The NY Times, in a page one story someone on staff apparently leaked to Matt Drudge (wonder why that is?) seems to be following the John Solomon/AP/Washington Post pattern in breathlessly reporting things about Democratic candidates that would seem to hint at impropriety but see none. First John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton, now Barack Obama.
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.
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.
So apparently his blind trust bought some stock, then sold it when there was a possible conflict of interest... and he lost money. Is nothing else happening in the world why the team of the NY Times/Drudge decided that they should push this story?
I mean, besides the fact that he's got the nerve to run for president and have a (D) after his name.