Y'know, the kind that have little relevance to the article but appear designed to generate clicks, usually at the expense of Democrats. It's something of a Politico tradition.

Today's edition:

Dems haunted by corporate ties

Not only doesn't the “haunted” headline connect to the article, but the article's premise doesn't make sense [emphasis added]:

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promising a climactic clash with Wall Street, but there's a complication in their battle plan: The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit.

The piece then goes on to list lots of high-profile Dems who (OMG!) work, or have worked, for corporate America. But how the party is “haunted” by that is never explained. In fact, Politico seems to get the premise of the story exactly backwards.

Politico insists it's a big deal--a political “complication”--that the Democratic president is “promising a climatic clash with Wall Street,” when lots of famous Dems have worked for corporate America. Yeah but, wouldn't it be a problem if the Democrat president refused to clash with Wall Street because famous Dems worked for corporate America?

How is the fact that the Democratic White House is willing to battle a special interest even though some Democrats work for that special interest a “complication”? How is the Democratic Party “haunted” by the fact that lots of Democrats get rich in corporate America at a time when the White House wants to regulate Wall Street?

It just doesn't really make sense.