Report: Obama Involved In 1996 Liberal Questionnaire, Despite Campaign's Denials
Barack Obama's involvement with a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a liberal group in Illinois is now being further examined. Despite the previous denials by the campaign that he'd been aware of it, a copy has now surfaced showing he even added his own handwritten annotations.
One member of the organization, the Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization, was upset about the Obama camp's treatment of the subject, arguing Obama's 1996 answers reflected his actual opinions, while his current stances are tailored for a national audience.
Advertisement
Comments (79)
Wow, such a juicy scandal! (/snark)
March 31, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. So the fuck what?
March 31, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don’t think you’ll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."
March 31, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. So the fuck what?
March 31, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the issue here is lying, and yet again blaming a staffer for a gaffe rather than owning up.
Kinda like Hillary's sniper fire - it was a nice anecdote, but unimportant in terms of actual policy experience. Neither of these stories make the candidates look good.
March 31, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the issue here is lying, and yet again blaming a staffer for a gaffe rather than owning up.
Kinda like Hillary's sniper fire - it was a nice anecdote, but unimportant in terms of actual policy experience. Neither of these stories make the candidates look good.
March 31, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's got different opinions on subjects than he did 12 years ago! Git 'em!
March 31, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Obama camp's response from politico:
“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html
Gosh, it would seem you would at least include that in you post.
March 31, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do think this should have been included in the story on TPM, instead of just passing this along out of context as if it is something damning. I usually don't complain about unbalance or anything like that, but c'mon, this story is dumb enough as it is, but if you are going to post something like this, we can at least give the whole story.
March 31, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Frankly, I find Obama's story eminently plausible. Candidates don't spend their time filling out questionnaires, they farm the work out to junior staffers. The fact that the questionnaire was handed to him on his way into a meeting, and that he scrawled notes on the front page, doesn't meaningfully challenge that narrative.
On the other hand, as excuses go, it's pretty weak. Is Obama suggesting that his own staff wasn't aware of his positions? That they pandered to this group without his knowledge? The buck stops at the top.
March 31, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it should be included in the post otherwise it makes Eric look like he's plagiarizing straight from politico.com.
March 31, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of passing along this Clinton oppo-research wholsesale, could you take some time and get information on Obama's VOTING RECORD in the Illinois State Senate on these issues? That would be a surefire way to cut through the campaign spin bullshit and figure out if there is a there there.
Just a suggestion.
March 31, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric
Tha was in 1996 and this is 2008. People and their opinions/ideology do not remain static.
So, Get Over it.
BTW, do you have such "ammo" going back, perhaps, to his kindergarten stuff to post here ?
March 31, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares, like I haven't changed my mind since 1996, this is ridiculous.
March 31, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why it matters? It was 12 years ago, I sure as hell don't remember every questionnaire I filled out 12 years ago, or any of them. And people can legitimately change their views in that period of time, but I hope he hasn't, because I like the more liberal Obama.
I do love though that after Hillary got caught in baldfaced lies about key events one which her entire experience argument is based we keep seeing little reports trying to catch Obama exaggerating or misspeaking or whatever, some of them coming straight from the Clinton campaign, like her ridiculous "you weren't really a professor" gotcha attack, which backfired when the university said he was in fact a professor. So just for the record, in case any Hillary trolls feel the need to jump on here and call him a liar (which I'm sure they will, they are desperate after all), and try to compare not remembering a questionnaire to basing large parts of a campaign on blatant fabrications, I'd just like to point out the obvious fact that you cannot compare the two, and this is a silly story. Someone is really reaching to find anything, lol..
March 31, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares, like I haven't changed my mind since 1996, this is ridiculous.
March 31, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want mind-numbing change accusations, look at McCain, unf***ing believable.
March 31, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it odd how "liberal" is too often used in a way that tries to make it a smear when the reality is that "conservative" and their "neoconservative" kissing cousins have clearly proven to be the definitive equal to four letter words.
March 31, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't expect anyone's views from 1996 to their views 12 years later.
We have had many intervening events - 9/11, Iraq, Bush ....
Just more typical Politico Obama-bashing
March 31, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, context would be good here. This headline is misleading.
Maybe this is HRC "going nuclear?"
*giggle*
March 31, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillaries have been planning this one for WEEKS. It was in their TOP SECRET: NUCLEAR drawer.
March 31, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
-Politico just wet their pants using the word "liberal" in an Obama headline
-You know that HRC dumped this out there to try to play "gotcha" after her Bosnia fiasco
March 31, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama is trying to make himself look less liberal than he really is? And this should bother me... why?
If anything, it just makes a liberal like myself like him more...
March 31, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a new news-cycle for Team Clinton begins, with the press all chasing after Howard Wolfson's scraps.
T-minus 3 weeks and counting until something meaningful happens. Meanwhile, the drip, drip, drip of endorsements continue.
March 31, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another example of the Obama campaign being full of BS.
March 31, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have this saying where I come from, they probably say it where y'er from too.
We use it when your candidate has double the amount of delegates, has won more primaries, more caucuses and has the highest popular vote. We use it when they have a ten point lead in most polls and has weathered his greatest storm while their rival is swimming upstream against theirs.
The saying is simply... "Scoreboard"
March 31, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean to tell me that Obama is liberal AND in the democratic party!?! What is the world coming to!
March 31, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it becomes a scandal, he can always make another speech.
March 31, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama Says "Jump", his cultists ask "How High?"
They would believe any bullshit from their dear leader, such as I didn’t inhale, depends on the meaning of the word “my” in words “my answers”, my staffer did my homework, and so on.
March 31, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scoreboard
March 31, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How ironic that you use "I didn't inhale," as an example! You forgot, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is," "I did not have sex with that woman," and other CLINTON quips!
March 31, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't forget. This was my point.
March 31, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't get why anyone would care about this. So he filled out a form! And his positions are slightly different!
Besides, who can remember every form they ever fill out. I mean unless there is something really memorable going on at the same time, like, say, sniper fire.
March 31, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've already brought this up before and I'm pretty sure no one cared.
You know what I find great? When accused of being a "liberal" Obama makes a clear and convincing case that it's OK to be labeled such. He's redefining perceptions instead of slinking away from them.
March 31, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out there's a lot more to this story. Check this out:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html
An excerpt:
"But Republicans will certainly seek to make it [an issue] in the general election if Obama is the Democratic standard-bearer against the presumptive GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
"It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
"And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences."
So it looks like Obama may have to make that speech after all. Hey, don't laugh. It seems to have worked for him when it turned out that his mentor and spiritual adviser was a racist. So it will probably work for him now. But you have to actually hear him give the speech. It's much less effective if you just read it.
March 31, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Told ya he is punking you.
March 31, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like your new avatar, gotalife.
It suits you.
March 31, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This will be used against Obama in the GE, as proof he is not the moderate uniter he portays himself to be. Obama will be called a flip-flopper who runs away from his liberal record.
of course, the comment section will be full of angry Obama supporters crying "no big deal!", as usual.
McCain will be the next president.
March 31, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, he won't.
The economy will tank, and the Iraq War will get worse.
But keep on underestimating Obama, please.
March 31, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
...only if all democrats are as cynical and close-minded as you are, unable to understand the evolution of a politician's ideals over a decade, or the delegation of small tasks to staff members.
But we're not (thank goodness) and so Barack Obama will be the next president.
March 31, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain's positions haven't "evolved"?
Clinton backers pushing stories like this just prove they have no concept of what the issues will be going forward. They can only see as far as putting Clinton in front of Obama, using any tactic they can possibly think of. I was at MyDD the other day, and someone linked a diary with a youtube video that pretty much could have come right from Redstate. And in fact, REDSTATE LINKED TO MYDD!!!
A lot of things have happened this primary, but when Clinton supporters start doing Redstate's opposition research for them, and praising Hannity like Taylor Marsh, it's time to pull back and reassess your values.
March 31, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prediction: watch for this week to be a rough media week for Obama. Last week was Hillary's turn. That's the way this has played out since Iowa - alternating bad and good news cycles for each candidate. You can practically schedule them.
March 31, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does this mean? What was the substance of the questionnaire? And do we owe this "expose" to the Hillary camp? Shouldn't these questions be answered in the original post? I always defend the neutrality of TPM, but this one makes me wonder.
March 31, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In The Audacity of Hope, I remember him talking about his early days in politics and these questionnaires that come from every group under the sun. I've loaned the book out now, and I don't remember exactly what he said, but he talked about how they're a tricky thing, that the groups who put them out want straight yes-no answers so they can generate some sort of simplistic grade for the candidates, but that the questions often required nuance and didn't lend themselves to a true yes-no answer. He talks about being a bit naive about them at first and how his approach to them evolved over time.
So as for this dust-up, who knows? Whatever. Campaigns get a zillion of these things. My outrage meter can't even get off the floor for this.
March 31, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama's too liberal again? I thought this meme bombed when Penn floated it some time ago, and now it was cool to say he was too conservative re: NAFTA/healthcare/etc and occasionally working with or complimenting Republican accomplishments.
Sorry, I just can't keep Clinton's latest critique straight.
March 31, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not liberal, he is too dishonest.
March 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Trolls/Shills = Drama "Queens"
March 31, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You know what I find great? When accused of being a "liberal" Obama makes a clear and convincing case that it's OK to be labeled such. He's redefining perceptions instead of slinking away from them."
Yes, jayasurya! I agree 100%.
It would be SO NICE to have Obama eliminate the "bad word" stigma that the republicans imposed on "liberal." I want that word back!
March 31, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama also LIED about his father's connection to the Kennedy family -a nice but false narrative Obama created to make him more appealing to Democrats. WaPo easily refuted Obama's lie with tons of available documentation.
That Obama LIE was initially mentioned by Karl Rove - and there are other Obama lies and exaggerations...but they're MIA at TPM.
Obama's other lies and exaggerations --
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/231735/348
March 31, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn girl, you spam everywhere! Good job. I hope the pay is good. I'm still waiting for my answers from over at Booman, so feel free to drop on by.
March 31, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama also LIED about his father's connection to the Kennedy family -a nice but false narrative Obama created to make him more appealing to Democrats. WaPo easily refuted Obama's lie with tons of available documentation.
That Obama LIE was initially mentioned by Karl Rove - and there are other Obama lies and exaggerations...but they're MIA at TPM.
Obama's other lies and exaggerations --
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/231735/348
March 31, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's good we're learning about Obama's LIES now - even though the media has given him a pass and we're only learning them after most of the primaries are over.
No wonder the Obama Camp wants Hillary to withdraw.
The longer the primary continues- the more we learn about Obama's LIES that the media has concealed from the public.
Obama's LYING NARRATIVE about his father - in his book and speeches - certainly trumps Hillary's Bosnia embellishment.
But don't look for the Obama videos in the media or TPM of him lying about his own father.
March 31, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...
March 31, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Prsing your words and misrepresenting your position when you think you won't get caught are the hallmarks of the type of politics Obama is running to change."
Oops!
March 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
JoseyJ -
I think you accidently replaced "Hillary Lies" with "Obama Lies."
Please fix. Thanks!
(BTW, as a note: If you're going to include Karl Rove as a source, it's best that he says something CONTRARY to your claim. He's trusted less than Hillary by most liberals).
March 31, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
JoseyJ...you like the word "lie" a lot. Hmmm. Lying must be a real pet peeve of yours.
Good thing McCain and Hillary never lie so you have someone to vote for!
Oh, wait...
March 31, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lame story.
The only people excited about this story are the desperates hoping something will tear Obama down. Hillary and Republicans.
Hillary and Republicans, they have so much in common these days.
March 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
People exaggerate by nature. I exaggerate every time I tell a story at a dinner party. If I had to make speeches about sweeping political and historical themes, I'd probably exaggerate my ass off.
If anyone put the lens of political scrutiny on me (or most of you, I'd bet) we'd look like lying psychopathic morons.
There isn't a single person on EARTH who has led a life free of exaggeration. Accusing Obama of exaggeration is like calling him a human.
Exaggeration crosses over into deceit and lying only when it's intent is calculated or malicious.
But never mind that, let's rip ALL of the candidates to pieces over stupid drivel until we have successfully convinced ourselves that whatever else might be true, the next President of the United States ( be it Hillary, Obama or McCain) will most certainly be a LYING, AWFUL, HORRIBLE, HATEFUL person.
God...Help America.
March 31, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
First Politico and now you. Please stop trying to out fox FOX.
Unless Obama claimed to have filled out the survey while running from sniper fire this is a NON STORY. Besides, thank goodness his positions and attitudes might have actually developed in the twelve years since it was filled out.
March 31, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let me get this straight.
Obama is being bashed for becoming more sophisticated and nuanced in his views as he gets older, rather than more entrenched and unmovable?
Like, we really want people as President who form views in their twenties and then never grow up?
George Bush, line two, wants to have a word with you.
March 31, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you've got it wrong. He's getting bashed for lying about it, and pandering his views to whichever demographic he's trying to get elected by.
March 31, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I read the article. He's being bashed for having views "more nuanced" as time goes by.
The whole, did he fill this out or not issue is stupid, since a) this is twelve years old, and b) it's entirely plausible that he annotated a questionnaire without filling it out, just as he said.
As for pandering, how is his current view that much different from his earlier view?
He still supports teens getting access to abortions.
Clinton supported NAFTA and now says she was always a critic. That's 180.
Obama is more like a 15 degree turn, which is what I'd expect from a thinking human being.
March 31, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the article again.
"Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer."
Ouch.
Then this flip-flip:
"Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers... about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”
He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.
But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views".
Ouch.
And finally, this group didn't endorse him for president (although they had every previous time he'd run for office)
"“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt"
Again, this isn't about his views, it's about him lying about them. And it's about adding more ammunition to Republicans trying to paint him as liberal, pandering, flip-flopping Barrack "I voted for it before I was against it" Obama.
March 31, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously?
The Politico admits that Obama has made his views more nuanced. I think that's an admirable quality.
"But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views".
What does the fact sheet say? Why didn't they include that for comparison? Why should we even care, since this was twelve years ago, based on a questionnaire that was ostensibly filled out by a staffer?
There's no there, there.
I'm sorry, but how are Republicans going to make an issue of this when their candidate just endorsed the "agents of intolerance", voted for torture, and employs a team of lobbyists doing business from his bus, and openly flouted campaign finance laws?
"Oh! Obama answered a questionnaire twelve years ago and now says they didn't completely reflect his views. Judge his record instead?
How can we judge him on his record when we have a questionnaire filled out for a group none of us has heard of?
Obama is TOAST!"
Meh.
March 31, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry, but how are Republicans going to make an issue of this".
Ahh, the joy of naivety. Perhaps if you try reciting the story back to yourself, but substituting Hillary's name for Obama's, and you might get the objectivity you're currently lacking. While doing so, bear in mind the memes of 'lying', and 'secret liberal agenda'.
Hope that helps.
March 31, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Republicans might latch onto anything, no matter how trifling, no matter how old, and then yell and scream that it really matters?
And then try and make political hay out of it?
Gosh, that sounds awful!
I'll be sure to keep my eyes out, in case anyone tries that!
Thanks to you and other Hillary supporters for alerting us before it's too late!
March 31, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter how the messages sound to the dogmatic, such as yourself, who "believe", but rather those voters who were swayed by Kerry's windsurfing last time round.
March 31, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, by calling me "dogmatic", you think you can somehow evade the substance of my criticism of your "issue" as vapid, inconsequential, and laughably ironic, considering you're "concern trolling" about someone bad someday engaging in the same attack as you are now, and suggesting that Obama will be more vulnerable later to the same exact attacks which are currently so blatantly weak?
And you want me to further believe that said attacks depend upon actions by the Democratic nominee, not simply the modus operandi of the Republican attack machine, and therefore should not be regarded as the smears they are, but rather cowered before, as you seem to advise?
And so your solution to your cowardly fear of Republican smears is to nominate the candidate who made up a sniper attack?
And I'm the one who's being dogmatic?
Ok, gotcha.
March 31, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that was a load of crap. For a start, this isn't my "issue", it's an MSM issue. Secondly, I'm not trying to evade your criticism, quite frankly I don't think you've made any consequential points that touch my first two posts - read them again. Thirdly, it's apparent that you're only comprehending the 'good' parts of that politico article that fit your belief system, and ignoring the rest, hence the label of dogmatic (you probably like horoscopes too, right?). Finally, I think you ought to dust off the dictionary and look up the word ironic.
As for cowardly fears, although I'd prefer Hillary as President, I like Obama and think he'd do a good job. I just don't think he'll stand up to scrutiny and smears, and crumble like Kerry and Gore. There's a very damaging narrative being developed, of him pandering to the masses while ultra liberal at heart, of him skipping big decisions, and passing the buck on others. You might not see it coming, but your opinion is pretty much irrelevent come November. It's the swing voters, as ever, who'll decide the contest, and if Obama looks flaky on what little experience he has, they'll have a comforting Grandad figure to vote for instead.
March 31, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that people do not hesitate -- in fact, they seem to take delight in doing so -- to call Hillary a liar for her "misstatements."
But when Obama makes "misstatesments," they are brushed off as unimportant, or excusable, or just part of HRC's dirty tricks.
I don't think the Bosnia story fundamentally changes HRC's appeal for me, and I don't think this latest about Obama changes his appeal for his supporters.
But for crying out loud, a little consistency would be nice. If we can so easily tar one, why not other?
Or better still, maybe we should just accept the fact that in a long political career that spans decades, politicians (or their surrogates) are going to, on occasion, misspeak, or even (gasp!) exaggerate their qualifications to play into the mythological narrative they create for themselves when they run for POTUS.
Just a thought.
March 31, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Angry,
Hillary's claims about Bosnia are central to her appeal. She claims to have vast experience in all matters Presidential. Therefore, just as McCain's lies about Iran and Al Qaeda were damaging because he proclaims himself to be a foreign policy "expert", this hurt Clinton because she claims to be "ready on day one" and fluffing up her credentials makes her seem fraudulent.
This, however, is a questionnaire answered twelve years ago, which contains nothing controversial, and therefore does not go to any central theme.
It's a inconsequential as can be.
March 31, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
una: "Hillary's claims about Bosnia are central to her appeal. She claims to have vast experience in all matters Presidential."
LOL - as if taking sniper fire is central to her appeal. You don't have to cede rational thought in order to support Obama.
March 31, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference here is that the Bosnia lie is something that Hillary made part of her campaign speeches, something she brought up, a story that she used to bolster her credibility.
This questionnaire is something that somebody doing oppo research dug up and then asked Obama about. His campaigns have probably filled out hundreds of these types of questionnaires over the years. Tons of political groups send them to candidates. Expecting him to remember details about one of them from 12 years ago is somewhat unreasonable.
March 31, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that the sniper story and this one are different, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one is inherently a bigger deal than the other. If Obama couldn't remember the details, then why claim he had nothing to do with it, rather than saying he couldn't remember?
Like it or not, Obama does seem to have a long history of being magically absent during key events. :
1) the Illinois senate and his reputation there for being on holiday at the right times
2) Magically skipping Rev. Wright's especially hateful sermons
3)'Accidentally' pushing the wrong button to vote (happened a few times in the Senate on sensitive topics)
4)This case, where his aides made his views seem very liberal without his knowledge, even though he interviewed with the group in question the day before, and he annotated the questionaire by hand to elaborate on some answers.
Victim of happenstance I'm sure.
March 31, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was curious, so I looked this up about mistaken votes, as I hadn't heard it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story
"During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.
The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry."
Truly damning, indeed.
Well played, sir. This Obama fellow is a true cad.
Doing something that is "common practice in the Illinois Legislature" should raise a red flag to every right thinking American.
March 31, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read that whole article?
"But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent.""
In other words, it's a way of having your cae and eating it too. Like many (but not all) of his 'present' votes.
And then it comes down to which measures he "got confused" on - some were big issues, where he had conflicting interests. And let's not forget that not all legislators had the same problems in pushing the wrong button.
April 1, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who ya gonna believe? Obama, or your own lying eyes?
March 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ, people, you are making the stupidest counterarguments and getting mired in this mudpit.
This is nothing but a distraction. Stay focused.
Repeat after me:
1. The Politico story links to its earlier article with the assertion, in quotes, that Obama's aides at that time said "he never saw or approved" the questionnaire. That quote does not exist in the earlier article.
2. The second quote says that Obama did not approve the questionnaire before it was submitted which may or may not be correct but, again, it specifically says the final version that was sent was not separately approved--not that the form was "never seen."
3. The Politico story tries to create ambiguity by using the term "filed" for the "amended" form (if you look at the damning evidence, by the way, the only handwritten lines are on the first page--they list the organizations that have already endorsed Obama) to imply that the campaign sent one and then Obama hastily corrected something on it. This is not borne out by the facts.
In summary:
A) The Politico acknowledges that Sen. Obama's voting record matches more closely his described positions rather than those of
B) The Politico has absolutely no proof whatsoever that the very first statement made by the Obama campaign, consistently echoed after that as well, is incorrect.
C) The Politico has absolutely no proof whatsoever that Obama did in fact approve the final version sent out.
D) The Politico, in addition to not providing any proof for its assertion, displays a troubling measure of editorialising uncharacteristic of what is supposed to be a factual news arcticle. This type of journalism is usually associated with stories very light on evidence.
This is a pitifully pathetic attempt to muddy the waters; usually they at least manage to keep their internal logic consistent.
March 31, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very strange blurb to have for anyone who actually read the Politico piece. Even the headline at Politico is only a "Gotcha" and doesn't reflect what's on the 3 page of the piece.
March 31, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink