Barack Obama’s unlikely political education.
New Republic - Washington,DC,USA (subscription required)

In 1985, Barack Obama traveled halfway across the country to take a job that he didn’t fully understand. But, while he knew little about his new vocation–community organizer–it still had a romantic ring, at least to his 24-year-old ears. With his old classmates from Columbia, he had talked frequently about political change. Now, he was moving to Chicago to put that talk into action. His 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, recounts his idealistic effusions: "Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change."…

Clinton, Obama Vie For Illinois Support
Guardian Unlimited - UK
Now comes the hard part - choosing whether to back rising political star and local hero Barack Obama, or whether to get behind a trusted ally and political …

City clamor for Bama: New Yorkers ‘begging’ to go to midtown fund-raiser
New York Daily News

Those cheers Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) hears in her backyard tomorrow night will be for her arch rival as Obamamania sweeps the city.

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced he was holding a Manhattan fund-raiser, it spawned a ticket-buying frenzy .

"It’s incredible. I can’t believe how many New Yorkers are interested in Barack Obama," said Arthur Leopold, who is helping to host the event.

And some more Obama stock defenses. First from Media Matters…

Blitzer’s suggestion that Obama "cash[ed] in" on stock deal proved wrong by CNN’s own report

Summary: In teasing a report on Sen. Barack Obama’s purchase of stock in two companies whose investors included Obama campaign donors, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked: "Did the Democratic presidential candidate cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?" The ensuing report, however, made clear that Obama did not "cash in"; rather, he took a net loss of $13,000 when he sold the stock after first learning he owned it.

Chicago Tribune, The Hill ignored lack of evidence of impropriety in Obama stock deal

In reporting on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) purchase of stock in two companies whose investors included donors to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, the Chicago Tribune and The Hill failed to note that a New York Times article highlighting the 2005 purchase did not include any evidence of ethical impropriety by Obama.

From the Carpetbagger Report…

‘Whitewater Journalism’

Following up on an item from yesterday, the Obama stock/blind trust “controversy” is part of a disconcerting pattern. Atrios referred to it as “Whitewater Journalism,” and noted this terrific post by Digby, written a couple of weeks ago.

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?

That’s so right, it hurts. Consider the 1,300-word front-page expose the WaPo ran two weeks ago detailing a family foundation the Clintons created to donate generously to charities for several years. The tone of the article suggested that there’s a real controversy, without pointing any actual wrongdoing. The casual reader/news consumer assumes Clinton has done something untoward. Indeed, she must have — otherwise the Washington Post wouldn’t run a front-page expose. A lengthy, front-page “investigative” piece about John Edwards’ home sale was part of the same trend. Take a non-story, put it on the front-page, and it’s a story.

Whitewater practically created the phenomenon. Huge, front-page articles were published, which in turn would create TV and radio interest. No one had a clue about actual wrongdoing, worse yet criminal conduct, but that didn’t stop whispers about a “scandal.” It had to be; the media told us so.

Yesterday’s piece on Obama was practically identical.