSame.....uhg - Focus People!


by gil44 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (2.00 / 1)

I'm sort of annoyed at this, and annoyed that Clinton supporters would question his judgement over this, when just about everyone in their campaign had their thumb in the pie.

Or, if you like, what SpanishFly said.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Why are you bringing up Hillary? What does that have to do with BO's bad judgement on this and a host of other things?

You sound like the Republicans who year after year kept blaming Bill Clinton for everything even though he'd been out of office for years.

Now we have the nominee, it's time to stop bringing up Hillary or anyone else.

It's BO's mess, he's got to be responsible for it.

Or are we talking old politics here?


Full Equality Now!
by cuppajoe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

I thought he needed to do this. It was quick and IMO a week from now, everyone will be asking "Johnson who?" :D


by soyousay on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (2.00 / 1)

I think this was a mistake.  VP exploratory committee members are pretty tangential - and by accepting Johnson's resignation Obama is basically giving the go-ahead for Republicans to link anyone involved in his campaign to anything, no matter how remote.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

I'm actually inclined to agree. It was a dumb move but having made it he should have hung in there for a day or two to see if it got traction. If it didn't fine. If it did, call the bus. Hopefully it will go away in a day or two although I expect all the networks to carry it tonight. In itself it's not very important except in two respects. One he can't make too many slip ups like this and secondly it ever so slightly taints his vp search process. The latter probably only signifies to political junkies.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Whether or not he gives permission, they're gonna do it.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To all the concern trolls out there (2.00 / 2)

You know who you are...

Running on integrity and bringing people together doesn't mean you're going to get it right all the time. Every campaign is going to make errors.  This is a small blip.  Bill Clinton had to survive HUGE problems during his first campaign (and, as it turned out, all through his presidency) that make this child's play.

Drop all the OMGZZZZZZZZZ bull on this.  He'll be fine.  Next thing you'll be telling me is the guy who painted his house last summer had 4 unpaid parking tickets.  Sheesh.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST

Re: To all the concern trolls out there (none / 0)

We know that all campaigns make mistakes. The problem with folks like you who immediately attack anyone pointing up a problem is you're not willing to concede it. You are in denial and then when it's clearly demonstrated to be a be problem you want to blame the messengers. Look I said this a little clanger that was going to be a nine day wonder but he doesn't need to make too many of them. You're the problem as is well illustrated by your rather asinine closing comment about house painters.    


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To all the concern trolls out there (none / 0)

I'm not attacking anyone.  I'm telling you this isn't a big deal.  Wasn't three days ago and ain't today.  Sheesh.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To all the concern trolls out there (none / 0)

Well you could have fooled me. No it's quite a small deal but since when didn't small deals get inordinate amounts of attention in America. What after all could be smaller than a flag pin.  


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To all the concern trolls out there (none / 0)

What after all could be smaller than a flag pin.  

Your level of genuine concern, for starters.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Agreed.  I think tne can view leaders of political factions as simply the ones who will get to cut the pie in a way that their friends get the larger pieces.  Yes, there are a few idealists (e.g., Wellstone on the left, Jeff Flake, maybe, on the right) and there are idealists among the followers.  But other than that . . .


by katmandu1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (1.40 / 5)

Deadenders are eating this up. LOL!


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:24:04 PM EST

the only thing with this (none / 0)

is that every single person associated in any capacity is now going to be vetted because it was so easy to do this to johnson.

There could potentially be one thing about 100 people thats just off. (in reality there are about 100 things for every single person that are off), and each and every day there could be a target.

100 days of people "resigning" is not good news.

Now Johnson has had 3 cycles.

  1. Picked for VP process
  2. Oh look something wrong
  3. Johnson "resigns" from VP process

3 cycles for each person, 2 bad, 1 no one cares about.

NOT GOOD.

He cant let the media dictate what is going on.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

I agree.  The Obama team needs to stick with their people a little better.  Now, if he honestly stepped aside because he didn't want to be a distraction, then fair enough.  But if he was cut loose because people thought he was tainted by this, so much so that he couldn't INTERVIEW JOB CANDIDATE, I think Team Obama has something to learn about politics.  There are few folks out there you're going to find without some small skeleton in their closet.

Now they need to use this as an opportunity to say, see, our guy resigned to not be a distraction.  But look, X in the McCain campaign is still showing up for work every day and he did X,Y, and Z!!!

PS.  Funny how the Clinton crew is reacting to this.  10 threads today with no more than a few posts.  Post something they can jump on and WHAM.

Telling.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

Amazing isn't it. Obama f$#@s up, in a small way but it's a definite blooper, and it's all Clinton's supporters fault.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

Nice distraction technique... blame the "Clinton crew"  Nice unity pony you are riding there.


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (1.00 / 1)

Blame them? Oh God. You people are so predictable. The way your "crew" wrote 2 diaries on this without any links or added commentary and the way you are blowing this out of proportion is amusing. Playing the victim card is nothing new for "supporters".


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

I am not part of any crew.  I have been more interested in the impeachment talks than any of this.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

Heh buddy I have tried throughout this to provide a bit of context. The big problem from the moment this blew up has been the unwillingness of the Obama partisans to concede there was a problem preferring instead to attack the messengers as dead enders, trolls anything els you can think of. He f^%$# up, admit it, let's hope it goes away quickly and then we can move on.    


by ottovbvs on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

We get it.  Obama bad.  Clinton good.

Amen.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

No, it's Clinton out.  Obama now on his own, no more blaming Clinton.  Stop making silly mistakes.

Got it?


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

If you can point to anywhere I actually blamed Clinton, I'll give you a cookie.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

You are claiming that the only people who saw this as a problem are Clinton supporters.  Gimme a break.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

You said I was blaming Clinton for something.  No cookie for you.  Now, I have a question, why did you lie?

Oh, that's right, you're just concerned.  Thanks for your concern.  I really really appreciate your concern.

Now, what I actually said was that there were a bunch of threads today and the only one to get any comments was this one.  And it seems to be the usual suspects driving up the count.  Color me surprised.  LOL!


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

I'm not riding a unity pony and I'm not blaming the Clinton crew.  

1.)  Clinton "Supporters" will either come around or they won't and it has nothing to do with me or any other Obama supporter out there.  Make up your own mind and vote for who you think will best lead the country.

2.)  It's a fact that a half dozen front page stories were ignored today.  The first opportunity you and your friends had to get on the internet today was just as this one was posted.  Is that what you're telling me?  

LOL!  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

Check my posting history today.  I have been posting on several other diaries, namely the impeachment ones.

I have already said I will vote for Obama.  Never vote for McCain.  I think I said this today as well.  

Next?


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the only thing with this (none / 0)

Next?  Oh, I'm sure as soon as Obama double parks, you'll be right there, calling him out for it.  You're providing a valuable service to humanity.  Thank you.  Thank you so much.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bring in someone unimpeachable... (none / 0)

Fritz Mondale comes to mind...

Party elder, highly respected, and someone who has been through the process himself...so would do a good job...


by SaveElmer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:36:34 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

You got that right.


Full Equality Now!
by cuppajoe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

but, but, but, he has judgement.  not so much.


by joker on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Your screenname is pretty apt.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"...Obama had lost Cilizza..." (none / 0)

I would say, "don't make me laugh," but it's the reason I read half of your diaries.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

The wheels of the bus go 'round and 'round...


by stefystef on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST

It's pretty hard.. (none / 0)

to throw someone under a bus when they resign first.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Weird..

I just went looking for more info on this and I found this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/pol itics/11johnson.html?_r=1&scp=2& sq=jim+johnson&st=nyt&oref=slogi n

Passage of interest:

"One of the more well-known cases involves UnitedHealth Group, a Minnesota company, where Mr. Johnson was a board member and later head of the compensation committee.

The company came under fire after the chief executive was granted more than $1.4 billion in stock options -- some $618 million of which was returned as a result of settlements with federal regulators and shareholders.

The executive, William McGuire, resigned, but he kept $800 million from the package.

Because of cases like UnitedHealth Group, Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, introduced legislation in the Senate last year to restrict runaway compensation."

So, Obama was involved in legislation that was a direct response to actions taken by a company that had Jim Johnson as the head of the compensation committee.

Surely he knew this?


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM EST

McTroll (none / 0)


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McTroll (none / 0)

Calling everyone a troll is so last week.


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McTroll (none / 0)

For some, being one for McLame is so THIS week.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

REAL NEWS FOR A CHANGE! (none / 0)

House Reeps just managed to kill the override to Bu$h's veto of an extension of unemployment benefits. 4 dozen of them crossed over to vote for the override, but they will nevertheless suffer for it too come election day.

Another pyrrhic victory for the bu$heviks.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:14:45 PM EST

Re: Politics as usual. (none / 0)

Yeah, big surprise.  Not.  How disappointing.


by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Rounding down from .0001% to 0%.. No One Cares.


by Wayward Son on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST

Do the Right Thing (none / 0)

Obama needs to look at all the candidates and then choose Hillary.

Ignoring the 18 million votes she received is extremely politically risky. Too many of her supporters will bolt the party or just sit out the election.

The faster he puts her on the ticket the faster the party can come together, win the election and tackle the problems we all face.

Yes, Hillary could join his cabinet or run for Governor or get on the supreme court, but I'm talking about WINNING the election. Obama can't change a thing if he doesn't win the election and he could easily lose if he doesn't bring the party together by puting Hillary on the ticket. That is political reality.


by mmorang on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST

Re: Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down (none / 0)

Bull.

It's politics, it just isn't black and white. Iy's all different shades of grey.

Saying this is politics as usual is saying off-white is the same as pitch black.

Politics as usual is letting a lobbyist that is currently employed  by an industry to push for certain policies write the campaign policies on that industry.

This was somebody who got an above average loan and who was serving in an entirely different capacity.
No conflict of interest.

It's being associated with somebody who has the appearance of resembling politics as usual.

I'm sorry but just because perfection isn't reached doesn't mean being a very good on a subject is the as being average on that subject or if like mcCain; worse.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST

Good - It was a mistake (none / 0)

On an earlier diary complaining about these issues I said Jim Johnson was a legitimately problematic position. I am glad Obama let him go. It was a mistake. Johnson is a long time party insider, which is bad enough. But the Countrywide stuff is disconcerting.

Fineman is right: Obama is and should be held to a higher standard. If he makes a mistake and brings on board somebody not up to his standards then he should just correct the matter and take responsibility. Seems he done that.

What I find annoying is Cilizza's emphasis on McCain's people pushing the matter, and it making Obama look "weak." I don't think holding on to bad decisions is a sign of strength.


by elrod on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM EST

Bad choice. (none / 0)

I don't know if they were paying the guy to be a vetter or not, but you have to stay away from things that have even a whiff of impropriety.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.