US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: Best major candidate.

I will never ever read washington post. IT's become un american and FOX NEWS like. There are no facts but allegations based on he said she said...I will never read Washington post and i'm going to their website all together. Dare to post this

This is really working against you. Bad journalism

I'm more disturbed about the views of Obama chanters than the way this aticle was wriiten. The name calling and shameless recontructing of the facts and the attempts to pull your attention away from the issue is unnerving. In another blog I read, anyone who didn't favor Obama was called a bigot, rascist and assumed to be a white male. I still don't know if Obama is good or bad. I'd rather read facts so I can have a reason to support him....Please someone give me some.

Tyronedj? Is that you Bill? Does Hilary know your up this late? huh? does she??

I not voting fo him . We share the same skin color,but thats not enough. I not voting for him because he goes on about being ethical and wags his finger at all the whiteys saying, You're not ethical.Even without all the bias wording it's plain to see the facts and what went down. Give me a break! I read his books. I remember his Senate race. I've seen. I've heard. I can make my own judgement.I might be "all" black but does he think that makes me his puppet?

I read all the responses to this article. It seems like pro-Barack camp is scrambling to make light of the content of this article. Is that his staff members? They keep repeating the same exact words as released from his campaign staff. How desperate are they to sink this low? This is one bi-racial man that WON'T be voting for him OHB.

Loraine your silly comments make yourself and your canidate look moronic. If you truly want your candidate to win.....do better for him. Or keep what up what your doing....I'd prefer that

Obama is not running against Bush. Why then are these people bringing up Bush's stupidity to defend Obama's blatant misuse of his position.
In response to this article why do they make comments like this "Chris Cillizza is a pedophile? And sells crack at the playground? Chris, you should quit now. Unless you can defend yourself".....?????
One commenter wrote this ((((("Chris,

Why am I not surprised that this particular quote from the New York Times article is not in your column today?

"There is no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks.")))))
using that quote as evidence of Obama's innocents.....Obams's
spokesperson said that!!!

Shawn S? Is that you Hillary Clinton?

How naive are these Obama supporters? Do they really think he sold stock at a loss because of his ethics? It was obscure and failing. I would have sold it too. To blindly accept any excuse is ( esp, the transparent ones Obama has given) truly bewildering to me.
He was personal friends to some of these people.....You don't think they ever talked shop because of ethics was the highlight of their dinner parties? C'mon now, you really believe that?
The two week timing of his taking the lead in the legislative for funding avian flu drugs and the purchase of very very obscure biotech stock should send off fireworks in any reasonable liberal mind.

I guess the best thing to come of the early horse race is early laundry-airing. By the time of the first primaries nobody will remember any of this. Perhaps by then pundits and newspapers will be focusing on the candidates' qualifications and vision.

Let me see if I understand....the stocks were in a blind trust, not under Obama's control, and when he found out about a possible conflict of interest, he dumped the stocks at a loss?? Is the news here that a politician actually did the right thing??????

Blah--"Lets put this in perspective. Bush has been behind more mistakes than any other president out there. Obama's made two mistakes,--"

THIS is exactly the purpose of these 'news.'

If you read the article, you know that Obama in fact does NOT have two problems. The article itself concludes that Obama comes out squeaky clean in this situation.

Then you and other people--even supportive of Obama--either by accident or out of ignorance start indicating that he indeed does have two problems by trying to justify it and from there it propagates.

THAT is why this was so shameful.

Re Michelle Obama's job: Compare it to Bill Clinton putting the arm on McDougal to give Hillary a $20,000 retainer.

Since Hillary Clinton is running on being a woman, are we going to find out what her retinue of household servants added up to the last 25+ years (since moving to the Arkansas Governor's mansion)? She has nothing in common with the average woman except a vagina.

Chris Cillizza is a pedophile? And sells crack at the playground? Chris, you should quit now. Unless you can defend yourself...

Oh, come ON!

We have Bush who has led us down the road to perdition and royally screwed America. And you are worried about a couple of things like stocks and land purchases which Obama immediately rectified when he found out he should. Obama had the dignity to say he was wrong. Bush will never do that. Shame on you for calling attention to trivia when our entire country's well-being is at stake!

' Or maybe its the people in america are just getting dumber, so to feel better about ourselves, we elect a retard for president.'

I think you're right. Did you read about the guy in Michigan who set his own genitals on fire, trying to do a stunt from some stupid movie.

It's all because cons breed too much...

Lets put this in perspective. Bush has been behind more mistakes than any other president out there. Obama's made two mistakes, how many has Bush made? Maybe the more mistakes you make the better chance you have of becoming president. I mean come on we elected Bush for president twice. Or maybe its the people in america are just getting dumber, so to feel better about ourselves, we elect a retard for president.

Me: I think you will find that Obama was created by the media and now the media has to take him down just a bit. This was expected. "Listen for what they don't say".

There is nothing wrong with reporting the story - but Chris and everyone else have an OBLIGATION to put the entire truth out there and not to publicize the story as though Obama has already been tried/convicted. I realize these people have to gain the attention of the readers - but it's patently dishonest to ask "Does Obama Have a problem?" is such a way that it seems to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Yea, whoever you are, I do like Hillary. For the record, Hillary will be the next POTUS, and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Waaay too many problems with Hagel for me, but he's an interesting case--at least he's been honest about the occuption. So he's been hated by the radical right for so long [like mccain] it would be hard for thm to accept him, even if his positions are all there for them.

Hold the phones.... reality check.

I'm unhappy about this CC post, but I'm not a Deaniac, a liberal or even an Obama supporter. But I'm quite gratified to see that most posters are keeping CC's feet to the fire... we're tired of smear jobs and we're not going to take it anymore!

Also, Chuck Hagel has announced he will hold a press conference Monday concerning his future plans. I'm not a Hagel supporter either (unless he can dispel his voting machine connection) but I do think he will shoot to the top of the GOP polls if he runs. He's a conservative dream except for his long opposition to the Iraq war which may now be the winning position.

Lastly, Dean's campaign gurus are still unattached, doing their own thing in consulting or supporting labor.... so Gore can still jump in with experienced people.

We're a long way from the finish line.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

About this Silly-za guy, does anyone know if he lives near children? And is the FBI already on his case about his pedophilia? Does WaPo know of his child molestation problem? Which journalism school did he attend and why hasn't it been closed by the federal government? This silly chris guy (pedophile?)is the worst thing that has happened to journalism. Lord help us!

Gosh, Lyle, you like Hillary? Really? Who knew?

Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Chris,

Are you just a mouth piece for the Hillary campaign? You certainly know that it was her campaign that got this story to the NY Times. This is how these things work. I have been involved in over 100 campaigns and they teach you these things right away or as soon as they trust you.

Her ethical issues could fill up the Manhattan Yellow Pages and I don't think she has a real probelms with those either as she has proivesn by winning her two campaigns.

Chris...what are you coverning up under that toupe? That is the real question.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq....

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world....

Congress must keep demanding answers. It must find out who decided to fire these prosecutors and why, and who may have authorized putting pressure on Mr. Cummins. And it must look into whether Senator Domenici and Representatives Wilson and Hastings violated ethics rules that forbid this sort of interference. We hope the House committee will not be deterred by the fact that Mr. Hastings is its ranking Republican. The Justice Department also needs to open its own investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's claim that these prosecutors were fired for poor performance was always difficult to believe. Now it's impossible.

Jesus Christ almighty, in the Abramoff case you managed to miss altogether for 10 years the greatest corruption scandal in the history of American government right in front of your nose -- and even when indictments were already flying even the Post Ombudsman was hysterically refusing to acknowledge this partisan scandal for what it was.

The Post writers have become shameless right-wing propagandists and character assassins.

The Libby trial proved beyond doubt what we all suspected already: the DC journalistic class have become nothing more than abjectly craven boot-lickers of the Republican powers-that-be.

The latest Quinnipiac Poll has more info on the 2000 race that I have seen anywhere. I've been going over it these past few days and Hillary still is looking good. Romney didn't fare to well compared to the CPAC straw poll this past weekend. McCain is just about gone. Rudy keeps gaining. Based on recent developments, at this time it looks like Hillary v Rudy.

'Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, on captruing Osama bin Laden:

"I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
Dick Cheney downplaying the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden:

"He's not the source of the problem, obviously. . ".

President Bush on how important he thinks capturing Osama bin Laden is:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. ... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
ll...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."

President Bush also shut down the CIA operation trying to capture Osama bin Laden. And let him escape in Tora Bora.'

Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/pardon, would seem to make a Libby pardon a nonstarter in George W. Bush's White House. They "require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application," according to the Justice Web site.

Did you hear about Karen and the kids and crack? Stop that Karen!

'March 7, 2007 - The pardon campaign began almost immediately. No sooner had word come down in federal court that I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby had been convicted on four felony counts than conservative allies began pressuring President Bush to step in and effectively overturn the verdict. The National Review Online was first off the block, publishing a "Pardon Libby" editorial barely two hours after the verdict was announced; the piece denounced the entire CIA-leak case as a "travesty" and the product of "media scandal-mongering." The Wall Street Journal followed suit Wednesday, saying Bush shouldn't even wait for Libby to file his appeal. "The time for a pardon is now," the Journal declared. (The Web site of the Libby Defense Trust, www.scooterlibby.com, linked to those and other editorials calling for a pardon Wednesday.)

But there's one significant roadblock on the path to Libby's salvation: Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines.'

Speaking of Faux News, they ran a segment on - surprise! - Obama's parking tickets at Harvard. Ooooooooh, that's SO much worse than voting for >3,000 Americans dead for no specific reason. Go straight to your room, Obama, and don't you dare ask about dinner!

How does this compare with Hillary Clinton making $110,000 on cattle futures trading? When she was first questioned about it she outright lied that she did it by reading the Wall St. Journal. She has never had to come up with a real explanation and booking commodity profits to a politician's account is a known form of bribery.

Guys, I think all of you have to take a break. Ok, we've seen far better posts on this blog but is that worth this pointless discussion?

'Since this blog spent so much time hectoring The Politico for letting Dan Gerstein write a piece attacking Joe Lieberman's high-profile critics without disclosing that he was on Lieberman's payroll at the same time, it seems only fair to note that The Politico's editors have finally responded.

In the course of a very spirited public debate The Politico is now having with Media Matters, Politico bigs John Harris and Jim VandeHei, along with Politico writer Ben Smith, all weighed in on the Gerstein flap. The response, in essence, was to concede that they'd screwed up, while maintaining that their good intentions were revealed by the fact that they'd noted a less direct link between Lieberman and Gerstein. As Harris puts it, this was a "misdemeanor."

Anyway, their full responses are here. Here are some excerpts.

Jim VandeHei:

On Gerstein: Yes, we muffed it. We should have clearly stated Gerstein is a paid adviser to Sen. Joe Lieberman. It was wrong to assume our readers would know Gerstein is not only a Liebermaniac but a paid one at that!'

Been neglecting this subject, but good for him for saying he won't participate in Fox News' Democrat Party debate. The problem with Fox isn't that it's conservative, it's that it's basically a propaganda outlet for the GOP. The difference is an important one. Back when Clinton was in power, their true nature was somewhat obscured by the fact that were doing what media should be doing at least in broad terms, which is be skeptical about the actions of the powerful. Back when Bush was popular, it was also easier for people to fail to understand just what Fox does on a daily basis. But now that they spend 24/7 propping up Mr. 30% and his gang of incompetents, the absurdity of considering them to be a "news channel" should be apparent.

Magically, it's back in vogue. Stories which hint at corruption for Democrats, even though there's clearly no there actually there. As 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?

These nonstories are being front paged on the Post and the Times, which leads to TV news covering them and taking them seriously. The fact that, for example, in the Obama story the money involved was a tiny amount of money both brings it down to a human scale people can understand and makes people believe that if an important newspaper like the New York Times is writing about what seems to be a trivial matter it somehow must be important. Even when Obama loses money! The mindless jerks at the Note led with the Obama story and gave it more coverage than the Libby verdict.

What's this I hear about CC being a crack addict and pedophiile? Tsk, tsk. Never can tell these days.

Was Hillary behind the smear on Obama: http://www.solidpolitics.com

What's the story with Chris Cillizza's problem with pedophilia that everyone is asking about? Why are people asking whether Chris Cillizza is a pedophile?

By the way, I think one can see in Chris's post the seeds of a smart anti-Obama strategy. The smart strategy would be to spend some time building up expectations for Obama to unreasonable levels. The hope would be that Obama would then fail to satisfy those expectations, and the resulting disappointment would create a net loss of support.

The problem is that this strategy requires some patience: you can't both try to inflate expectations for Obama and dash them at the same time without your strategy becoming transparent (which, intentional or not, is what people saw happening with Chris's post). And unfortunately, with a lot of players in the field, your patience may be for naught if one of the other competitors jumps the gun.

And I somewhat wonder if this is happening right now to Edwards: it seems to me he is playing a very patient game right now, and I suspect he is unhappy with those going after Obama so soon.

The NYT fronts all the pardon talk and mentions that traders at Intrade.com have so far predicted a 23 percent chance that Libby will be pardoned by the end of the year, and a 63 percent chance that it will happen before Bush leaves office.
Everybody goes inside with the continuing attacks on Shiite pilgrims in Iraq, which claimed the lives of at least 30 more people yesterday. According to the LAT's count, 188 Shiite pilgrims have been killed in three straight days of attacks. The U.S. military announced that a roadside bomb killed three soldiers.

Odierno provided the confidential assessment about how long troops should stay in Iraq to his superior, Gen David H. Petraeus, and the Pentagon insists no decision has been made. The Times makes clear that despite all the hoopla, so far the "surge" is "really more of a trickle" because only two of the five brigades are actually in Iraq.

The Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox with a look at how President Bush's low approval rating and an unpopular war could add up to make 2008 the worst election in 30 years to be "the candidate of the Republican establishment." Bad news for the establishment means bad news for Sen. John McCain who has been waiting and campaigning for the last several years. A new poll shows he is currently 20 percentage points behind Rudy Giuliani.

USA Today leads with a memo that reveals the Pentagon doesn't have a plan to spot and treat thousands of troops who may be suffering from traumatic brain injury.

ASHINGTON (CNN) -- A top White House aide from past administrations speculates that some of the facts in the CIA leak case may never come to light, even with the conclusion of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury trial.

"What I do think is clear is that there's a lot more to know," White House veteran David Gergen said Tuesday. "And there had to be a reason why the defense attorney did not put Scooter Libby and the vice president on the stand."

Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing an investigation into the Bush administration's actions leading into the Iraq war. (Full story)

"Perhaps [defense attorney] Ted Wells never even knew why Scooter Libby didn't want to go on the stand. But clearly, there's something behind this case," Gergen, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live."

"Why would Scooter Libby lie, as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There's clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don't know what that is."

Appearing with Gergen, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "It will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process."

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on Thursday.

General David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month, also said he saw no immediate need to request more U.S. troops, but reinforcements already requested would likely stay "well beyond the summer."

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said.'

I'm always amused when people describe Michelle Obama's promotion as a "problem".

In case you don't know, she is a cum laude graduate of Princeton University and a graduate of Harvard Law School. She then worked for a top law firm in Chicago, specializing in marketing and intellectual property. In 1991 she left corporate law and went to work with Mayor Daley. In 1993 she became the founding executive director of the Chicago office of Public Allies (part of Americorps). In 1996 she became an associate dean at the University of Chicago, where she was director of the University Community Service Center. In 2002 she started with the University of Chicago Hospitals as executive director of community affairs. In 2005 the University of Chicago Hospitals promoted her to vice president for external affairs and community relations.

That latest promotion is what people are calling a "problem". But in light of her actual resume and career path, I think people are going to have a hard time claiming that was an unearned promotion. And as usual, I think drawing attention to Michelle Obama is not exactly going to work out poorly for Obama's campaign.

By the way, I am in no way affiliated with Obama's campaign. But it is indeed interesting to me that a lot of people seem to get mad when others try to play dirty politics with Obama. I'm not sure why that is the case, but it is not unprecedented: the American voters sometimes just take a liking to a politician, and with such politicians attempts to attack them personally often backfire. Indeed, that was the case with both Reagan and Bill Clinton, and it seems to be true for Obama as well. So, I think Obama's opponents will need to be careful about how they play the game, because some of their favorite tricks may not work as they would ordinarily expect.

Hey Chris -- when are you going to address the rumours that you are a pedophile? This is a very serious allegation, and the perception is out there.

I generally respect your opinion whether I agree or not but is it not misleading - to put it kindly - to characterize actions of a broker in a blind trust as a "second mistake," i.e., ethical lapse?

Best, Terry

this is actually quite a serious issue. Obama has not handled this well so far and he did not handle his affairs appropriately when he took office. To go on about chris is the height of unfairness, he's a political reporter and blogger and like it or not this is news. So typical of everyone attacking the messenger oh and also attacking hillary for that matter. Get a grip.

Boy, oh boy, where is Shakespeare when you really need him?

Chris Cilliza, you should know that this is really much ado about nothing.

I checked in as I often do to read some interesting political thoughts. Guess it was the wrong day. For the record, I support Obama and don't think this will harm him much, but I may not read this blog too much anymore. It was much better when people were actually discussing and debating issues, rather than letting their egos and dubious senses of humor range freely.

Chris, slow news day? If you have nothing to say, just skip a day of writing, ok Chris?

If Obama is this bad at managing his money what makes you think he could run a country?

Please, let's keep the focus on Chandra

This story is a smoke screen. The real story today is a BIG WIN for OBAMA. The South Carolina Black Caucus has invited him to keynote their major fundraiser next month. They told Hillary she was invited to attend but would have to buy a ticket!

If this is such a non-story why are all you deaniacks screaming bloody murder?

This is a non-story. Just like the Whitewater nonsense the Washington Post flogged and flogged. However, we have daily examples of outrageous criminality coming out of the Bush Administration. How many departments are under investigation for no-bid contracts, lobbyists funneling money to their previous employers (not just Halliburton)? Time for the Washington Post to quit trying to make mountains out of thin air and start with the difficult work of exposing your friends, the people you golf with, risk getting uninvited to the Crawford picnic. You people are becoming as crooked as the Mob.

Gr

Yes, this is a non-issue. The dissenting opinion is that Obama is not experienced enough to run a presidential campaign. I would like to say something to these people. That is the entire point! No one, including you, cares about this story. Obama is running on the platform that he is different than other politicians because he is. Obama hasn't looked back to cover up his past because he doesn't think there are any to cover up. You shouldn't have to be experienced at going over your past with a fine toothed comb to be president and the American people agree. Obama and Romney are both trying to send this message: "vote for me, I'm not a sleazzy hypocrite."

is someone suggesting the obama was trying to curry favor with his donors? doesn't corruption work the other way around? and hey btw, did he and his donors both use the same cellular service? some reporter should look into it.

Stay strong Chris your story was fine these Deaniacks are just scared cause they know their candidate's days are numbered.

Don't send Obama or Hillary up here. We're overrun with leftist morons!

WOW you Obama fans need to grow up! If yall are this sensitive over this lil story then yall will probably need to take a nap or time out when the campaign really heats up cause this is just the begining.

Also I don't the Obama campaign would be wipping out these attack talking points if there weren't some truth to the charges or they were scared about the charge.

Oh no, what happened to your bar? I tried to be gentle.

Call me. I haven't seen you since I was disbarred.

I'd love one!

I'd love one!

Cigar anyone?

I've printed this article and stuffed it down my pants. I wouldn't want anything embarrasing to get out.

Obama is sooo cute! I'm definitely voting for him.

Go Obama, Go!....to Canada, and take Hillary with you! Please close the door when you leave!

The whole cast of Democrat candidates is depressing and pathetic. Hillary and Obama both trying hard to be black on command are almost as creepy as Joe Biden's implants. God, how I miss Al Sharpton!

B. Hussein Obama, what are you doing? And here I was thinking you were too inexperienced to be POTUS. However, you seem to have politics figured out. Act on inside information from supporters and then use your political influence to benefit your investment. Good stuff! We Americans appreciate what you and Mr. Jefferson have done to clean up after those corrupt Republicans! You and Harry Reid should start an investment company!

Obama is a slimey politician, just like the rest of them. Go Hillary! Time to restore dignity and ethics in the White House! Only Hillary can make it happen!

it's amusing to see the Obama fans getting their collective panties in an uproar over someone questioning his squeaky clean image

a politician doesn't reach the US Senate in this day and age, especially from Illinois, without getting his hands a bit dirty

There are a number of troubling details emerging about Obama. Some of his moves and subsequent explanations don't pass the smell test. I'd say Chris was TOO coy, not too harsh.

For one, a major campaign contributor bought a parcel of land that in effect made Obama's adjacent piece artificially cheaper.

He does no speculative investing except for these two stocks which just happen to be linked to his contributors, then lobbies on behalf of one of them.

The actual amount of his contribution in one of the companies jumped from $50,000 in today's Times to $90,000 in tomorrow's.

He claims they were in a blind trust, but he received a prospectus in the mail about the stocks. How did he immediately know from a basic prospectus to sell? That is weird.

He took money from a Swift boat funder. Not something that will help his campaign. Perfect issue for a primary opponent to pose indignantly about.

Also, politically, stories of his extreme, sudden wealth don't help him win votes from Joe Voter or the African American community.

Hey, Obama already admitted his cocaine problem and Black Panther-like attitude toward whites when he was young. What else are they supposed to write about? Then again, he is so new there are a lot of closets yet to open, aren't there? Don't worry, those of us in Illinois can vouch for the fact that there will be more skeletons found. We locals all know more about our home politicians than the national media will ever know.

My take is that someone is scared, really scared of Barack Obama. I don't really know if it is the RIGHT or the LEFT, but I can see it as only the begining. But those of us who are upset are so because we believe this man when he speaks. And we believe him when is asks us to get back into the political process. And believe me when I say some of us will make dam sure we have a voice this time. And more young, old and OMG different nationalities are working together. There are just those that wish to keep us divided over many issues. Not Again!

neither (of these incidents) are terribly damaging.

I read only about 2/3 of your pan-mail (to which I would have added if the others hadn't been so thorough), so I might have missed it--but you should know this: either and neither are SINGULAR. So it should be ". . . neither of these incidents IS terribly damaging."

neither (of these incidents) are terribly damaging.

I read only about 2/3 of your pan-mail (to which I would have added if the others hadn't been so thorough), so I might have missed it--but you should know this: either and neither are SINGULAR. So it should be ". . . neither of these incidents IS terribly damaging."

How is using a blind trust so that you do not know what your money is in, so you cannot affect your investments' share prices a "misjudgement"?

The Post has, it's sad to say, become the leading mouthpiece of wingnuttery.

The storm flags on Barack Obama were out long before he announced his intention to enter the presidential race. More and more folks just now are beginning to take note. A perfect storm indeed is brewing.

It's not the time to set sail -- not aboard this boat, at least.

As has been pointed out, The Times story was not exclusively about ethical lapses.

There is the matter of campaign contributions by a leading Republican Party financial backer and Swift Boat donor Jared Abbruzzese, now at the center of an FBI inquiry into public corruption.

Not a word of comment on this matter.

And then there is the problem of a hefty pay raise recently for Obama's wife.

Not a word of comment on this matter.

Anyone?

Silly Man, Cizilla, have a sound the name right.

This article is complete yellow journalism. There are no real facts to backup claims that Obama has made unethical decisions. To insinuate this from the given facts is ridiculous. The title of this article looks like something you would see on the Fox News roller. I am disapointed that this kind of sensationalism would find itself on washingtonpost.com. Lets report the facts in a truthful and honest way, Chris.

Isn't it remarkable that Obama has such passionate, loyal supporters! That's something few politicians ever achieve. The thing is, I read all the comments so far, and no one saw the video today of Obama explaining the whole thing. You should watch it. He was in no way evasive or suspicious, but he did display a manner of uncertainty about what words to use and how to tell the story. Go watch it online. He didn't have anyone write it, nor did he write it himself. I think that's a very serious mistake for a Presidential contender. I'll tell you this: at this moment, in debates with Giuliani, he would get slaughtered. And I'm a New York City person who thinks Rudy did a good job as mayor, although he's pretty nasty, but I'd NEVER vote for him. Obama needs to grow big time before becoming American Idol.

It it obvious that you guys are so scared of a clean guy like Barak Obama, that you can't even wait till the real race begins to try to assinate his character. Your time is over; the time of corruption and vile. Real people are going to take back the government and represent the people, not business and money interests. A CHILD can see your game. Have you NO shame? I wonder if your children know about you. Poor things.

Perhaps this is more for Howie Kurtz, but thestreet.com had this story first on Monday morning as part of their candidate finances series: http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/newsanalysis/investing/10342170.html
I hate that smaller outlets post stories and a few days later when someone like NYT or WaPost puts it up, it's an enormous story. Maybe Mike McIntyre and Chris Drew (who wrote the NYT story) had been doing research on Obama's finances before the thestreet piece, but the story came out 2 days after it - not the next day which it probably would have if they were already working on it and saw the Monday piece. They did add a few bits, like the George Haywood part, but that's about it. And they get all the credit, leading The Note as a must-read, and igniting the firestorm that led to Chris' post.

And as a sidethought from the main purpose of this comment, I feel compelled to talk to every single other commenter so far: People, if you think this story is small and disgusting and slimy (and I'm not even talking to the partisans), don't read The Fix or pay attention to campaign news a year and a half before the election. This is what it's going to be for quite a while, so if you don't like it, don't listen.

So, has anyone else heard about Chris selling crack cocaine to school children?

There is probably nothing to the pedophilia rumor, and probably nothing to this rumor about Chris dealing crack to school children. But, nothing happens in a vacuum, and the concern for Chris has to be whether this all ends up being part of a larger story line about his misjudgments involving children. And two incidents at least raises the possibility that he has done even worse things to children (maybe genocide?).

Anyway, perception is reality.

I would like to make an argument in defense of Sen. Pete Domenici and Congresswoman Heather Wilson and all the people who got caught in the mess of the fired prosecutors.

Over the last few days I was thinking to myself "how is it possible that the republicans are out of power, but still have so many ethical problems"?

To answer the question, I have to go back to communication...

When the democrats have a problem with an elected official they do their research. They find a small thing they can pin on him, and then make a big noise. They demand an investigation. They demand that the Department of Justice should appoint a 'special' prosecutor.

A nice fellow sits at home one night listening to the news, and he hears that Sen. Someone Democrat... is demanding an investigation into Somobody Republican, and not just an investigation, but the Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crime. What is the first thing that crossed his mind? "A special prosecutor....This is a serious crime". Now you can come and knock on his door and tell him that the special prosecutor came up with nothing but the only thing he will now likely remember is "this guy is a criminal". The Republican, under suspicion, is already a shade grey in everyone's mind. So the democrats get the job done.

What happens if it's vice versa, and the Democrat is under suspicion?

The Republicans hear that there is a criminal investigation going on involving a Democrat. What do they do? They call (the arrogant, selfish) prosecutor, and ask him (not demand him to investigate) about the investigation... Don't you think that a phone call to a news reporter is worth more money then to call a prosecutor?

Ultimately, the voters decide who is eligible for office, largely based on ethical behavior. The republican lack of conveying misconduct to the public is a major factor in their current political status, which doesn't seem to be bettering.

http://politicalzoom.blogspot.com/

Wow- this really hit a nerve- Most of you need to get a life- Hillary is constantly being demonized by the press and by other Democrats (so many Obama supporters have flipped out on her) It would be smart to check out her bio-this lady has a long history of hard work and public service-Her approval rating in NY is soaring -even among Republicans- her once toughest critics in the Senate speak kindly about her -She is known to be one of the hardest working members of Congress-And...media bias is not in her favor-I know you can't see it or won't admit it but Obama is the one who has been getting the free ride-Ignorance of the facts and name calling is not attractive in either party- - Could the Obama fanatics try to let the process work- Let's see who can handle the issues-let's see who has the concrete plans and knowledge to implement them. This is not a sporting event- you're all beginning to sound like Swift boaters- If Obama is meant to be our candidate-great- If he can't handle the heat -
and this still luke warm-then he's can't be the one. Immature name calling is just plain stupid and should be beneath the Democrats- Don't embarrass us or your candidate- Keep open minds- This is far too important an election to be divided-we will defeat ourselves -let's try not to do that again-

Sorry to pile on, Chris, but I totally agree with the commenter who talked about this being an example of the media "crying wolf."

I know you are not the only or worst offender to blow this thing out of proportion, but this entire non-story being referenced by pretty much every political blog in the country is some of the laziest, sorriest "gotcha" journalism I've seen in a while.

It makes me sad. Not sad as an Obama supporter, but sad as a fellow journalist who has covered politics and politicians (including Obama) in the past who has worked to expose REAL corruption and unethical behavior in politicians only to find my work having no impact because stories like this fuel the idea that a) all politicians are scum so why should we care? or b) the political media oversensationalizes stuff like this all the time so why should we care?

Let's recap the evolution of this non-story:
1)TheStreet.com provided valuable public affairs reporting in examining Obama's financial disclosures as part as ongoing series looking at all the candidates' finances.
2)The New York Times then appears with an A1 story basically regurgitating TheStreet's findings on Obama, but use a more ominous tone because of the hundreds of campaign contributors to Obama one of them happens to be a Swift Boat donor and slap it on A1.
3)Drudge refers to this piece as a "NY Times $$$ hit on Obama" sending the Gang of 500 into hyperventilation as if this is as important a story as a vice presidential chief of staff and special counsel to the president being convicted of lying to the FBI.
4)The rest of the Washington media establishment go off of the New York Times story to report about these latest "allegations of ethical misjudgment" without any of them or any political opponents actually alleging he acted unethically yet still inexplicably reporting these ethical questions exist.
5)Obama offers in-depth explanations for the stock deal and the steps he took to avoid conflict of interest with his finances several months before any reporters started looking into them but this goes unlinked on Chris' blog until I post it here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2931794&page=1

Sorry, Chris. But this whole thing is pathetic pack journalism at its worst. Washington media elite, please stop giving our profession a bad name!

Oops. Chris hurt his career. Bad story. Non issue.

This story is like when you poop too hard and you crap a red rose.

Let's be a little restrained about Chris' pedophilia problem. This is the first I've heard of it. Now, should it happen again... I don't know.

I guess it's no surprise that this sort of nonsense is comming out as Obama is gaining ground- and fast - over Hillary Clinton. So like her - and Bill.

The good news is, it's not going to hurt him.

Compare that to a husband who was impeached.....

And yes, by the way, really pathetic journalism on the part of the NYT and the Washington Post.

Chris,

Your analysis is dumb. Your headline is dumb. And just about everyone above seems to agree. The only reason you're reaching so early in the game is because you have a formidable candidate with a formidable message. Folks like you have been in the corrupt, soul-less, profit-driven landscape of GOP-landia -- you just don't know what to do with a real person (much less one running for President).

Go ahead. Roll your eyes. It's what folks like you do best.

This reminds me of 2004 when the media created Howard Dean gaffes out of whole cloth. Even when he didn't do anything, even when he didn't say anything, even when he said the exact same thing as Kerry, even when he took the exact same position as Kerry, he was semi-assassinated by gaffe charges and "gotcha" questions. And, they repeated their routine in 2005 when Dean ran for DNC Chair. Wonder why? "They" want a "centrist" candidate, meaning pro-war, meaning Hillary. Read my lips because I can see the future - Obama will be the 2008 shooting star who flames out in the Iowa caucuses.

So when Mike complains about the right wing trolls, I suppose those are the same ones that were part of HRC's "vast right wing conspiricy"???

I am actually starting to feel bad for Chris. I think this was just shoddy and thoughtless journalism, not an intentional attempt to undermine Obama (although Chris obviously has his favorite in the Democratic field, namely Edwards).

WAPO states; "comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS OR MATERIAL will be removed from the site." So you will be removing Chris's garbage, right?

I too have been hearing disturbing reports about Chris Cillizza's pedophilia problem and will feature him on my next show if I can or can't verify these rumors.

Many Americans don't read past the headlines! It is at the third or so paragraph it is disclosed that Obama delegated complete control for his ivestments and he sold the stock at $13K loss as soon as he knew of the conflict. This sort of thing just happens.

What a disgusting attempt to tarnish someone wth an utter non story of innuendo and suggestion of wrong doing. Then follow by saying:
there's no suggestion of any wrongdoing...BUT
Let's put it this way...this story TRIED to be a story but along the way it became GARBAGE.

Wow, you're weak Chris. Next time actually investigate the issue and only report it to us if it really is an issue. Don't waste our time.
Thanks.

Dear WaPo,

Fire Chris Cillizza for irresponsible slander.

Thanks,
A former reader

Impeach Bush, let the dems do their job and get rid of Rove

I see the right-wing trolls are out in force trying to pin this on Clinton. Usual operating procedure.

It's particularly shameless in this case, since the source for this slander (that Cillizza gleefully propagates) are the same people that brought us the fake Whitewater stories.

The right-wing slime machine at its dirtiest -- slandering Democratic candidates, then pinning it on other candidates to slander them as well while conveniently covering its tracks. And Cillizza is just another cog in the right-wing slime machine.

The real question here for the author to answer and for everyone commenting here to consider is: Who in the Clinton machine pitched this "story" to you and why did you decide to run with it????

Chris I read your blog all the time and normally enjoy it. But these baseless attempts to slander a politican for the sole sake of having something to talk about has made me decide to stop reading your blog and the washingtonpost altogether. If I want baseless biased "journalism" I will just listen to talk radio or read forums at hannity.com

Since so many people are asking this, and "perception is reality", it can no longer be denied: Chris Cillizza has a pedophilia problem.

Thanks my little stud muffin Chris.Now come to momma and let me spank my bad boy.

WaPo hitched its wagon to Hillary a long time ago. It will do, say, and print anything to provide her an edge. This article is pathetic.

They keep trying to find something, anything to get to Obama and still find only nonstories. how many people have had their broker make a stupid investment.
And the fact that he - gasp - lost money in it should really be the story. He's lousy at investments.
Let's run him out on the rails.
Now, let's look into Hillary's money story since leaving the white house.

i wonder if obama's got bloggers scouring the net to clean off the mud after a media attack

I am so glad I am on the west coast. You dolts can just rave on about this idiotic process till your faces are blue. And what will it get you ,, a fixed vote in the end.
And it all started with a rock .

In reply to MIKE McINTIRE:

I've seen that question asked as well. Some people seem to be wondering if Chris Cillizza is a pedophile.

Of course, as someone with such a public profession, Cillizza will be "judged by higher standards".

And, since "perception is reality", even if nothing is proven, Chris Cillizza may indeed have a pedophilia problem.

Great job on the unsuccessful attempt at creating Obama drama. You pink puffers are going to have to try a lttle harder than that.