MSNBC, ABC's The Note hyped NY Times Obama "scandal," despite no evidence of ethical impropriety
Citing a March 7 New York Times article reporting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors," MSNBC News Live anchor Contessa Brewer suggested that the story represented Obama's "first real scandal." Neither Brewer nor her guest, Newsweek senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe, noted that the Times reported that "[t]here is no evidence that any of [Obama's] actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks," though Wolffe did question whether the story qualified as a "scandal."
The March 7 edition of ABC News' political newsletter, The Note, led with the Times' Obama story, calling it a "front page investigative must-read." According to The Note, one of the "[b]ad sign[s] for Team Obama" is that even though Obama lost $13,000 in the stock deal, "Whitewater lost money too." Absent from The Note's discussion of the potential effect of the Times story on Obama was any acknowledgement that that the several multimillion-dollar investigations into the Clinton-era Whitewater real-estate "scandal" found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons.
From The New York Times' March 7 article:
Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.
[...]
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party's presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.
The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama's broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.
"He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned," Mr. Burton said. "And when he realized that he didn't have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust."
Mr. Obama has made ethics a signature issue, and his quest for the presidency has benefited from the perception that he is unlike politicians who blend public and private interests. There is no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks.
From the 11 a.m. ET segment of the March 7 edition of MSNBC News Live:
BREWER: Could this be Barack Obama's first real scandal? A new financial disclosure from the Illinois senator is raising questions about some of his stock deals. The New York Times reports Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two companies. The catch? Major investors in both companies were also major donors to Obama's campaign. An Obama spokesman told the Times the stock purchases were made by a broker without the senator's knowledge and they were later sold to avoid a conflict of interest.
So one thing is for certain -- Senator Obama's facing much greater scrutiny now that he's a front-runner for his party's presidential nomination. Richard Wolffe covers the presidential campaigns for Newsweek. Richard, is this a real scandal for Barack Obama?
WOLFFE: Well, any of these stories are a problem for him. I mean, he has such a -- sort of a golden image. He's set ethics reform as a key part of his image and his identity, not just in Washington and Illinois. So any of these stories are a problem. And it's true the Obama campaign is bracing for this kind of story, where he gets knocked off his pedestal.
Having said that, I'm not sure this is the story that really does it. It looks bad, but this was done by a blind trust, and blind trusts are, by their very nature, kept at arm's length from politicians like this. So I think he has an escape clause when it comes to the story.
BREWER: But, you know, he's made ethics such a big part of this campaign. Do you think it undermines his efforts to appear different than those inside-the-beltway Washington insiders?
WOLFFE: Well, it doesn't look good. But blind trusts are complex, they have all sorts of legal restrictions on them, and there is this sort of curious part of why the blind trust would make these investments in small stocks, speculative stocks. I mean, these are not obvious stock picks. It's not like they picked $50,000 of shares in Google, or something. So there are question marks about how the blind trust operated.
Having said that, again, they sold the shares when there seemed to be an appearance of the trust not working properly, the broker not working properly. So, again, this is one of those stories that has a line that underscores the end of it, so the --
BREWER: Those -- and, Richard, those same financial forms show that Obama is taking money from Republicans who funded the Swift Boat campaign against [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA]. Is that going to cause problems for Barack Obama from Republicans? I mean, from Democrats?
WOLFFE: You know, what's funny about the Obama campaign is that he has attracted a lot of donors who supported Kerry in the past. The reason for that is because those former Kerry donors feel that they can't get a seat at the table with the Hillary campaign, with [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's [D-NY] campaign. So, you know, the fact that he can get those Republican donors as he well he could say is a sign of his bipartisan appeal. On a personal basis, I think those donors are more driven by their own access to a candidate more than the loyalty to John Kerry.
BREWER: Richard Wolffe, thank you.
From the March 7 edition of The Note:
The story will now proceed on two levels:
1. Investigative: Other serious news organizations (including and especially the Chicago Tribune, whose humiliated editors thought they were going to be first out of the gate with this stuff) and the right-wing bloggers will scramble to fill in the holes that the Timesmen have dug.
2. What It Takes: How does Obama (and his handlers -- yes, he has handlers) deal with the swirl.
Good sign for Team Obama: They have already put out their, uhm, first response document, ahead of The Note's deadline.
Bad sign for Team Obama: Whitewater lost money too.
Another no story "story" eh? They can do better than this can't they?
If only the NYT had somebody on staff to tell them "nothing to see here"....
Rusty: we could always nominate our own trusty Tommy to fill that role, as he does so often here.
Yet again the Democrats are being held to higher standard than George Bush. Bush has ruined the country's reputation, wasted lives and treasure on a foolish war built on a pillar of lies, has nearly bankrupted the nation, ignored warnings pre 9/11, but that's all fine and dandy because he's a Republican. Meanwhile, Clinton oversees a boom economy and a time of relative peace, achieves a surplus and spends all 8 years chasing down al Qaeda (he was "obsessed" said Republicans), but because he had an extramarital affair, the Republicans wanted his head on platter.
Two different standards for the SAME office.
In every "Republican" is a "plebian" (that's anagram humor, folks).
Randy
Don't forget the stocks that Bush cashed out right before Harken (when he was running the company and all) took a nosedive, and ones that he profited from. We never did really hear much about that back in the day, but hey, Obama's banker bought something for him he didn't know about. BIG STORY!!!
Yeah Magnolia,
Can you imagine if it was a Democrat who pulled that Harken Energy stunt?
The media would have had him impeached and in prison in six months.
Corporate media dirt.
You keep forgetting the illegal war Clinton got us in and he sold missile technology to China.
Look over there! Where? There goes another right wing talking point,
Double standards to deflect the dirty details so we're told...
Are you really gonna bring that up?
When ya gonna let that lie lay down to rest?
Are you still trying to bring that up,
Cause if my eyes don't decieve me there's deflection goin on around here...
Leather must not have digested the latest con talking points, so he's digging up ones that were dubunked as lies long ago.
Yeah, the simple problem with any argument that bemoans 'higher standards' is that it implies high standards should not be expected at all. I don't know whether this is going to go anywhere, I don't know whether it should. It does sound a little improper if you read the actual article. I hope it's not. I've got a lot of hope for Obama, but if he did indeed cross a pretty clear ethical line, then it's only best that it comes to light.
You should hold every public official to the same HIGH standards.
What sounds improper? having a blind trust? Or the trust buying recommended stocks with no idea of any connection to Obama? Or when obama does get an accounting him selling them right away at a loss? Please, point out what he did that was improper? Nothing like the steady income Crashcart Dick gets from halliburton that he is perfectly aware of and refuses to get rid of is it?
Whether he knew or not is sort of unclear. We can take his word for it that he didn't, we can determine that he's obviously lying to cover his ass, or we can say the actual truth which is that we simply don't know.
What we do know is that he invested in stock of major contributors, and in at least one of the instances attempted to put forth legislation that would have theoretically allowed him to benefit financially. The fact that he didn't benefit is really neither here nor there when it comes to possible ethics violations. The very attempt to benefit would be a violation. Again, I don't know whether he did that or not, but to suggest the very suggestion that he did is unfair or a sign of bias is just ridiculous. To suggest that he clearly did not and could not be in any way wrong is a far greater sign of bias than the mere implication that he could possibly be unethical.
I'm certainly not going to attempt to defend the vice president since it wasn't my intention to come to his defense--nor to the president's. All I was really saying was that people like to complain about a double standard when it suits their interests. People tend to like to complain when they believe they're being treated unfairly, and laugh when they're benefiting from the double standard. It shows character to recognize when someone else (even a political adversary) is being treated unfairly and to speak out against that treatment.
Breaker,
there is no mention anywhere in this story that Obama proposed or sponsored legislation that would have benefitted himself or either company. Where did you find that piece of information, because it certainly is not mentioned in this news story. It simply states that no evidence exists that any of Obama's actions benefitted himself or either company. There is no mention of any actions that may have been perceived as such in the first place.
From Newsday:
'Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, as the disease was spreading in Asia, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss the matter with any company officials.'
When I'm wrong I admit it. It's true that the preceeding says nothing of legislation put forth or supported by the Senator. It does on the other hand say that two weeks after buying the stock in a company that was developing a drug to treat avian flu he pushed for more federal funding into that specific field. I'm perfectly happy to admit the possibility that this could be simple coincidence, but if it was not a coincidence--and you have to at least in part accept that possibility--it could very easily be seen as unethical.
Again, I personally hope this is nothing and it passes without much if any damage to the senator. If it isn't nothing, though....
OK, I was not aware of the legislation..
and I didn't see it in the article above. If he did something wrong, just like I expect of the righties (still holding my breath ) he needs to be accountable for it. However, in the buildup to the avian flu scare in the news, Rumsfeld also owns huge amounts of shares in the company that makes Tami-flu, and was pushing for the government to buy mass quantities of the drug, but that story never seemed to get any legs. Hmmm...
Oh, that evil Obama! He goes to a funky African church and has suspicious stocks in his porfolio! Holy Crap! But wait...doesn't Dark Cheney still get a stipend from Halliburton, which happens to be getting fat(ter) on federal contracts?
I bet the Clintons are behind this!
;-)
One word: Haliburton
Silly Democrat, crony capitalism and unethical conflicts of interest are for Republicans!
Hey, I know...let's see some figures on how much money Puddinhead George and Dark Cheney got back in tax cuts over the past few years. Not illegal, but it would certainly put things in perspective.
We were waiting for you cons to come marching in to try to defend the indefensible. Arguing with each other really doesn't work since we mostly agree. Cons are like arch villains. They give the superheroes purpose. Tommy, you complete me.
Stop playing the victim card.
Gotcha, playing the victim card on an anonymous website posting anonymously to other anonymous posters is the height of self pity.
I didn't say you were playing the victim ace of spades. More like the victim seven of diamonds.
Good "deal"
Ha! Rock me Tomadeus
A Falco reference? Bartender, Sam Adams for this man!
Falco was awesome but he was no Taco.
Everything is ultimately about Puddinhead George and Dark Cheney and how they've raped our country. Criticizing them is never off topic.
"...you have not addressed this Obama story"
Oh dear.... Prepare to be chastised everybody.
Come on guys, this is just stupid sensationalism on a slow news day. It'll go away. Weird that 50K made it into two large donor's speculative coffers...so let's see how much more there was and where it went. Put our barely-interested minds at rest.
Sure,
It's just stupid sensationalism. Let's just make it fair. They need to dig up some stupid sensationalism on Romney or McPain. Shouldn't be too hard.
A tad off-topic, but not too much [it's about Obama]
I've got the radio on 680 WRKO[Boston] & am listening to my favorite talk show host Howie Carr
Here's what he's discussing:
Before Barack Obama was a United States senator and a presidential hopeful, he was a Harvard University law student living in Somerville who parked in bus stops and accumulated hundreds of dollars in parking tickets. And for nearly two decades those parking tickets went unpaid, until a representative of Obama’s settled all his outstanding debts with Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department Jan. 26. We will speak with the reporter who broke the story George Hassett of The Somerville News.
You can listen to the show on the net, IF you're interested
http://www.howiecarr.com/
I hope he doesn't get elected president. That's the kind of offense that merits a $70 million investigation and impeachment, since Obama's a Democrat.
Yeah, too bad he didn't start a war and get thousands of people killed needlessly...that we could overlook.
I hope he doesn't get elected president. That's the kind of offense that merits a $70 million investigation and impeachment, since Obama's a Democrat.
That
was funny.
Rusty you are a quick wit ;-)
Listen anyway if you get a chance. Howie is a riot. [though not as funny as you]
Oh my!, that is huge!
Did they find out what brand of toothepaste O'Bama used?
J,
It is relevant in the fact that now that Obama's hat is in the ring, his entire life from conception will be scrutinized and microscopically dug into to find any impropriety or anomoly. It goes with the territory and is really keeping many out of the process.
This, and the topic of this thread, will have to be dealt with by each candidate........better they get out in front and deal with them head on. Hiding and speaking through spokespeople isn't the way to do it. They need to show leadership and candor........if not, they deserve what they get.
Hey Tommy,
I don't have any outstanding parking tickets or unpaid excise taxes.
I'm already more qualified to be President than most ;-)
These guys know their lives past & present will be scrutinized. And I want to know that they are playing by the same rules the rest of us are expected to.
Jeter: there ARE those allegations of you being caught, in 3rd grade, letting that cute girl copy off your spelling test . . .
Obama is untouchable
Meanwhile his people are spewing the most vile hate toward the Clintons. The MSM supports this type of anti Hillary garbage.
Doris,
Tell us what vile hate "his people" are saying about the Clintons? We'd like to know.
The Lincoln Bedroom crack that David Geffen made, then the statement by the Obama campaign
Obama's camp immediately shot back. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom," Robert Gibbs, spokesman for Obama, said , referring to reports that President Clinton's top donors were rewarded with overnight stays at the White House
Gibbs also criticized Clinton for having "lavished praise" on a supporter, Robert Ford , a state senator from South Carolina who later said that Obama could imperil the rest of the Democratic ticket if nominated because "he's black.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/22/clinton_obama_slug_it_out_early/?page=2
Geffen is a supporter, not a member of the campaign. Hilary tried to play the "victim card" and made it an issue. They started it. Obama's people had an obligation to respond. I'm glad they did.
Robert Gibbs is a spokesman for Obama .
Exactly. He had to go on the offensive and counter punched. Good for him.
oh doris, doris, doris, you might have had a point if you had included Hillary's and 'her peoples' snipes and stupidities. As it is by leaving that out you become as low as Flush or O'Lielly. you can do better then the partisan hate you displayed.
Americanmutt
Senator Clintons staffs statements are on the link I posted, everyone can make up their own minds. Typical of you to turn this into partisan hate.
in your post you highlighted the Geffin comment, then made mention of Obama's response, yes you supplied a link, yet your post itself tries to imply that Obama's comment was out of the blue and not in response to other people blaming him for a 3rd persons words.
That is how you see it , and that is you putting words that I did not say.
You want to spew hate toward Senator Clinton that is your right.
Whitewater real-estate "scandal" found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons
HAHA. Kind of like Fitzgerald found no wrongdoing on the part of Rove or Cheney.
No evidence of wrong doing involving White Water. That's correct. An independent prosecutor came to that conclusion. The same guy who came to the conclusion that Clinton didn't whack Vince Foster. Had Fitzgerald had that kind of power Nancy Pelosi would be President.
Fitz didn't say there was "no evidence" against Cheney and Rove. He said that obfuscation on the part of Libby has hindered his case. A subtlety someone of even your intellectual capacity can understand.
Did not.
oops.. I should have said... "It did not".
Fitzgerald wacted like a typical lawyer making up excuses. He already knew who leaked the identity. (Armitage.)
He should have dropped the case right there. Why do you think there were no idictments for exposing Plame? Let me help... There were no laws broken. But Fitzgeral wanted to protect his reputation so he fished around in an investigation till he caught Libby.
This is as big an example of prosecuritorial misconduct as Nifong and the Dukesters. I predict it'll be overturned.
Leather, you need to loosen up your helmet,
The investigation of Rove or Cheney is not complete yet.
They're next.
Contessa Breuer needs to be in a remake of DYNASTY or on some daytime soap opera.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Leatherhelmet, I have been here since day one. You have been here since the beginning. You have made some pretty dumb and/or dishonest remarks on these boards, but nothing like this. Patrick Fitzgerald said that because Lewis Libby obstructed justice, he was not able to determine everything that he would have been able to about Cheney, Rove, Bush, and the others. There is plenty of evidence through books and articles that shows that Cheney, and even Bush were actively involved in the successful attempt to out Valerie Plame and destroy her career and discredit her husband.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
NJGuy,
You are countering your own argument in the same post! Either that or your privy to evidence that Fitzgerald does not have.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Read The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock. There is a part where he writes about how MSNBC employees get a daily list of talking points that are basically Republican talking points. This is just one of many examples of that which I have seen on MSNBC since reading that in early 2004.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I think Senator Obama has a real tough fight ahead. He's probably the candidate with the harshest obstacles. First, you have the Clintons royalty and their powerful NY money people. That so-called news from the times is with no doubt from the Clintons. This is a classic smear tactic with the following punches thrown at him one after the other:-Obama was raised by Indonesian Islamic clerics-Obama's ancestors were slave owners (name one WASP or a sixth generation American who didn't have a distant relative who was a slave owner)-Obama involvement in a slash and burn effort against fellow democrat Hillary Clinton-Obama's questionable investments. Wow! Second, you have the black leadership. Because Obama doesn't owe them anything at all and he's not a republican. He relied only on his constituents. So they want to force him to sign a blank check (since he's black they're going to ask him for more than they would have asked the Clintons), which will put him in some kind of clientelism situation. Third, the right wingers come to rescue by portraying him as a socialist. And finally, you have the other democrats who are waiting patiently to see senator Obama get dirty. With the help of some newspapers like the NY times which will obviously endorse Hillary (I'm spoiling the surprise) Hillary’s camp will spread news after news, as insignificant as they may sound, in order to associate Obama's name with scandals and tarnish his immaculate image. Get ready partner and use your charisma to let the world know what's going on before it's too late
You ever wonder why the the Thug party machine ALWAYS has to resort to lies?
Seriously think about.
In the first column of this thread, Breaker makes it sound like he's being perfectly reasonable and then throws in that little lie about legislation to benefit the donors.
No evidence, no proof, just a lie.
As well as the bit about investing IN the donors as opposed to investing WITH them. Huge difference there, but it still amounts to the same thing. WHY do they always have to lie?
Sort of a non issue, but one that nonetheless he should tell whomever is handling his money to doublecheck exactly who is involved in any money dealings before he steps into it.