Does Obama Have A Flu Bug? No

I did some research on the NY Times story Drudge was plugging - Obama and money.

OBAMA $$ HIT SET FOR NYT /// Bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.... Developing...

Story out now Aside from the curious connection to Jared Abbruzzese, who almost always supports Republicans and is involved in some trouble in New York State, frankly, I think the Times story is a bust. Reads to me like a hit piece with no powder behind it. But you be the judge. As the Times points out, he actually lost money on one investment, and made a little on the other. There's a lot below the fold, which may be where it belongs. Hillary's people must be desperate if this is all they've got - or I'm missing something.

With the New York Times breaking a story on Barack Obama's links to a company manufacturing an Avian Flu vaccine, I decided to take a look around. 161,000 Google hits for Obama and avian flu. Obama and others are still pushing the issue.

Less than two months after ascending to the U.S. 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, the NYT will splash on Wednesday Page Ones.

The paper claims, according to newsroom sources: One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

In October 2006, liberal blog ObsidianWings highlighted Obama, including his work on Avian Flu:

Avian flu: Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports. There's a list of Democratic efforts on avian flu here; Obama shows up early and often. He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness.

He certainly was pushing it and got results in the billions of dollars. Press releases - Oct. 2005 and Aug 2005. So were some other Dems. It might be interesting to see what their FEC records show up. Some excerpts:

DEMOCRATS LONG RECORD OF FIGHTING TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM THE AVIAN FLU

January 2004: Kennedy asks HHS to release a Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan. In a letter to HHS Secretary Thompson, Senator Kennedy asks that the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan be released and implemented.

January 2004: Bayh introduces the Flu Protection Act (S. 2038). Senator Bayh introduces legislation to strengthen the nation’s fragile vaccine supply and establish a plan to prevent, prepare for, and respond to an influenza pandemic.

March 10, 2005: Obama works for $25 million for international efforts. Senator Obama successfully attaches an amendment to S. 600, the Foreign Relations Committee Authorization Act, that (1) authorizes $25 million for international efforts to combat the avian influenza

March 17, 2005: Obama obtains $25 million for international efforts. Senator Obama successfully attaches an amendment to the Senate Budget that allocated $25 million for international efforts to combat the avian influenza.

April 28, 2005: Senator Obama introduces the AVIAN Act (S. 969). Senator Obama introduces the first comprehensive bill to address the threat of an avian influenza pandemic.

May 10, 2005: Senate approves $58 million to stockpile antiviral medication. Senator Harkin secures $58 million in a Supplemental Appropriations bill (P.L. 109-13) to purchase more antiviral medication for the Strategic National Stockpile to better prepare for a potential avian flu pandemic.

July 28, 2005: Senator Kennedy introduces the Vaccine Access and Supply Act.

September 28, 2005: Reid urges immediate action to better prepare for the threat of avian flu. ... announces that Democrats will offer a pandemic preparedness amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill.

September 29, 2005: Senate approves $3.9 billion Democratic Pandemic Flu amendment. The Senate approved a Democratic amendment offered by Senators Harkin, Reid, Obama, Kennedy, Bayh, Durbin and others

October 4, 2005: Democrats call on Bush to release his plan.

October 5, 2005: Democrats introduce the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act. Senate Democrats, led by Senator Reid,

Hmm scroll down here:

Chiron Gets Contract for Bird Flu Vaccine
October 27, 2005, ABC/Associated Press

A second manufacturer is beginning mass production of a vaccine to protect against bird flu, and the Senate moved Thursday to invest far more—$8 billion—on preparations in case the influenza strain ever sparks a worldwide epidemic. Before the Senate acted, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt awarded a $62.5 million contract to Emeryville, Calif.-based Chiron Corp. to manufacture bird flu vaccine. Sanofi-Aventis of Paris began manufacturing $100 million worth of a similar vaccine last month. The Bush administration is putting the final touches on its plan for how to fight the next super-flu...amid growing concern that the H5N1 influenza strain spreading among birds from Asia to Europe could trigger a pandemic if it mutates into a form easily spread from person to person. The massive out-of-budget expenditure...would increase stockpiles of the antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, thought to be effective against current strains of bird flu. "The money that we spend now will not be wasted even if this particular strain of the virus, H5N1, ends up not becoming a pandemic flu," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "We know that over the next two, three decades there will be a pandemic flu. That's almost certain."

Note: Isn't is interesting that over $60 million dollars (potentially $8 billion!) has been "awarded" for a vaccine against a bird flu that hasn't even mutated yet? How are these people so certain that it will mutate and kill millions of people? How do we know these vaccines will work when it hasn't even mutated? Note also that the pharmaceutical industry, which manufactures vaccines, has the largest lobby in all Washington and is raking in huge profits. For lots more on this, don't miss the vital information in our Health Information Center.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"Reads to me like a hit piece with no powder behind it."

Holy cow! You do know that this is a post about a Democrat, right? Or was this a copy-and-paste error?

[Phoenix]

Money has a way of turning the most noble among us, don't it?

[Peejz]

I disagree that this is a hit piece with nothing to back it up. His land deal looks to be more than a "boneheaded" mistake: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html, and there appears to be more to this story than is being talked about.

1. He hired a broker to handle the trust, and these are not usually brokers that are wet behind the ears. The broker buys stocks for Obama, in companies owned by heavy hitters in political circles. Why would any broker that is handling a trust for a US Senator even get involved with an investment that will surly appear to be a conflict of interest situation?

2. The future of the stock is dependent on legislation. (think Martha Stewert)

3. Obama sells at a loss, but not as great of a loss as what it would have been had he held onto stock.

4. In some portfolios,losses aren't always a bad deal at the end of the day.

5. A blind trust only means that Obama can not direct what is bought and sold, but he can see what is happening with it.

I think there is a story here on the stock and land deals. I feel that if there were some deeper digging, things won't appear so neat and tidy.

[Hard Right]

The most disturbing point.

2. The future of the stock is dependent on legislation. (think Martha Stewert)

And he's making a biiiig push? Hmmmmm.

[Legalize]

"3. Obama sells at a loss, but not as great of a loss as what it would have been had he held onto stock."

Um, He sold the stock when it was brought to his attention, before any legislation had even been introduced. If he would have incurred a bigger loss by hanging on to the stock, where's the *there*? As it stands he took a loss on an instrument before that instrument's success could have been influenced by any conflict. There's nothing to this thing.

[Peejz]

Legalize: "In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.The paper’s Mike McIntire and Chris Drew get front placement [side by side with Libby Coverage] for details of Obama’s most recent financial disclosure:It shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees." as the article goes on to say "Even so, the stock purchases raise questions about how he could unwittingly come to invest in two relatively obscure companies, whose backers happen to include generous contributors to his political committees."

So no, he didn't sell before legislation was introduced. And there is something to this.

[yyy]

I don't get it.

He isn't supposed to invest HIS OWN money with people he knows? People have really lost it now.

Elected officials aren't supposed to invest the PUBLIC's MONEY on pet projects of their friends. What's he supposed to do, call up Bill O'Reilly and invest with his friends?

If anyone wonders why the quality of public servants continues to decline, this is it. Attack politics at it's best, take NOTHING, spin it into something that sounds dubious and sit back and watch the fire.

[Jon G]

You want to look into a real stock scandal, check out what Bush did with Harken:

"When President Bush sold more than 200,000 shares in Harken Energy Corp. in June 1990, he said he did not know the company was in bad financial shape. But memos from the company show in great detail that he was apprised of how badly the company's fortunes were failing before he sold his stock -- and that he was warned by company lawyers against selling stock based on insider information."

[Hard Right]

YYY, if this was a Rep you know you'd be all over it. This is the type of thing the left foamed at the mouth over when the GOP was in charge.
So we have an appearance of conflict. Whether or not he did anything wrong is to be determined.

[Jon G]

Just like you gave a pass to Bush - which actually was probably criminal - but you're all excited about this, which looks like another BS story. He lost almost 25% of his investment. Some scheme.

[Hard Right]

Actually Jon I'm not real interested in it. In fact, if anything comes from it I'll be surprised. Not to mention I haven't declared him guilty like you declared Bush.

[Peejz]

"He lost almost 25% of his investment. Some scheme."- Did he? How much money was invested in his campaign? Hardly a loss.