Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Comments

[Eyeful]

"...he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign..­." I highly recommend reading or listening to that speech. Then go listen to Hillary Clinton's vote for Iraq war speech and compare the two.

"During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war..." So because minor local officials are not part of the "national debate" their viewpoints are negated because they don't share the same stage? This is EXACTLY why Barack Obama is winning has won and will win. His is a bottom up campaign seeded from grass roots, who - despite not being privy to "intelligence" reports - also got it right. In March of 2003 millions of people all over the world protested in record numbers against this invasion.

Guess what? Now they're voting.

[JumpyJack]

"Empty record", oh sure...

Here's a detailed article comparing Clinton's and Obama's actual record in the senate:
http://grassroots-mom.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

I'd say Hillary's record is actually quite a bit more empty.

[pooka]

Thank you, JumpyJack! If only people would take the trouble to read it and compare.

[tristanrose]

all of obama's 'present' votes in the IL legislature showed that he can't make decisions and he himself said so during a debate. no one picked it up. obama supporters are clueless of who they are supporting. go mccain

[abot]

tristanrose

Allow me to explain to you what the present vote means.

“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, bascially you are a coward. That’s a stretch.

The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.

The "present" vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue.

I have a hard time believing that Obama is such a coward in Illinois that he was one 130 times.

I think you need to do a little more research into why the present vote was made. Once again we have typical campaign tactics of misinformation.

[AF2]

Once again, Joe Wilson, bravely stands to tell the truth. His case against Obama, supported w/ facts and accuracy, should be undisputed. Unfortunately, just as he stood before the Bush Administration, he now stands before a crowd voting on hype and a media riddled w/ bias; and his wisdom previously falling on the deaf ears of the dumb, now falls on the dumber. I commend Mr. Wilson for his efforts, he is the consummate professional and a true American patriot.

[Skilletlicker]

Right on, AF2. And Joe Wilson.

[YellerDawg]

Good job, AF2. I wish I had written that.

[seamast]

Ambassador Wilson, thank you for your very insightful comments; I would like to have seen it earlier. However, better late than never. You carefully and clearly expressed what has been actually happening during this campaign. Bravo to a competent and dedicated American.

[ElIngeniero]

For politicians, the first test of judgement is results. Obama's record in the Senate the last 2 years is better than Clinton's, and his status as front runner in the Democratic Party's primary speaks for itself.

Moreover, the way in which he operates is clearly distinguishable from his opponent.

Obama has certainly done a better job of reaching across the aisle in the Senate, and while his results haven't been all a liberal could wish for, I'm the practical sort of guy who'll take half a meal over no meal at all.

Finally, he's done a far better job of enrolling and enlisting the support of your basic apathetic sort of citizen that up to now has been turned off by "business as usual" politics. Obama is creating his own base, and he speaks to all Americans. HRC is going after the small existing base of hard core Democratic Party members with her tailored messages to separate constituencies, doing her best to mimic the tired old Republican ways.

Which reminds me. The last few times I've seen a poll that says Obama and Clinton are statistically tied, Obama has come out decisively ahead. Why is that?

[DreamyAJ]

This article just makes me sad. I have great respect for Ambassador Wilson and for Mrs. Wilson. They were treated poorly, to say the least, by the current administration. I believe the opinions being expressed are sincere. But given that Senator Obama is extremely likely to win the nomination, it seems to me that this is more likely to help Senator McCain to win the general election. Maybe that's what they want... in case Senator Clinton doesn't win the nomination, she'll be well positioned in 2012 if Senator Obama fails to win the general election.

[whichchange]

the truth hurts. Would you rather the truth be suppresed just because it hurts your candidate?

Is this what you call new kind of politics?

[DreamyAJ]

No and no. There's nothing wrong with the truth. But opinion and truth are not the same thing. And while there's nothing wrong with promoting a candidate, I feel that bashing the opponent is not really the way to have party unity after the contest, regardless of which candidate wins. So I'm sad that Ambassador Wilson apparently thinks that putting down Senator Obama is the way to help Senator Clinton win. I don't think it will help her in the general election if this strategy works, any more than it will help Senator Obama if he prevails.

[LBKN]

I don't know what happens to posts... I'll try again:

"There are two infinities­... the universe and human stupidity.­.. but I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein

So what?

Post after post... supplicants proclaim and exalt the 'courage' of Mr Wilson... in his willingness to say some stuff...

... yet Obama was just making an innocuous speech and triangulating.

Wanna see why the world is screwed-up? Everyone run to a mirror... quick... while you are coherent.

[VicPerry]

I like it.

[lindaincincinnati]

Finally someone, Joseph Wilson, has the courage to speak the truth about obama. Obama has used the most dangerous form of a lie to coddle favor in the eyes of America. It's called a "half-truth". Yes obama was against the "war" as we all would have been if given the choice but obama WAS NOT IN THE U.S. SENATE TO CAST A VOTE.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

What difference does that make? He was running for re-election in his State Senate seat and he had no reason to go against the tide of the popular and political rush for war. So many Democrats who are for Hillary Clinton and don't think there was anything wrong with her vote for war, and then her vote again for war with Iran, and then her vote for the continued use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, are those who cheered on their couches as Baghdad was bombed. This war has been a disaster and there were very few people who spoke out against this war, before the vote, and after. Fact is, Senator Obama has been consistently against the war, and has spoken out against it time after time. He has been a vociferous critic of the Bush administration and Clinton has only begun to speak out against Bush since her campaign started. If you look at Clinton's votes, they are virtually lockstep with the Neocon agenda. So I suppose if you are pro-war you should vote for Clinton. But if you are willing to be open minded then you could do some research on Obama and read the rebuttal of this post on the following link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/joe-wilson-is-wrong-about_b_78267.html

Here's some more information about Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Obama has been a unifying voice ever since Harvard Law:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

Obama worked extremely hard to get transparency and ethics reform in the Senate:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761

Obama has more foreign relations experience than Clinton:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hF21X4euXTnoLZk5sNoBd9NVtcRQD8V1SV980

[VicPerry]

"Yes obama was against the "war" as we all would have been if given the choice"

Say WHAT?

[TopLips]

It is not courage that Mr. Wilson exhibits it's stupidity! Where in the hell were all you foolish people back when Bush and all his henchmen including Powell were making the argument that Hussein not only had WMD's but that they knew exactly where they were! And let's face it...that was their original reason for going to war!
Perhaps you can't believe that millions of ordinary American citizens just like myself smelled something very fowl about the administration's interpretation of the so called Intelligence information of that time. There was an abundant source of information to the contrary available to anyone and everyone who questioned the sanitized, dumbed down, not balanced corporate news!!! If we of simple minds were able to understand the erroneous news fabrication about aluminum cylinders and Nigerian yellow cake why could not Congress?

[ndolomar]

obamatons, delusional kool-aid drinkers, obamabots.­..
hillbills, billary-ites, clintonite­s...

keep 'em coming. if your candidate -- whoever that may be -- wins the nomination, are these "whatever disparaging name you gave them during the primary" democratic voters suddenly supposed to forget whatever insulting labels you gave them and rally behind your candidate in the general? this shortsightedness during the primaries is going to backfire in the general. some people will be smart enough to realize that mccain is not a good substitute for clinton/obama -- should the "undesired" candidate get the party nod. still, there are those who will hole a grudge, and no matter how much you downplay calling supporters names or insulting their intelligence in the name of winning -- some voters may just stay home in november.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Typical smear tactics. And someone who does this kind of damage with false and spurious claims has an agenda that must be questioned. Since Hillary Clinton does not have the numbers to win the nomination, this kind of derisive article by Wilson must seriously be questioned as to his motives and real intentions.

[RayEvansHarrell]

Just what Cheney and Libby thought. This man and his wife blew their career to fight the war and the current administration. They deserve better than this. REH

[accountability]

Lord Have Mercy.

I have never seen so many people with so little self awareness that you cannot see how you project exactly what you are doing onto the people you are accusing.

WOW!

Reminds me of the idiot king and his evil handler when they talk about the axis of evil and the evil doers.
I'd just stand there listening with my jaw on the floor and pulling my hair out at the utter lack of self awareness as to what they were saying. You hear it and it is like they are describing exactly who they are and what they are doing.

[accountability]

Absolutely.
It goes even deeper than that. Many people have a Hate Hillary agenda (that they learned from the neo-cons) for years now. No matter who wins these people will keep this agenda going. There is something addictive in mindless and unfounded hate.

Unfortunately it does not demean or diminish the object of their hatred as it does their own soul and heart.

Very sad, particularly when you are behaving in direct opposition to what you say you believe in and the platform you support. That is more violent to one's self than it is to "the evil enemy" as so many seem to think of Senator Clinton or to Senator Obama.

The Democratic party will not be destroyed though maybe the idea of a viable third party will gain traction.
But the self indulgence of hate, smearing, hypocrisy can destroy you.

[liz3]

That's fine with me I'm voting for experience and since Obama has NONE then I'll vote for McCain Don't think I'm alone

[Dansden]

Experience in what?
In 'kissing' G.W.s ring or butt;
In saying one thing about 'Public Financing and then doing opposite;
In knowing how to extend a CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ and keep our soldiers there protecting OIL;
.........

In being at the botrtom of his graduating class in the military;
In partying through his military days except the time he was such a bad pilot that he got shot down;
....Experi­ence in having affairs with younger women;
experience?????
Yes, he's had experience, alright...­.

[donchep]

Really? NONE? Wow! 11 years in public office and he has NONE?

[VicPerry]

Ooh we're real scared. The hardcore Hillary crowd are of course the same people who kept changing the subject to November again and again just a few months back (when she was "inevitable"):

"Oh you don't like Hillary Clinton? Who are you going to vote for in November, a Republican???"

I must have read variations on that fifty times...

[Semper]

George C Wilson has no place to go. His party when after him which was wrong and it is truly an act of treason for what they did to him and his wife. But who is he fooling. A political pundit? I hope he stays in his party. Of course he is a republican, who protest very loudly.

[TheRealist1]

dude! Go home and don't come back till you get your facts straight.

His Name is Joseph. His wife's name is Valarie, and he is a Democrat.

[Scipio]

Seems to me you might get the man's name right before you condemn him. George C. Wilson? You seem to have him confused with someone. Could that someone be the current occupant of the White House? Last time I looked they were two very, very different people.

[kellygrrrl]

I just wonder how Mr. Wilson would have felt if a fellow member of his party had said:

"there is no reason to doubt Joe and Valerie - that I know of."

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

This is an excellent rebuttal to Mr. Wilson's false assertions, by Brent Budowsky:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/joe-wilson-is-wrong-about_b_78267.html

[Seral]

I am wondering, when will this kind of Obama supporters in the media stop?

They don't even give the man a second to defend himself. I am repeating my previous comments. Who is running for president? Obama, or the people in the media who plan to run the job for him, if he gets elected. This is becoming really stupid. I feel like watching godfather or something like that.

[Dansden]

Likely the similar way that readers will respond to Kellygrrrl's flippant remark,
" There's no reason to NOT believe kellygrrrl, "THAT I KNOW OF""
but, of course, we don't know we can believe her, 'that we know of'....

[brightdaylight]

I must say I am deeply embarrassed by the extent of malicious and derogatory remarks from both sides
of this "debate". Perhaps I am simply a naive.

What troubles me most are the assertions from individuals who claim that they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee should it not be their candidate.

If you you would be happy with an extended stay in Iraq, a potential war in Iran, a further erosion of your Civil Liberties, further undermining of the Constitution and ( wait for it ) abortion that is neither safe or legal then, by all means, stay home or vote Republican.

If, on the other hand, you want a liberal Court and the glimmer of hope that things might change then hold your nose and pull that lever for the Democratic nominee. They might not be "your" Candidate but
they will do the right thing.

[ema]

A very clear-sighted view of the situation.

[Egghead]

Totally agree. Name calling and nastiness gets us nowhere.

[wyorange]

Were it so simple as believing that that other candidate will do the right thing?

Quite frankly, I am a registered republican supporting Sen. Clinton. I can support and vote for her because I believe what she is proposing is realistic and responsible (do have doubts about universal health care/insurance but other democraties seem to have survived with it). Now it is going a stretch for me to support and vote for Sen. Clinton.

No matter who is the next president it is going to be a change. Even Sen. McCain will be a change from GW although not as much as what most Clinton or Obama supporters would want. For me Sen. McCain will be a little change, Sen. Clinton a moderate amount of change, and Sen. Obama way too much change. Change usually costs money so who is going to end up paying for all those changes? Repealing tax cuts to the wealthy is not going to fund all the changes.

And then my biggest concern, is that personally I think Sen. Obama is a phoney. About the only thing he seems to be able to run on is his superior judgment about the Iraq war. But then when you read up on it, he seems to have waffled on occasion on that also; i.e., I don't know how I would have voted had I been in the Senate, or I think I am pretty much in line with GW on Iraq at this point. And if he has such great superior judgment, why was he a friend of that Rezko character now on trial in Chicago for so long (what, some 15 or 17 years)?

I will gladly vote for Sen. Clinton but I cannot even hold my nose and vote for Sen. Obama. Afraid if it comes to a McCain/Obama general, I have to go back to my republican roots even though I am not overly fond of Sen. McCain.

[Heen19]

Out of Party responsibility and obligation Obama was not free to say what he would have done. Unlike the Clintons he understands what party loyalty means. Had he said that he would have rejected it Senator Kerry would have appeared bad for having supported it. Again, unlike the Clintons, Obama did everything he could to bring about the needed change in 2004 because he thought that it was more important than his 2008 campaign bid.

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Maybe what this nation needs, and what it richly deserves, are darker days. Perhaps we need to sink into the abyss so we may rise up once again and refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike (with apologies to Thomas Jefferson). Truly, we have no guarantee the election of either of the leading Democratic candidates will bring about any real, fundamental change in the direction our nation is heading. You can be damn sure both of them will, ultimately, support corporations. When push comes to shove, that's where most of their money and support comes from. I have no doubt both would be better (read more palatable; less openly distasteful) than McCain, but will things really change? I'm not sure.

Of this I am sure. This country needs to turn around dramatically. We need a sensible foreign policy that respects other nations and the people who inhabit them, regardless of their color, creed, or religion. We need a sensible environmental policy that rewards innovation and creativity and that seeks to both conserve the fuels we currently use and develop their replacements in a responsible manner. We need a country that respects its people; that trusts its people and doesn't spy on them and prepare for their extraordinary rendition if they're in disagreement.

Above all else, in my opinion, we need an economy where private profit doesn't trump public good. We need to nationalize some of our more important and larger industries, while rewarding research and development aligned with the products they produce. There is absolutely no reason we can't have an amalgam of socialism and private enterprise. It's obscene private profit that is making this country so anathema to peace and justice.

So . . . maybe it just has to get worse before it gets better. Because when it gets bad enough, the people will rise up and their children and brothers and sisters in the military will not stand in their way. Keep your powder dry and, as the Red Queen said, "Off with their heads".

[Heen19]

Both sides? What does Obama say about Hillary? The mantra of the Obama campaign is "respect, empower, include." He has never pointed out that the Clintons sold out the Democratic Party for their own political gain. That they single handedly shifted the entire political balance of the country to the right. Why was there no significant opposition to the extreme right wing policies of the Bush administration? At its core because Bill announced the democratic party would be the other "pro-business" party, as well as enabling conservative media consolidation through the telecommunications act of 1996...(th­e same year he signed NAFTA). Both actions directly undermined the base of the Democratic Party…it was good to get elected though. You might be saying this campaign isn't about Bill. That would bring us to experience. What is Hillary's experience? Obama has more years of legislative experience than she does. If she gets to count the time she spent in the White House as first lady then shouldn’t the two terms law apply. Whether it does or doesn't let's just think about whether or not it would have been appropriate for Martha Washington to step up and want to be president after George Washington created the precedent. Just one more thought as I leave: Is it really healthy for a democracy to have two families lead for potentially 28 years? I don't know about you, but the notion that our list of presidents could potentially include a section that goes; Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton seems slightly ridiculous and more dynastic than democratic. Honestly, in my opinion, that prospect alone ought to demonstrate how misguided a Clinton nomination would be for the well being of our democracy and also the Democratic Party.

[PLUMPLUM]

Nothing's new. This is all expected. Mr. Wilson wants to make sure that his friend(Mrs.
Clinton) who urged him to go at The Bush Administration is in a position to get more mileage out of his wife's situation. This won't happen unless his bought and paid for friend wins the nomination then the election.

Desperation. Now throwing the verandah chairs.

Still voting for Obama.

[wyorange]

So it was Sen. Clinton that got Ambassador Wilson to write his op-ed piece in the NYT attacking the validity of the current administration's claim that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake in Africa? Well, then Sen. Clinton certainly is to be commended. Shows excellent judgment on her part.!

[CalBum]

Joe, Joe, Joe...

Do you seriously expect us to believe that Hillary knew nothing about PNAC and its plans for a "New American Century" in the Middle East -- after their infamous letter to Bill in 1998 begging him to invade Iraq???

Do you seriously expect us to think that Hillary didn't realize that most of PNAC's top brass were in the highest levels of Bush's cabinet, including Vice President and Secretary of Defense?

Do you honestly expect us to assume that Hillary didn't understand precisely what the Bush team was after, with that "authorization"?

Bunkum. Hillary knew exactly what she was voting for, and she did it because she is a political coward. She didn't wish to appear too "liberal", or too "unpatriotic". Even then, Hillary wasn't being a Senator or a patriot; she was thinking about her future run for President -- in other words, she was thinking only about herself. So what she did, was sell her country down the drain. She is clearly an opportunist and a demagogue; she has no credibility with anyone who actually paid attention in the run-up to the war, let alone anyone who actually marched in protest.

[VicPerry]

Right. This is what it's all about, Calbum, and all these issues WAY, WAY predate the emergence of Obama on the national stage.

[crmr22222]

Bravo!
Could it be that now the press will be less biased when covering Obama? And is it too late?
What has Obama accomplished in Senate Committees?
What was his voting record in the Illinois Legislature?
What are the facts about his campaign advisor meeting with a Canadian official regarding NAFTA?
Did he lie at the January 21st debate about his relationship with Rezko
What are the facts about his failing to vote 130 times in the Illinois Legislature?
Excerpts from the January 21st Debate.
Starting on Page 5 of 23…
OBAMA: …Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=5&ref=politics
CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.
OBAMA: I agree.
CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=6&ref=politics
BLITZER: …I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.
OBAMA: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I WAS AN ASSOCIATE AT A LAW FIRM THAT REPRESENTED A CHURCH GROUP THAT HAD PARTNERED WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL TO DO A PROJECT AND I DID ABOUT FIVE HOURS WORTH OF WORK ON THIS JOINT PROJECT. THAT'S WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO.
Now, it's fine for her to throw that out, but the larger reason that I think this debate is important is because WE DO HAVE TO TRUST OUR LEADERS AND WHAT THEY SAY. THAT IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOBILIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEHIND BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN HEALTH CARE REFORM, BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN HOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, CHANGING OUR TRADE LAWS. AND CONSISTENCY MATTERS. TRUTHFULNESS DURING CAMPAIGNS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=8&ref=politics

THE TRUTH IS, and what the press still fails to point out to the voting public, is that Obama had a 17 year relationship with Rezko. The facts about their 17 year relationship was, only clearly, depicted on January 27th on The Mc Laughlin Group.
The press has also failed to examine Obama’s Illinois voting record.

The entire transcript can be seen at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics