I've heard from before he declared his candidacy that Obama's financial dealings would be of interest to the media. Mike McIntire and Christopher Drew report for the New York Times:
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.
One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.
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.
Read it all at the link above, including this from his spokesman:
"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."
When you have to speak of the "level of blindness" of your "blind" trust, isn't that like being a "little bit pregnant?"
At the least, Obama was sloppy and naive, and exercised poor judgment in listening to bad advice. More evidence he isn't ready for the big leagues.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Obama
Tags: financial, Obama
Comments (7)
When are conservatives ever... (Below threshold)1. Posted by superdestroyer | March 7, 2007 7:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When are conservatives ever going to learn that black politicians are beyond criticism. Whether its sexual harassment (Mfume), skimming funds (Jackson), abusing employees (Lee), beating their spouses (Barry), no show jobs (Young, Barry), racist remarks (Andrew Young), etc; conservatives just need to learn that black politicians are just held to a different standard.
Attacking Senator Obama on such issue will never play in the political arena.
1. Posted by superdestroyer | March 7, 2007 7:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 07:41
2. Posted by johnMc | March 7, 2007 11:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hmmm. Have to ask the other question. How does a guy who officially earns about $130k from the government afford to buy $50k in stock? Assuming, even if it is on margin, the broker would want to know the liquidity of the buyer in case of a margin call.
I must not be living right....
2. Posted by johnMc | March 7, 2007 11:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 11:59
3. Posted by Jim Addison | March 7, 2007 1:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Obama sold another book for over $1 million in advance, which he received after being elected to the Senate but before taking office, thereby avoiding violating Senate rules - straight from the pages of the Hillary Clinton School of Perfect Ethics and Imperfect Recollection.
Most of it he placed, prudently, with a major Wall Street investment firm, but he put $100,000 with a small and unknown investment company "recommended" by one of his major donors. The money then was invested in start-up firms in which two major supporters were heavily invested as well.
Now, maybe it was all "coincidence." He just happened to put the money in an "off-off-Broadway" firm which just happened to invest in the same start-ups as two of his major donors and he just happened to introduce legislation which might have sent floods of federal money in the general direction of one of them.
Sure, I believe it. Why not?
Heh.
3. Posted by Jim Addison | March 7, 2007 1:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 13:20
4. Posted by Glenn Koonsq | March 7, 2007 2:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Look. BO is simply beyond criticism. We can see it already. Everyone is afraid to attack him. The NYTimes' editorial today on his finances will not wash even with Blue Staters. Then there is his attachment to a controversial pastor. Yipe, that'll play! And today, Nick Kristoff has a column saying that BO has more, more, experience in every domestic and foreign policy event than anyone, anyone including Bush and Cheney! In fact, more experience that any, any candidate anywhere because he has street cred in Indonesia as a kid!!!!! Can you imagine one of these third tier Pubs trying to run against that? That is why Rudy G is probably , perhaps Newt, the one to face down this inexperienced empty suit.
4. Posted by Glenn Koonsq | March 7, 2007 2:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 14:28
5. Posted by Mike | March 7, 2007 3:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
+++++++
When you have to speak of the "level of blindness" of your "blind" trust, isn't that like being a "little bit pregnant?"
+++++++
Given that my father is legally blind in one eye due to a hole in his retina that does not prevent him from using it to read, I would have to say no, it's nothing like that.
5. Posted by Mike | March 7, 2007 3:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 15:15
6. Posted by Jim Addison | March 7, 2007 3:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mike, that analogy doesn't hold water.
A "blind" trust is one in which the owner has no knowledge of the investments and trades. NONE. If you have a little knowledge of what is in the trust, it is NOT a "blind" trust.
Any knowledge whatever completely negates the purpose of a "blind trust."
6. Posted by Jim Addison | March 7, 2007 3:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 15:32
7. Posted by Mike | March 7, 2007 4:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jim,
I thought about it over lunch and realized my comment was really stupid. Sorry about that.
7. Posted by Mike | March 7, 2007 4:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 7, 2007 16:32