Blitzer's suggestion that Obama "cash[ed] in" on stock deal proved wrong by CNN's own report
SUMMARY: In teasing a report on Sen. Barack Obama's
purchase of stock in two companies whose investors included Obama campaign
donors, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked: "Did the Democratic presidential candidate
cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?" The ensuing
report, however, made clear that Obama did not "cash in"; rather,
he took a net loss of $13,000 when he sold the stock after first learning he
owned it.
On the March 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer teased a report on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) purchase of stock in two companies whose investors included Obama campaign donors, by asking, "Did the Democratic presidential candidate cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?" In fact, the same report Blitzer teased made clear that Obama (whose broker made the purchase on his behalf and, Obama said, without his knowledge) sold the stock at a net loss of $13,000 after first learning that he owned it.
The New York Times reported on March 7 that Obama's broker purchased the stock in early 2005 as part of a blind trust and quoted an Obama spokesman claiming that the presidential hopeful "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 article also noted that "[t]here is no evidence that any of his [Obama's] actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks," and that "Senate ethics rules do not prohibit lawmakers from owning stocks -- even in companies that do business with the federal government or could benefit from legislation they advance -- and indeed other members of Congress have investments in government contractors."
However, in teasing the March 7 report, Blitzer said:
BLITZER: Coming up: a statewide drive to impeach -- yes, impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Where are the supporters for this drive coming from and will their campaign get any traction nationwide?
Taking stock of Senator Barack Obama's investments: Did the Democratic presidential candidate cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?
The ensuing report, however, made clear that Obama did not "cash in." From the March 7 edition of The Situation Room:
MARY SNOW (correspondent): Well, Wolf, the investments in question are stock in two obscure companies. Senator Obama owned them for about eight months in 2005. His campaign wasted no time in addressing the scrutiny.
[begin video clip]
SNOW: Senator Barack Obama and his staff moved swiftly to ensure his financial assets don't turn into a political liability. The Democratic presidential hopeful came forward after an estimated $50,000 in stock purchases became front-page news on The New York Times.
OBAMA: At no point did I know what stocks were held, and at no point did I direct how those stocks were invested.
SNOW: But donors to Obama turned out to be backers of the companies he invested in, companies that stand to do business with the federal government.
It started in 2005. Obama had a $1.9 million advance for his books and invested a portion of that money through a recommended broker.
At the time, he set up a blind trust. Simply put, he'd have no knowledge of what his broker was investing to avoid conflicts of interest. Turns out his broker had invested in a satellite communications business and a biotech firm, which is developing an avian flu drug. Avian flu is an area where Senator Obama took the lead in 2005.
Obama says when he received the stockholder mailing, he realized the trust wasn't so blind and sold the stocks at a net loss of about $13,000. So, is there a conflict? Listen to Senator Obama.
OBAMA: What I wanted to make sure was that I didn't want to invest in companies that would potentially create conflicts with my work here or not abide by some public statements I had said in terms of how things work.
SNOW: Some of his public statements have been centered on ethics reform. It's been a hallmark of his short Senate career and his presidential campaign.
OBAMA: I was proud to help lead the fight in Congress that led to the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate.
SNOW: One political watchdog group took notice of the speed in which the Obama camp came forward.
SHEILA KRUMHOLZ (Center for Responsive Politics executive director): The fact that he did take a loss ultimately overall helps him. It, I think, helps undercut the claim that there was some funny business going on here.
"Taking stock of Senator Barack Obama's investments: Did the Democratic presidential candidate cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?"
It must be a slow news day. this is a harmless lead out question to get people to stay in their seats. If they did they learned that the answer isa big no. This is a non issue to me.
This seems to be a regular thing in media these days. I don't think it has anything to do with political views, but - as you noted - everything to do with keeping people in their seats. However, it is misleading and, to me, very annoying.
The anecdote I've noted before was, after a string of warm sunny days, the weather forecast lead-in included some discussion of a possible change and the hook "Snow in the forecast?" Of course, I sat there through the commercials to eventually watch a forecast of "warm and sunny" with no snow within a few hundred miles. Label me suckered.
Bing - you make MMFA's point for them. The headlne clearly implied unethical behavior by Obama. Only those who stayed to hear the story had an opportunity to learn that the headline was diametrically opposed to what really happened. How many saw the headline and, in the process of channel surfing, never caught the truth of the matter?
Yeah I know. I'm just looking for a good debate or argument and there has to be better examples of misinformation out there besides a commercial bump. But you're right. People get their news in segments like that, turn of the TV or change the channel and don't hear the rest.
Did Bingvangorden once steal money from his grandmother in order to purchase drugs?
I will answer this question tonight when I get home. I am at the public library right now.
These are the words I'm waiting for Wolf to say:
"Did the Bush administration distort WMD intelligence in order to invade Iraq?"
Holding my breath now...
Not analogous, since the answer is clearly "yes".
The ISSUE issue is a non-starter with me, as well.
However, I note gleefully the continued seach by the Corporate media for an attack against Obama (or any other Dem) that can gain traction through simple repetition. More evidence that we really NEED MORA!
Let's face it, this certainly appears a little curious. Is it more than coincidence regarding the bill in Congress and the recent donations? Who knows? But the reason he took a loss at that moment is because he was pretty much "forced" into cashing in, or out......the timing was not of Obama's choosing.
Is it some scandal, probably not.
Yeah, considering he did it back in 2005 suggests some real hanky-panky going on here.
Shortly after he was elected.
I don't know...Bill Frist's dealings were just as suspicious...probably more so. He's sitting in Tennessee counting his millions now, probably thinking about running in 2012.
I think he's still being investigated by the SEC but I could be wrong.
You may be right...maybe he and Scooter could be cellmates.
You're right Nerzog, he certainly wouldn't be the first Congressperson to gain financially from their influence in office........one hand washes the other, favors for donations, etc. Sadly, no political party has the upper hand morally on this, in my opinion.
I know, I know - he apparently didn't gain financially from this, but it may or may not be from lack of effort.
Seems straightforward to me. Set up a blind trust, receive an untoward investor mailing, and cash in to avoid impropriety. I’d give the broker a warning. The mailing should not have gone to Obama.
"cash in" normally does not imply a loss as happened here.
nothing to see here. move along little dogies
If it wasn't a blind trust and he knowingly invested, would that act have been illegal or just shady?
I don't know the answer and I think it makes a big difference on whether the matter should be dropped or not.
Personally, I don't think it's shady..I'm a big believer in people doing what they want within the law. (I don't think Cheney is shady for his association with Halliburton, especially since they're the only contractor that were capable enough to do the jobs needed).
you are very wrong about halliburton, and Dick knows what he is being paid by them and there is nothing blind about it.
Anybody who believes that The Penguin has no ties to Halliburton because he "publicly divested" deserves their GOP hat.
Anybody who believes that Halliburton/subsidiaries/cronies have ties because they're the only ones doing that work needs to reverse the polarity on their cause & effect BS detector, and they deserve their pointy little GOP hat.
"I don't think Cheney is shady for his association with Halliburton, especially since they're the only contractor that were capable enough to do the jobs needed"
-----
And, anyone who believes that Halliburton is "capable" has been living in a cave and not watching any kind of news whatsoever. The only job Halliburton is capable of doing is overcharging for underwork. They are staggeringly incompetent.
I'm just saying that I don't really care. If you can prove that there was a better choice than Halliburton for the contracts they received (and by better, I mean without hindsight an evaluation of the job they could be expected to do), then maybe I'd care. But "it just makes me made because I don't like Dick Cheney" isn't going to convince me otherwise.
My point was that even if Obama knew where the investments were going, if it's not illegal to "return the favor" to donors with some speculative investments (isn't that what donating to a primary campaign is?), I don't really care or think less of him for doing it.
How about Sodexho who was doing all the catering for the Army until they were 'fired' for the crime of being a French company, only to be replaced by Halliburton that serves rotted food and filthy water to our troops? And there are lots of companies that could build there, GE for one, even though they are not angels either, that does not mean no-bid contracts to a company paying off the veep are the only option. And for you to even consider that only highlights how far beyond ration thought you are.
"made" is supposed to be "mad" in the above comment.
MUTT: How about Sodexho who was doing all the catering for the Army until they were 'fired' for the crime of being a French company, only to be replaced by Halliburton that serves rotted food and filthy water to our troops? And there are lots of companies that could build there, GE for one, even though they are not angels either, that does not mean no-bid contracts to a company paying off the veep are the only option.
DEXTERITAS:If you can prove that there was a better choice than Halliburton for the contracts they received (and by better, I mean without hindsight an evaluation of the job they could be expected to do)
I agree that no-bid contracts are not good economics. I haven't seen the news reports about why Sodexho was "fired" and why Halliburton came in when they told the government they were going to serve rotten food before they got the contract. Please post links.
"why Halliburton came in when they told the government they were going to serve rotten food before they got the contract."
-----
Straw man. A well-known logical fallacy. Halliburton said they could feed the troops. They couldn't. They overcharged. Cheney's "blind trust" got bigger.
Your argument is a poor one. You dont give no bid contracts because you just think they would be the best to do the job you get bids and look at the bidders THEN decide. Its reversing the burden of proof. Bid contracts are the norm if YOU can prove that only Halliburton could cook eggs for the troops or put pipes and pumps together for the oil contracts then do so since its YOUR assertion.
Dear Easy,
No straw man; example that you upheld in your post. I gave an example, you just made a statement, but they both said the same thing.
Again, if any of you here have returned a favor to a friend, then we can't really go after either Cheney or Obama on moral grounds for the decision they made prior to the result that occurred.
Feel free to be pissed at Cheney for Halliburton doing a crappy job.