Whitewater Started Like This Too!

We begin with this New York Times article.

Todd Gitlin, over at TPMCafe, has it completely correct. Looks like the Times has begun to "balance" the corruption of one side (in this case we have the whole Libby/Walter Reed/Fired Prosecutors nexus) by showing some corruption (any corruption!) on the other.

The Times starts its attack with this first paragraph:

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.

Pretty damning - some quiet corruption going on, looks like. No?

But check out the fourth and fifth:

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.

And so, how does the paper of record get away with saying in one paragraph "Barack Obama bought..." and 3 paragraphs away admit that he didn't know how he'd invested because it was "under the terms of a blind trust"?

Digby writes:

These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad." The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn't "news." (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

Back to Obama. Here's how the AP plays it:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama set up a trust that gave his broker authority to trade stocks on his behalf without his input, according to 16 pages of documents he released Wednesday.

Not completely bad, though Pickler does begin a later paragraph with "Obama purchased..."

But look at how Fox "News" plays the AP story:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he was not aware that he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and did nothing to aid their business before the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust.

In case you missed it, "Fair and Balanced" Fox softened this sentence found in the AP report:

Obama set up a trust that gave his broker authority to trade stocks on his behalf without his input, according to 16 pages of documents he released Wednesday.

To this one:

Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust.

I guess they're betting on their readers saying to themselves that a "quasi-blind trust" really ISN'T a blind trust. And that "...as part of a..." leaves just enough wiggle room.

Luckily, the Obama campaign has a backbone. They've already issued a press release. You can find it here. Some highlights:

Obama Set Up a Trust That Would Independently Manage His Funds. In February of 2005, Obama began the process of creating a trust – the terms of which do not permit the broker to solicit advice from Obama or consult him on the trades that are being made – in an attempt to manage his financial portfolio without a conflict of interest. The intent was that this was a portfolio that would grow over time. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Trust Agreement, 5/31/2005]

UBS Broker Chose Stocks For Obama; Obama Was Not Consulted. A UBS broker chose the stocks for Obama to invest in, and as per the trust agreement, Obama was not consulted. On Obama’s behalf, the broker purchased $1,001 to $15,000 of Avi BioPharma on 2/22/05 and $50,001 to $100,000 of SkyTerra on 2/10/05. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Financial Disclosure Form 2006]

Obama Closed Trust Because He Realized It Was Not Truly Blind. In late 2005, after receiving an informational communication from his broker about his investments, Obama realized that his financial arrangements did not significantly protect him against even the perception of a conflict of interest. He contacted his lawyer and steps were taken to sell his stocks and close out the trust. Obama’s stock holdings were liquidated by November 1, 2005, and documents to close the trust were filed on December 15, 2005. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Trust Distribution and Termination Document, 12/15/05]

If you can recall, Whitewater was an empty scandal - no evidence of wrong doing, no idictments of the Clintons and so on. This is just as empty.

Same old "liberal media" at play.