Barack Hussein Obama has had some dealings in the securities market with some shady characters. All the NY Times did was investigate a bit, and it didn't level a single accusation against him. Are liberals really so hypersensitive to their candidates being looked into? What are you all hiding?

As for the 'reasons' you list... wouldn't a much better example be CBS using forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran who received an honorable discharge?

> Reporters often toss out half-formed stories
> like the Obama one (or the Edwards house story)
> in hopes that beating the bushes will dislodge
> some additional information.

Oddly, they only seem to do this when liberal and/or Democratic figures are involved. Never seems to happen to either mainstream or Radical Republicans.

IOKIYAR

Cranky

Cranky-- Really? Just off the top of my head, the spurious "prosecutors fired for incompetence" stories come to mind. My all time favorite is probably, "Bush was holding a plastic turkey to serve the troops, oh, wait, no he wasn't, let's run with the story anyway" clusterfuck of the Washington Post.

My all time favorite is probably, "Bush was holding a plastic turkey to serve the troops, oh, wait, no he wasn't, let's run with the story anyway" clusterfuck of the Washington Post.

That's ridiculous. The turkey was obviously holding him.

American Hocker is there any part of the word facts that you even remotely understand? What part of the concept of blind trust don't you get? This is exactly what Kevin's referring to. How in gods name are we ever going to have a clue as to what's really going on if reporters constantly follow the doctrine of " Don't let facts get in the way of a good story". Hocker even a moron liike you eventually has to find some truth somewhere.

Indeed, IOKIYAR.

BushCo totally destroys this country's rule of law, financial balance sheet, military, and reputation in the world. Nothing to see here! Let's make up shit about Obama and relive our Clenis fantasies.

Hawk, you freakin' slay me. Trillions in new debt, thousands and thousands dead (tens of thousands injured, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed), and the U.S. the third-most-hated country, and you bitch about plastic turkey.

Man, you are the perfect example of the right-wing brain.

Am I being paranoid to imagine that representatives of a competitor for the nomination fed information, off-the-record, with a misleading spin, to get the story going? And then prodded and pushed. Am I too cynical to imagine that obliging that other campaign by running some sort of story, even after the premise went nowhere, came with a quid pro quo, promising enhanced access for the reporter in the future. That fits my preconception of a campaign operation that is fierce, conniving to the nth degree, and well-oiled (with some snake oil in the patented family formula).

The Republicans are damn good at oppo research, so Obama better get used to having every aspect of his life, down to the size and curvature of his male organ, in the newspapers. Republican candidates for president on the other hand, as George W. Bush demonstrated, don't even have to admit how many times they have been arrested or when they last used narcotics.

Never seems to happen to either mainstream or Radical Republicans

Because, as I recently read somewhere, when a Republican is involved in questionable business dealings...its hardly news!

Now, now. Let's not let a dead bird on the tracks derail the conversational train.

We need to have some peer review in the newspaper biz. Unless debunking a previously published positive result, a null result would never get published in a scientific journal.

And I agree with shortstop; stop responding directly to paid trolls, especially assholes like AH who spoof legit users when his comments get modded.

Satirize them, like American Hock does, but don't take what they say seriously.

I can think of another reason: the reporter has a personal agenda against the person being reported on.

Or how about: the reporter knows he will be rewarded with front page real estate for producing stories that appear to "balance" the news coverage... the other side of the "balance" being actual findings of guilt in a court of law...

Is is just me, or have the journalistic standards of both the NY Times and the Washington Post gone seriously downhill the last few years?

I've seen lousy stories such as this one popping up for too often in these supposed journalistic paragons recently, stories that are more the quality of the NY Daily News and Washington Times than the supposed standard bearers of journalism.

Ooh, ooh.

Did y'all forget that they have to run the spurious unsubstantiated rumor (that they made of out of whole cloth) so that others can refer to it as if it were true... like AHawk does with the turkey thing.

Then AHawks alter ego can refer to it also and pretty soon, everybody knows it is true... except that it is the same old shit they made up.

You guys didn't forget how the organized historical re-write works, did you?

Now Yahoo is running a story that Obama paid outstanding parking tickets in Boston just prior to announcing his candidacy.

What an immoral and criminal mind this guy Obama has! No wonder his middle name is Hussein.

The job of America's rightist media is to cover up Republican misdeeds with headlines claiming Democratic scandals. This worked so well for them in during the Clinton era when they spent over $100,000,000 with sleazy prosecutors like Ken Starr and David M. Barrett . Now, that there is danger that the corrupt doings in the Bush White House will be revealed to the American people, their desperation to smear Democratic candidates is palpable. They even have party hacks monitor RSS feeds of leftish blogs all day in order to make diversionary comments and hopefully derail discussion in their futile hope of concealing the stench of Bush regime corruption.

wouldn't a much better example be CBS using forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran who received an honorable discharge?

AmericanHack keeps bringing this one up. Just for laughs or what? Would this be the Vietnam-era "veteran" who completely avoided actually *going* to Vietnam? AmericanChickenHawk that would be, I guess.

Of course "Reporters just hate the idea of spending a bunch of time on a story and then not having anything to show for it," but whatever happened to editors ?

Gummitch, please stop denigrating the importance of the national guard.

The weird thing is, an article which notes the possibility of strangeness and lays out that it turns out there isn't any there there is a perfectly acceptable article. I'd like to know that the hysterical emails I get from my more conservative relatives are, in fact, incorrect.

Gummitch does not denigrate the National Guard. Bush did that by failing to complete his commitment to service.

American Hawk,
What newspaper had this "fake turkey" story on the front page? You keep bringing it up. If this is the worst thing that has happened to GWB, then the media must be very kind to him.

I'd like to know that the hysterical emails I get from my more conservative relatives are, in fact, incorrect

But certainly know that once a smear has taken root, no amount of facts can displace it.

I know I should not feed the trolls (or hawks) but I can't help myself.

"Barack Hussein Obama"

Bit of advice A Hawk. If you want to attack Obama don't write out his middle name. It makes it appear that you are apealing to racism. Indeed I assume you are. This discredits your arguments. It is, indeed, his name, but the normal way to refer to him is "Obama" in blogs and "Senator Obama" in Newspapers. Writing out "Hussein" is a dumb rhetorical strategy.

" All the NY Times did was investigate a bit, and it didn't level a single accusation against him."

Drum's complaint is that a story was published and published on the front page even though the Times had no accusation.

"Are liberals really so hypersensitive to their candidates being looked into?"

Not at all provided that, if the investigation clears them, no negative headlines appear in the paper (and esp not on the first page).

"What are you all hiding?"

So you think that the only reason that people complain about the press is that they must have something to hide ? What does this tell us about American Conservatives who have been whining about the press non stop for decades ?

As for the 'reasons' you list... wouldn't a much better example be CBS using forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran who received an honorable discharge?

"The word veteran is normally used for people who could have been sent into combat. Bush could not be sent without his consent (which was not forthcoming). Thus he is not in the ordinary sense of the word a veteran. The service record as released by the White House and analysed by far left US News and World Report, demonstrates that Bush did not fulfill his service obligations. The forged Killian memo was irrelevant to the case (as I wrote before it was shown to be a forgery). That Bush was honorably discharged may only show that, with his connections, he could get away with going AWOL. Finally, did Drum ever defend Dan Rather or CBS news on that case ? Do you just assume he did because he is liberal and you use prejudice instead of observation ? These are questions for information.

Posted by: American Hawk on March 8, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I love the "forged documents" defense. The documents were forgeries in the sense they recreated real documetns containing factual information. All of the witnesses confirmed that there were memos to that effect. It was clumsy of the people involved, but the underlying stoery is still unrefuted. Bush did not fulfill his guard requirements.

How often are Republicans victims of these partial stories?

As is usual for American Hawk, when you call him on his lies, he disappears.

I looked into his "fake turkey" complaint. Apparently the turkey was a table decoration, not served to the troups. So releasing a picture of him with a table decoration and a caption that says "George W. Bush serves turkey to US troops in Baghdad" is certainly misleading, whether the table decoration is made out of plastic or a real bird.

I want to see the picture of him behind the chow line actually serving. Maybe then you can call him a "veteran".

He looked into it. He found nothing.

Didn't he also print that the suspicions were groundless, that Obama's deal was on the up-and-up? That's worth printing.

The latest Gallup Poll shows the frontrunners from both political parties settling in and slowly but surely expanding their advantage. For Mrs. Clinton this is especially important as it is best that she not shoot too far into the lead at this early stage but take it gradually. For Giuliani, it is interesting but the electorate knows so little of him yet that predictions are difficult to make with any surety.

The bad news is for the other candidates. Barack Obama, despite a wave of speechmaking and publicity, remains pretty much where he has been for a month. For Edwards, it is a disaster. His numbers have slipped now into the single digits. Even Al Gore polls better than Edwards and Gore, of course, isn't even running -- or so he says.

The elderly John McCain's campaign has run out of steam and he trails Giuliani by a significant amount. Mitt Romney has yet to get beyond single digits and rests at the bottom with Newt Gingrich, who, of course, isn't even running -- or so he says.

In short, the frontrunners are firming up their leads in a timely manner and the remainder of the candidates are stuck with little indication of becoming unstuck.

Here are the figures: Clinton, 36, Obama, 22, Gore, 18, and Edwards, 9. Also, Giuliani, 44, McCain, 20, Gingrich, 9, Romney, 8.

You can go to the Gallup site where there is an intreresting and informative video on the latest results.

Disputo: Unless debunking a previously published positive result, a null result would never get published in a scientific journal.

The most famous exception being the Michelson-Morley experiment. Null results are published in peer-reviewed journals frequently: drug efficacy studies reporting either no efficacy or no side-effects, bioequivalence studies, studies of the (non-)dangers of drinking coffee, studies of the (non-)dangers of fluoridated water.

Didn't he also print that the suspicions were groundless, that Obama's deal was on the up-and-up?

And yet the headlines and talking points labeled the groundless suspicions a "controversy".

Now Yahoo is running a story that Obama paid outstanding parking tickets in Boston just prior to announcing his candidacy.

And I hear he once drove 58 MPH in a 55 zone, and laughed about it.

I want to know about the 'investment' deals politicians make with their owners. I would prefer the MSN report about all the politicians, not just the ones they and their advertisers do not own.

see, 'whitewater'

While the investments part of the Obama story gets the most attention, far more interesting in my judgment is the revelation that Obama accepted a hefty campaign contribution from a major Republican Party donor and contributor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- Jareb Abbruzzese, a New York businessman now at the center of an FBI inquiry into public corruption in Albany. Seems Obama is set to become the Republican Party choice for the Democratic nomination -- or at least the choice of Karl Rove and his smear brigade.

KD: But I guess they figure that's a small price to pay.

Ah, but is the price of credibility small? I don't think so in the long run.

Whitewater is so yesterday, Linda, yet you have a point that is worth pursuing a bit.

Here's the story:

At the outset of the Whitewater matter during the Clinton Administration, both The New York Times and The Associated Press independently sent crack investigative reporters to Arkansas to look into the matter. After delving into the swamp that is Arkansas politics, both independently wrote stories that essentially said there was nothing to it insofar as the Clintons were concerned. Of course, the two reporters were borne out when the last independent counsel in the investigation cleared the Clintons of any wrongdoing -- this after several years and several million dollars of taxpayer money and daily front page headlines and countless breathless broadcast reports.

The point is: The press knew the outcome from the beginning but dutifully went along with the investigation anyway with nary a peep.

I looked into his "fake turkey" complaint. Apparently the turkey was a table decoration, not served to the troups. So releasing a picture of him with a table decoration and a caption that says "George W. Bush serves turkey to US troops in Baghdad" is certainly misleading, whether the table decoration is made out of plastic or a real bird.

But the point is it wasn't made of plastic. Drudge and Limbaugh and the others didn't say it was merely a table decoration, so that can't be true. Even if it were true and Bush was merely holding some sort of prop the point is it wasn't made of plastic. Drudge and Limbaugh and others who think for me have made it very clear that this is the only point that matters, so I say it whenever I have the chance. It wasn't made of plastic. If that doesn't prove that the MSM is a liberal elite lying machine, then I don't know what does.

And then there was Watergate.

Here was a little story that started out innocuously enough, like those now plaguing Barack Obama, and by pure dogged pursuit grew and grew until it brought down a sitting President.

Investigative journalism often starts rather modestly.

As far as Obama goes, the question now must be -- are the bits adding up to something big?

The issue, of course, is Obama's character. And while a pile of parking tickets ignored while at Harvard may seem a small thing, taken with others, it can be very, very instructive.

If you can't beat 'em, smear 'em.

Al Gore SAID he invented the Internet. It once was mythical, went to the annals of urban legend, and is now presented as fact by the 15-21 year old demographic.

At least if you actually committed a crime, you might get the opportunity to apologize and eck some sympathy out of the American people.

If it is only smear, you not only cannnot apologize, but in not doing so makes you look like a creep. And who actually puts any stock in the words "denied the charges" these days?

Now Yahoo is running a story that Obama paid outstanding parking tickets in Boston just prior to announcing his candidacy.

My god, the children! Whatever shall we tell the children?!?

Stefan: My god, the children! Whatever shall we tell the children?!?

Well, I told my children that Mickey Mouse (tm) would be a big improvement over the current president. My three year old responded with something to the effect of "no kidding, I wasn't born yesterday".

"As far as Obama goes, the question now must be -- are the bits adding up to something big?"

This is why this kind of crap is done every election--it works, because folks like Buford don't have the intellectual capacity to put things in perspective.

"As for the 'reasons' you list... wouldn't a much better example be CBS using forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran who received an honorable discharge?"

American Hawk is right. That so called honorable discharge after being AWOL, and those documents that were allegedly forged, but the contents of which were verified by the secretary who would have kept them... It all proves that this is all about smearing democrats. This never happens to Republicans.

Talk about beating the bushes! The National Guard secretary verified that the contents of the documents were accurate. A huge story fell right into the media's lap (whether the papers were forgery or not, and I don't believe they were forgeries) and the media did their level best to ignore it.

Only an idiot or a Republican would say that Watergate started innocuously. That event began with the arrest of five men for a criminal offense. At least one of those men was in possession of the E. Howard Hunt's White House telephone number.

There are a couple of important points here. The Watergate scandal -unlike Whitewater but like the Scooter Libby affair- began with a crime (breaking and entering in the case of Watergate and exposure of a NOC CIA agent in the case of Libby). Damage owing to botched cover-ups did fall out of each but had the public been aware of the facts of each case immediately public reaction would have been stronger. In contrast the Whitewater investigation was always a search for evidence of a crime where the actual crime was never really identified. There is no information that the Clintons could have provided on Whitewater to "clear their names." You can't prove that you didn't perform some non-specified act. The media is taking the same approach with Edwards and Obama on the financial stories.

"Only an idiot or a Republican would say that Watergate started innocuously." -- rk

June 17, 1972: Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex.

June 19, 1972: A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation.

August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports.

Notice the timeline: Two events in June; then nothing significant until August.

That's what I meant by an innocuous start. The point being, that investigative reporting often as not begins rather quietly and then picks up steam as more and more facts come to light.

You might want to re-read All the President's Men, Woodward and Berstein's chronicle of their Watergate investigation -- still, in my opinion, the best book on Watergate and a classic of American journalism, especially investigative journalism.

Again, the point in bringing up Watergate on this thread was to point out how investigative reporting may not yield much at its outset -- may start rather innocuously as with what at first may appear as little more than a third-rate burglary -- but as the investigation continues, it builds steam until it amounts to something. In the case of Barack Obama, it is building steam and you can take that to the bank.

And as for this:

"'As far as Obama goes, the question now must be -- are the bits adding up to something big?'"

"This is why this kind of crap is done every election--it works, because folks like Buford don't have the intellectual capacity to put things in (sic) perspective." -- smuggler.

Oh, I have the intellectual capacity all right, bubba.

Methinks though protesteth too much. (Apologies to Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, scene ii).

And:

"Be thou familiar, bubba, but by no means vulgar." (Hamlet, Act I, scene iii).

Modern media, even at the "quality" end of broadsheets & network news, is increasingly about "star stories". It's about entertainment celebrities, political scandals, photogenic disasters, gruesome crimes, sport stories & other 10 day wonders. As with the entertainment media's endless stories about Brangelina-Lyndsay-Paris-Brittany, there are "stars" too in the news firmament about whom news junkies & political enthusiasts can't seem to hear, read or see enough. Senator Obama is currently such a star & the NYTimes is pragmatically selling papers by running stories about him, some true, some conjectural, some untrue, some stories about other Obama stories - like reporting the reportage on the 'madrassa' that wasn't. I doubt that there is anything much more conspiratorial than that in the disproportionate scrutiny & coverage of the Senator: the NYTimes readership, like much of the US & the world, is fascinated by Obama & wants to know as much as they can, which means, for the newspaper at least, there's no such thing as a "dead" Obama story. The fact that the Senator DIDN'T attend a madrassa therefore becomes as big a story as Senator Clinton announcing her candidacy.

Similarly, certain Republicans (Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Rice, Rove etc.,) intrigue more people, sell more papers, attract more scrutiny & get more stories written about them, positive & negative, true & false, than countless other hard-working & influential members of their party. Its' all part of the growing celebrification of politics, from which even principled outlets like this one ....(ahem) can hardly claim themselves to be wholly free.

You've nailed it, DanJoaquinOz. It's all about Star Power.

And Barack Obama is none other than Nathan Detroit of Guys and Dolls repute.

You remember:

"Why, it's good reliable Nathan! Nathan, Nathan, Nathan Detroit!
"If you're looking for action he'll furnish the spot!
"Even when the heat is on it's never too hot!"

Lights! Action! Roll 'em!

Still do not understand why the media has been so quiet about the number of MIGs shot down over West Texas in the late 60s and very early 70s. All of that "combat" seems to have taken a toll on a certain pilot - Must still be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress problems.

Buford - thanks for the compliment, but unfortunately I don't think we agree about much. You appear to regard the non-stories about Senator Obama as credible, if nascent, investigative journalism which is gathering momentum - Watergate-like - towards the critical mass of some soon-to-be-revealed-candidacy-ending exposure & SCANDAL.

I don't.

I think it's part of a particularly shallow media tendency towards the celebrification of politics & politicians, where every story, no matter how baseless or trivial, will get a run, as long as it's about one of the dozen or so STARS; this is a craven, venal media marketplace in which Obama's PAID traffic fines gathers more column inches than any major policy statements by candidates Kucinic or Romney.

You think it's a meaningful, portentious, gathering storm. I think it's cynical, celebrity fetishism - "sound & fury, signifying nothing..."

Actually, DJO, I'm saying that the investigative reports on Barack Obama up to now have succeeded in revealing him as the Nathan Detroit of Democratic Party politics. And the reports have barely begun. Not too bad for just scratching the surface, I'd say. Prepare yourself for what will be revealed by further digging. For example, the hefty campaign donations from Jared Abbruzzese; the sudden and miraculous promotion at triple the pay of Obama's wife shortly after he won his Senate seat; the very thorough airing of Obama's stock portfolio by the respected Nat Worden of TheStreet.com. You and others suddenly dazzled by the initial Star Power given Obama by a craven, sensationalist cable news media can blow off the continuing investigation by cherry-picking it to suit yourselves, but it's adding up despite your self-indulgent protestations. One thing remains certain, however: the investigative reporters will not stand down because of the likes of you. They know better and have our eternal thanks for that.

it's irresponsible and unethical to print a misleading story in hopes it will act as bait for a better one to come along.
it's inexcusable.

and, buford, if you can't tell the difference between a story that ``raises questions'' about possible conflicts of interest -- in deals that ended up losing money no less and with companies which Obama isn't shown to have favored in any way -- and a bona fide ``continuing investigation" tracking a felony coverup of a felony crime as in the Watergate reporting you purport to admire so much, then you really ought to reread All the President's Men.
At this point, the Obama stories in the NYT recall Whitewater, not Watergate, although I didn't see anything in the story Kevin's objecting to that struck me as being remotely as egregious as the tripe that came out during the Whitewater character assassinations by the media.
This stuff looks like it's going nowhere. What's disturbing is how much attention the NYT has paid to turning over every rock it can to expose Hillary and Bill's sex life, Obama's clumsy investing habits, etc. while taking a resolutely hands-off approach to Saints Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Order prescription drugs Buy prescription drugs without prescription