Robert Reich's new blog: Who's Digging Dirt on Obama?

[flpoljunkie]

Reich goes after the New York Times, as well...

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/03/whos-digging-dirt-on-obama.html

Friday, March 09, 2007
Who's Digging Dirt on Obama?

When you read a negative story about a political candidate that doesn’t seem all that important, it’s likely that story came from a competing candidate’s negative research team, who leaked it to a journalist they had reason to believe is an ally. This is the only way I can explain a page-one story in last Wednesday’s New York Times about an investment Barack Obama made in late February, 2005. Times reporters Mike McIntire and Christopher Drew say Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two companies whose major investors included some of his large political donors; one company was a biotech concern starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, write McIntire and Drew, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease. A spokesman for Obama said the Senator didn’t know he had invested in either company until several months later – his broker had bought them without consulting the Senator, under the terms of a blind trust – and when Obama learned of the investments he sold them, at a loss of $13,000, in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yesterday’s (Thursday’s) Times contains another story, this by Christopher Drew and Jeff Zeleny, repeating the Thursday story, but adding that “Obama faced a barrage of questions about his investment Wednesday after a Washington news conference about immigration.”

The Wednesday page-one story is not really a story. That Obama’s stock broker bought $50,000 of stock in two companies whose investors included some of his large political donors raises no conflict of interest issue, even if Obama knew about the transaction. That he pushed for a drug to treat avian flu and had put $5,000 in a firm that was developing a vaccine for it might suggest he sincerely believes in the importance of developing such a vaccine, and could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, but note that Obama sold the stock long before the story broke, so he must have been sincere in his desire to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

The Thursday story, referencing the “barrage of questions” Obama faced on Wednesday about these transactions, is also not a story. There was a barrage of questions only because the Times had put the story on its front page on Wednesday, thereby creating the barrage.

So what’s going on? Dirt-digging researchers on the staffs of one of the other major Democratic candidates – either Edwards or Clinton – came up with this stuff, and leaked it to Christopher Drew. Your assignment: Figure out, on the basis of Drew’s past coverage of Clinton and Edwards, which candidate was more likely to do the leaking because he or she believed that Drew would take it and try to get it high prominence in the paper.

posted by Robert Reich 1:36PM

[Frogger]

1. Certainly we

can expect the dirt to start flying soon, in every direction.

It's a sad commentary on our politics and our times, but it is an inescapable fact. The "politics of personal destruction" is here to stay.

Obama's a big boy, and he can handle it. If he can't, he is not yet fit for the Presidential office. But I have no doubt that he can.

[Bitwit1234]

2. I know!! I know!!

Do you all remember a couple of months ago when the NARA told that clerks from the white house (?) were going thru records and removing them. They were checking everything. They were finally stopped. So what would stop them from roaming the country going thru the local records. It was an easy matter to remove ALL the references to the negative stint bush did in the Air National Guard.

[AlGore-08.com]

3. To be fair, it may not be Clinton or Edwards (although they're most likely)

Because they have the most money of all the Dem hopefuls. Still, it may be one or more other Dem hopefuls who want to weaken Obama so the "I'm more electable" meme will be even stronger against him. Or, it might be the media itself, who don't really need that much encouragement to dig up dirt (or pseudo-dirt) on Dem candidates.

But again, Clinton and Edwards have the most to gain, and the most money to spend, so they are the logical suspects.

[KoKo]

4. It's the RW WHORE REPUG MEDIA not the Dem Candidates....

is my bet...and I don't like Bob Reich implying this stuff just to get folks to his blog. Reich is a Globalist Economy sympathizer. He's on Larry Kudlow all the time. I used to like him until I heard him in a discussion where he constantly supported the "Global Economy." He said it's here and we have to deal with it and we can "tweak it for human rights" but it would be a mistake to give up our trade agreements. He sounded very DLC and we know where that's gotten us.

[zulchzulu]

5. Seeing how Carville Le Turncoat would give Democratic knowledge to the enemy...

...I would not be surprised if his traitorous slimy paws had something to do with the story. As long as he's on Senator Clinton's payroll, she will never get my support....possibly even if she's the candidate (which she will never be). I'd be glad to wager on that.

Benedict Arnold and Jiminy Le Turncoat Carville are one and the same.

[elizm]

6. Considering...

...the fact that Edwards ran a positive campaign in 2004, I don't expect him to suddenly go negative. So that leaves only one other, doesn't it? I'm ready to be flamed, and am sure I will be. Hillary has the money and she has James Carville on her payroll. Bingo.

[Tellurian]

7. The Right Wing issued a statement over a month ago..

It included a strategy relying on Democratic infighting to do it's nasty work for them.
So, I'd venture the GOP, seeing that Reich is the dirt bag mouthpiece floating this article,
is looking to see what reaction he'll get to his incendiary comments.. I guess, he's smarter than most.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Surely you do not believe the GOP is "relying on Dem infighting to do it's nasty work for them."

I find this supposition improbable--as it would be a first for the Rethugs.

[Tellurian]

13. Even more surprising is

The native at how battles are fought and wars won.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Assume you meant "naivete" and not "native." No one is naive here. Both parties nominees will duke

it out for the 2008 nomination--perhaps like never before--with no heir apparent in either party.

Politics is a contact sport, after all.

[Tellurian]

16. Political contact sports are the Republican's forte

they excel at duping the public with scandal laden rumors of their opponents and shifting blame to unsuspecting targets.

[flpoljunkie]

19. I think our Dem candidates know what they are up against...

"I wouldn't be a U.S. senator or out of Chicago or a presidential candidate from Illinois if I didn't have some sense of the world as it actually works. When I arrived in Chicago at the age of twenty-four, I didn't know a single person in Chicago, and I know an awful lot of folks now. And so, obviously, some of that has to do with me being pretty clear-eyed about power," - Barack Obama, in a new piece by Ryan Lizza, in The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=MKc6sjDZCcP8KjSQ2SrcMm%3D%3D

[Tellurian]

21. I'm not talking about our Dem candidates..

see post #7

what I'm saying is, when none of the candidates are taking responsibility for an attack,
it usually means it's a set up done by Republicans 'to cause' infighting and distrust.

[flpoljunkie]

22. It is highly unusual for a candidate to accept responsibility for an attack on their opponent--

both sides have been known to use their handlers and deny responsibility for the attacks--often using the press to do their dirty work for them.

[Tellurian]

23. You continue to refuse to acknowledge the point..

and keep changing the topic.

why? I have no idea.

[flpoljunkie]

24. I disagreed with your original and subsequent points. There is nothing more to say.

[Tellurian]

28. If you are afraid to acknowledge what I've proposed..

and have nothing more to say; I understand. You are free to take leave.

[flpoljunkie]

30. You have proposed nothing, Tellurian.

[enough already]

9. A little common sense will tell you who is digging

Who is Obama an IMMEDIATE threat to? Who is he closing in on in the primary polls like a race horse in an all out stretch drive? Follow the poll numbers....

[karynnj]

12. In fairness, you can make several arguments

- the one you made
- Edwards, because as Obama's numbers approach Clinton's, he becomes the obvious anti-Hillary, which would pull the undecided "ant-Hillary" and people weakly committed to Edwards and others
- The Republicans starting early.

Like someone else said on this thread, this is irresponsible. The reporters may have been fed a lead on this story - but it may not have come from a competitor. This vague charge is unfair to the rporters.

[spooky3]

26. I agree completely.

[spooky3]

10. I think this is an irresponsible column.

Writers should present the evidence of wrongdoing AND of who committed it, rather than to report suspected wrongdoing and ask their readers to "figure out" who dunnit. If he has no more evidence than reported in this column, then he shouldn't have implied that either of two individuals is responsible.

[Dr Fate]

20. In other words, the writer assumes his readers have common sense...

...and maybe even the ability to make correct or plausible inferences.

No, no,no- cant do that.

[spooky3]

25. How does he know that the possible suspects are limited to these two

parties? How can he rule out a few others with bad motives?

If he's got evidence, let him present it.

If he doesn't, then he's smearing two Dems.

"Common sense" without additional evidence suggests that there are other (Rovian) potential culprits.

[Dr Fate]

27. I agree- but a Conservative will make the same argument if you accuse Rove as well...

...that was my point- there are only so many people who benefit from doing this- I have no problem with a journalist who points his readers in a prpoper direction and lets them make soem inferences of their own.

Perhaps we will agree that he should have put forth the proposition that a Republican could be behind it as well.

[spooky3]

29. Maybe I am not being very clear

I am not saying Rove was responsible. I am saying that
1) it is wrong to imply that one of two parties is responsible for bad behavior without presenting the evidence that either party is responsible for it;
2) it is particularly wrongful to do that if there is a reasonably strong likelihood that someone other than either of those two parties could be responsible. In this case, Rove and anyone in the Republican leadership certain stand to gain from the bad behavior Reich discusses. I am simply giving him to you as a concrete example of how "common sense" could point to someone else. I am not saying that Reich should have said "any of three people could have done this" and named Rove, unless he has evidence that he presents to the reader.

I have a big problem with journalists or columnists who point readers in a given direction, especially when it concerns dirty tricks or other wrongdoing, without providing the evidence on which they base their accusations.

on edit

And what's really troubling to me is when a good Democrat such as Reich behaves irresponsibly. There is enough smearing of Dems (just ask MediaMatters for examples). Leave this kind of smearing to the Drudges and Billo's of the world, if we have to have it.

[karynnj]

11. I searched to see other articles by these 2 NYT writers

which seemed to me to be what Reich was suggesting. What I saw was that Mike McIntire has written (or contributed to) many articles on campaign contributions called into question. (He also wrote some of the articles on Mrs Astor). I see nothing here except a person capable of looking at complex transactions and explaining something. Most of the Drew articles that came up dealt with issues like electronic voting.

I may be dense, but what I don't see are the neo-con loving Nogorney and Wilgorin, whose bylines I grew to hate in 2004. (Hulse also seemed anti-liberal Democrat.) Patrick Healey just seems anti- Democrat. I got no impression who Drew and McIntire like.

(As to Reich himself, he was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, but per Wikipedia, he left early in the second term to spend more time with his family. He was a Clinton friend since college and apparently he claims to have dated Hillary. he also floated the idea of himself as a Presidential candidate for 2004 in 2002. Then later endorsed John Kerry. )

[Tellurian]

14. Kucinich just did the unthikable..

Looking for face time, he just accused democrats of "cut and run" because they cancelled a debate.

Looney Tune.

[jefferson_dem]

17. DK = political gadfly.

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

18. Now that is silly. Fox News is the house organ of the Republican party. Obama threw Carl Cameron

off his plane the weekend he announced his candidacy in Illinois. This is the way to handle Rupert Murdock's "fair and balanced" Fox News.