Another Obama “Mistake”

In December, Politico reported that Barack Obama had taken “unabashedly liberal positions” on a questionnaire he filled out while running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996.  The premise of the article was that his “far left” positions — opposition to restrictions to abortion on demand and support for single-payer health insurance and strict gun control legislation — could damage him in the general election:

Regardless, the blunt statements of his earlier views, preserved on a questionnaire he filled out for an Illinois voter group that later endorsed him, would allow a Republican opponent to paint him as being way to the left of the nation’s electorate on questions that have historically been potent wedge issues.

It took a week for the Obama campaign to come up with its official response — Barack Obama did not fill out the questionnaire:

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out.

The campaign went on to explain that Senator Obama had been very consistent in his views.  

Why does a four-month-old story matter now?  Because the campaign’s explanation in December 2007 may not be entirely accurate.  Politico received an amended copy of the questionnaire with notes on the front page written in Barack Obama’s handwriting.  The campaign’s response is rather difficult to believe:

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

“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,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed 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 11 years in public office do.”

So he was handed a voter questionnaire and all he did was jot some notes on the first page about his endorsements?  He didn’t even flip through the questionnaire to see how his aide had characterized his views?  And if the questionnaire was filled out by an aide, why was it amended?

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion.

The first version of Obama’s questionnaire responds with a simple “No.”

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: “Depends on how young — possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds.”

The group for which Barack Obama filled out the questionnaire in 1996 is also upset with his shifting positions.  After supporting him in every election since 1996, the Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization, deadlocked on an endorsement vote after Politico’s story first appeared in December.  Upon learning that he would not stand by his statements in his original questionnaire, the only 40% of the board members voted to support him:

“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

I don’t expect Barack Obama to remember every piece of paper he ever filled out, but I do expect him to stand by his actions.  There is nothing wrong the evolution of politician’s political views.  Nothing at all.  We need leaders who are able to respond to changing circumstances rather than standing by ideas that aren’t working in the name of ideology.  Imagine where we might be in Iraq if our leaders were taking that strategy?

I have two problems with this.  First, the hypocrisy.  He has hit Hillary again and again on NAFTA, saying she supported it in 1993, but opposes it now.  It’s hard to ascertain with certainty what her position was in 1993 because she couldn’t very well go out and hold a press conference attacking her husband, could she?  Second, I am getting sick and tired of Barack Obama blaming his aides for his mistakes.  The Republicans are certain to use this to beat him over the head in the fall:

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.

When is Barack Obama going to stand by what his past actions?  He has a slick explanation for everything.  At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he backed off his opposition to the resolution to authorize force in Iraq because he didn’t want to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards.  He didn’t really mean it.

This is part of a pattern of evasion from Senator Obama that he won’t be able to continue indefinitely.  He has a book that we can’t mention without being accused of playing the race card.   He has a voting record in Illinois that he runs away from.  He has done little since joining the Senate beyond take credit for the work of other Senators and brag about legislation that never passed.

He has hammered Hillary Clinton for her Iraq War vote in 2002 while dodging questions about his own inconsistent statements.  He has accused her of refusing to give straight answers to tough questions while dodging tough votes on Iran and the resolution condemning MoveOn.org.  Every time he is confronted with something, he comes up with an excuse.  Why didn’t he hold a single oversight hearing on NATO or Afghanistan?  He was too busy campaigning.  Why did he skip the vote on the Kyl-Leiberman amendment?  Because nobody told him about the vote.

Excuses.
Excuses.
Excuses.

That’s not leadership.  And that’s not the “straight answers to tough questions” that he promised voters and accused Hillary of not delivering.

Hope or hype?  I think the answer is obvious.

Also posted at MyDD.com.