In a Salon article on the Obama-Blagojevich kerfuffle Joe Conason assures us there is no proof that Obama had anything to do with the Illinois Governor trying to sell his open Senate seat.
But there is something curious here. We’re back to the standards of proof that existed under the Clinton administration. All through the Clinton administration the mantra in the press was that there was not enough proof to show that the Clintons’ had anything to do with the various scandals that erupted regularly.
We were told that these were stories driven by partisan politics and that we should pay no attention and just “Move On.”
But during the Bush administration accusations needed no proof to be accepted as gospel. Bush ignored intelligence that would have allowed him to prevent 9/11; the Bush administration was actively involved in causing 9/11; the Bush administration and the CIA had actually planned and carried out 9/11; Bush twisted intelligence to justify invading Iraq; Bush spied on American citizens who had no connection to terrorists. Butsh authorized Abu Ghraib torture; and on and on.
The media generally accepted all those accusations and gave a platform for critics to make themselves heard. Reporters (I think it was David Gregory) actually started screaming at the Press Secretary during a press conference. But now that Obama has been elected they’re in Dyson suckup mode.
Now, for some reason, critics must prove their accusations are true instead of the target having to prove them false. I wonder what the difference is?