That WashPo article pertaining to the 'favorable rate' Obama received appears to be pure crap. It's amazing that a major newspaper can get away with printing baseless stories like that.

the hell... 5.625%? that's the rate i got on my home in 2006. how is this a sweetheart deal?

So let's see. The Obamas have $3 million in the bank, and a seat in the United States Senate. Hmmmm. Sounds like a good credit risk to me, and 5.625% sounds about right. Somebody find out what John and Maris McCain are paying on their home mortgages.

who cares if his house payment was $300 less. i got car insurance for $200 less because of company competition.

http://sensico.wordpress.com/

The WaPo did not cast a 'critical eye' on this mortgage, at all, Eric.
Just the opposite happened, but I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't even read the article, lest you fall into the category of the hooked.

What the WaPo staff reporter cast was a hook to get a rise out of the ignorant who are already comfortable swimming in a sea of manufactured spin. The article used a hook baited with National Enquirer-like inclusions about 1) Countrywide loans [not at all relevant or similar] and about 2) Mrs. Rezko buying the side lot [not at all relevant to the Obama house loan]. Aside from the fact of that baited hook used to push innuendo, the author totally failed to make any case at all that the lending bank gave a mortgage break to Obama which could ever be seen as outside of usual lending practices based upon income, credit ratings, etc.

TPM only regurgitates stories when the slam Obama.

When the Times and ABC went after Hillary in January, Greg's post was all about how things weren't as bad as the MSM made them seem.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/176436.php

TPM just doesn't like Obama.

Check any site that collects mortgage rates from multiple lenders, and you can always find differences in rates of more than thirty basis points for the same kind of loan.

Check out credit-card info, however, and you aren't likely to get a card with a 0% rate except as a short-term promo. The McCains appear to be an exception:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/ready-to-laugh-at-mccain_n_107008.html

Hey, WaPo, how about checking out that six-figure card balance the McCains have at 0% courtesy of American Express? That debt is bigger than many American's mortgages.

0% from AMEX? That has got to be a sweetheart deal. I've dealt with American Express & I can tell you they are vicious bastards who will pop your interest rate through the ceiling for being one day late.

Sent to the Post:

What is the Washington Post doing? Don't you care about your own credibility? Your story "Obama Got Discount on Home Loan" was poorly researched and filled with irrelevant and inflammatory statements that smack of smear tactics.

Lots of people borrowed at the same rate at the same time, 5.625% in 2006, even without Obama's credit and stability. Could your reporter not have looked up the prevailing interest rates at the time (hint. try the Google)? Instead, you imply that Obama got a sweetheart deal that "saved him $300 a year." Even without any "sweetheart deal" I know people who got better rates than Obama. So what?

You then mention Countrywide, which implies something shady, but Obama's loan had nothing to do with Countrywide. You mention that employees of his bank contributed to his campaign (under 10% of the total they gave to support chosen candidates). And? Are you implying that the bank gave Obama a sweet deal then coerced their employees to give to his campaign? Why would you question that 10% of total donations would go to a popular hometown Senate candidate?

Finally, you throw in Rezko, who had nothing to do with this loan.

This is a pitiful performance for a paper which formerly enjoyed a reputation for accuracy.