Comments on: Obama’s Finances

By: Blue Collar Heresy » Blog Archive » They just can’t seem to find any skeletons

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:12:30 +0000

[...] But my favorite line so far? From The Moderate Voice (apologies to the author, with your server ‘troubles‘ your temporary template doesn’t say which author penned the piece): Sometimes thereâ€™s fire when there is smoke, sometimes there is just smoke. [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:35:49 +0000

Lost money and sold it 2 years ago as soon as he found out there was a conflict of interest? Sounds like he’s acting above board to me. This actually goes in the favorable column for me as far as Obama is concerned.

By: domajot

domajot — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:53:26 +0000

So long as politicians have to raise campaign funds, they will be accepting them from one special interest group or another. This can be a corrupting influence in itself. as donors will get the attention of pols in relation to their generosity. But as long as fund raising is legal, we can’t claim that every relationship is tainted. We have to be a little careful about overreacting, or we could accuse every member of Congress. If they’re all guilty, there are no distinctions among them, and we would not recognize the really bad apples in the barrel.

There are so many new scandals and outrages cropping up every day, while people still argue about Monica Lewinsky. Let’s not stoop too low to find more dirt.

Transparency is our only defense.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:29:30 +0000

Is it just me or is the whole “blind trust” thing completely broken? I don’t know if they need to change the rules but if I was a legislator I’d certainly only invest in bonds or currency trading or something else that is much less likely to have conflict of interest. I’d even put it as part of my campaign about how I’d invest X% in tax-free municipal bonds or somesuch.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:13:35 +0000

For the reasons I discuss over at Stubborn Facts, I think the explanation raises more questions than it answers. The fact that he sold at a loss is pretty good evidence that the Senator is not himself corrupt. However, the fact that the investment was made at all suggests that some of the people surrounding him and working for him may be on the dubious side. Sen. Obama needs to come clean about who actually made these investments for him, and why.

By: Sensible Mom

Sensible Mom — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:21:29 +0000

Obama’s Investments…

This isn’t the same as Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures only in that Obama lost money, but I wonder about all these stock tips and land deals (ala Harry Reid) that are used as a way to launder contributions to candidates…

By: jpe

jpe — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:52:22 +0000

The stocks were pretty random, though. It’s not like these were microsoft or mutual fund shares.

By: carpeicthus

carpeicthus — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:25:15 +0000

Memo to NYT — if DAN RIEHL thinks you’re writing a substance free hit piece about Democrats, then you’ve gone off the deep end.

By: Obama’s Finances « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n

Obama’s Finances « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:31:03 +0000

[...] An Obama spokesman offers the following explanation: read more. [...]