Do you believe that Obama was really unaware of investment conflicts?

Question

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) 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.

yahoo news (for the full article)

I'm not saying that this is really that big of a deal.....but it a Republican does anything it becomes a big deal.

Answer 1

Yes a corrupt liar racist is what he is
see his church for racism see below for lies and corruptness

Answer 2

Yes,
From Media Matters:
"[t]here is no evidence that any of [Obama's] actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks."
NYT

From the Hotline Blog:
"The Substance Of The Times Story On Obama

Ok, now to the merits. This is an interesting story, and it suggests that Obama was not as careful as he ought to have bee, or could have been. But our political antennae are buzzing here; our ethical antennae are silent. If Obama has a problem, this isn't it.
If a senior Disney Co. executive or a partner in a major institutional shareholder raises money for a candidate and the candidate's qualified visually impaired trust invests in Disney, it wouldn't raise any hackles. Say the candidate also supports, say, an FCC candidate who promises not to over police network television. So what? In this case, Obama donor George W. Haywood, suggested that Obama employ UBS to manage his money. Obama's UBS-managed trust invested in, among many entities, a very small pharmaceutical company that was new to its field, and in a satellite communications "concerned" that was partly owned by one of his major contributors, the wonderfully named Jared Abbruzzese.
The difference here is not one of kind -- it's one of magnitude. The smaller the company, the more obscure the company is, the more a company’s backer has ties to the “Swift Boats,” the more suspicious one is supposed to become of the dynamics underlying the purchase. (Were the companies really obscure? Opinions differ. But if the Times pronounces them as "relatively obscure," then maybe they are.)
But if the ethical principle is: it's OK to invest in companies owned by your fundraisers, then journalists covering the story need to justify why the standard changes: in this telling, it's the obscurity of a purchase and not the purchase itself that's the issue. The Times suggests that Haywood recommended that Obama use UBS's broker in part because he knew that UBS would invest some of Obama's assets in the two companies partly owned by Haywood.
The ultimate consequences of the purchase provide no help, here. Obama lost money overall and divested himself as soon as the purchases were disclosed to him. The facts are on his side. If you think Obama is lying and somehow directed his broker to purchase these stocks on Haywood's advice (and knew that Haywood was an investor in those companies), and if Obama planned to use his office to appropriate avian flu funds to the pharma company, then... say that. The circumstantial evidence does not begin to prove it.
The Times justifies the content of its story, and by implication, its page A-1 placement, by pointing to the fact that Obama "has made ethics a signature issue." Fair point. Media critics we're not, but we wonder if the Times editors hope this story sends a message to the candidates and the Times' competitors that it will closely scrutinize every ink mark, iota and giblit. By the way: who's the broker? He/she's at the center of the storm, and we don't know who he/she is."
http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Obama+Myths

Answer 3

Dunno, maybe.

But, and here's the deal: if he wasn't aware of the conflicts, then it's not illogical to conclude that he's incompetent and, if he was aware of the conflicts, then it's not illogical to conclude that he's lying. This has been Hillary Clinton's problem since before Day One as she's been caught out in at least 40 or 50 of these situations. It takes a top-flight staff to keep ahead in this phase of the game and I'm not sure he has one yet.

In Obama's case, I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as he's very new at this level of combat. But, and be very, very sure of it, there's more to come as Clinton has got to have a small army of detectives (that's the polite phrase for what these people do) out there looking for the smallest little thing "wrong" with the guy's past.

Answer 4

From http://www.vote4obama.org

“Senate ethics rules do not prohibit lawmakers from owning stocks — even in companies that do business with the federal government or could benefit from legislation they advance — and indeed other members of Congress have investments in government contractors. The rules say only that lawmakers should not take legislative actions whose primary purpose is to benefit themselves.”

so whats wrong anyway??

Answer 5

Come on he is a running candidate for the presidential election you think hes actually going to stand and say Hell yea I knew. Just like every politician he has to dance around his lies and still come out squeakie clean.

Answer 6

I think it was $55,000 combined. I think he sold the stock off at a loss. I think he has the lowest net worth of any one in the Senate.

I'm not particularly concerned about this story having any kind of longevity.

Answer 7

I had not heard about this, but thanks for letting me know. I like the guy, but for some reason, I'm just not ready to vote for someone who is indirectly supported by the liquid coal industry.

Answer 8

I don't believe the liberal media but he's a politician and I don't believe them as far as I can throw the WTC.

Answer 9

He LOST $13,000 as opposed to DICK CHENEY and Senator FRIST who have made MILLIONS on their stock that THEY KNEW they owned in a blind trust.

U DO The MATH.

What sounds more unethical??????
OBAMA has everyone running scared.

Answer 10

He lost $13,000 on the investments, so if he was aware, he obviously did not profit from them.