After days and days of headlines, I was struck by its absence on the tabloids today.

Especially after reading this news from an overenthusiastic Obama flunkie in the media

Obama Takes on Goldman Sachs Through Clever Internet Ad

A new White House ad that pops up on Google searches for “Goldman Sachs SEC” features a plea by President Obama for financial reform, and is creating its own controversy. The ad is triggering praise as a smart bit of cyber marketing, but is also being cited as possible evidence of White House pressure in a financial investigation.

I did the search and what startled me was not the add – I never pay attention to those, but the fact that there was only one article for today, and from a  local paper  from New Jersey.

I didn’t find WSJ cover on Newseum today, but my search revealed only one brief note about the German equivalent on SEC preparing to investigate them.

We were warned  the “R”s will seek to tie Obama to Goldman Sachs – a ridiculously easy task – but there’s little evidence of that.

Except for this article from yesterday’s Examiner, inspiringly titled

Is Goldman Obama’s Enron? No, it’s worse

.where we find out that

Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

after outrageously claiming that Bush was somewhat tarred an feathered in the media for his Enron connection, the article does go a bit in the Obama/sachs connections

Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, was paid $35,000 as a consultant to Goldman while also working as Bill Clinton’s top fundraiser. Obama’s fundraiser and economic adviser Warren Buffett is very long on Goldman, having bet on them in 2008 in the expectation of a bailout. Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist until months before joining Team Obama.

What does that add up to? Getting a hand in making the regulations:

Politico quoted a Goldman lobbyist Monday saying, “We’re not against regulation. We’re for regulation. We partner with regulators.”

Which is a good start, but where’s the follow up today?

What gives? Is Obama trying to back of the “R”s accusations of bad timing by silencing his media? Did Goldman use its leverage to accomplish this?

Which makes me wonder about the efficiency of Gregg Craig’s rolodex: could the omerta been put on the coverage so fast?

Update

Verified that Goldman is missing from WSJ page one as well.

But it’s on the low circulation pink Financial Times