It's Time for Sen. Obama to Explain His Record

Cross-posted from the Pundits Blog at Hill.com

Memo to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.):

It's time for you to explain the inconsistencies of your positions and the way you describe your past record.

Your complaint that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is "attacking people" and "throwing mud" because she challenged the accuracy of your characterization of your own healthcare plan as "universal" appears hypocritical. It was you who voluntarily attacked Sen. Clinton for being "untruthful and misleading" several weeks ago in a voluntary sit-down with two New York Times reporters. That is clearly a direct attack on character -- the functional equivalent of calling Sen. Clinton a liar. And yet, at least according to the Times article, you offered no specific examples in that article to back up such a serious personal attack.

It's time for the public to know facts and inconsistencies in your positions and your record that, so far, much of the national press corps has allowed you to ignore.

1. Your healthcare program. Sen. Clinton is right and you are wrong. Her healthcare proposal provides for a universal mandate, and yours does not and leaves out millions of people. That is a fact. As Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist (and no Hillary fan) recently wrote, your plan would allow millions of healthy people to opt out and then opt in when they develop health problems. Under your plan, he wrote, "people who did the right thing when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn't sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care." Mr. Krugman continued:

Mr. Obama is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn't -- and his attacks amount to cheap shots.

2. Your PAC's donations. Your political action committee (PAC) donated funds to state and local elected officials in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Shortly after receiving those donations, some endorsed your candidacy. The Washington Post reported that these funds were directed to these individuals by officials in your presidential campaign. A federal election law expert told the Post reporter that if that was the case, this could be a violation of federal election law. Will you be fully transparent about who, what, when, where and why regarding these donations? And if this was "coordination" and "direction" from your presidential campaign, as the story documented, how could it not be a violation?

3. Your position on the Iraq war. You have criticized Sen. Clinton for supporting the October 2002 Iraq war resolution (just as the governor of your state, Rod R. Blagojevich, did when he was in the House of Representatives, as did former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost two arms and a leg in the Vietnam War, and 29 Democratic senators). You claim to have been opposed to that resolution before you became a U.S. senator.

Yet when you were asked (I believe for the first time) in the fall of 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, how you would have voted on that resolution had you been a U.S. senator, you were quoted in the Chicago Tribune answering, "I don't know."

Then in March 2007, your press secretary was quoted as refusing "eight times" to answer a New York Times reporter's question as to why you couldn't answer that question back in 2004. When pressed again, he said you refused to answer such a "hypothetical" question. So how can you accurately say that you opposed the war resolution when you said "I don't know" way back then and refused to explain that answer at least as recently as March 2007. And how is it fair to criticize Sen. Clinton's (and Gov. Blagojevich's) judgment for doing so at that time when she says today, "Had I known then what I know now [that there were no WMDs in Iraq], I would not have voted for that resolution"?

You also voted against Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) amendment in the summer of 2006 to set a deadline on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq (as did Sen. Clinton and most Senate Democrats). Yet I don't think you have ever reminded voters about that vote since you began your presidential campaign.

4. Your position on the Iran Resolution. You criticized Sen. Clinton's vote in September supporting a Senate resolution asking the U.S. government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a "foreign terrorist organization," which could trigger economic sanctions. In an op-ed in the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader, you called that vote "reckless." Yet you failed to disclose that you had co-sponsored a Senate Resolution (S. 970) in March 2007 that used exactly the same language to designate the IRG a "foreign terrorist organization." And you failed to disclose that the senior senator from your own state of Illinois, Dick Durbin (D), also supported the September resolution and publicly disagreed with you that it could possibly provide a basis for intervening in Iran.

Are you prepared to charge Sen. Durbin, too, with a "reckless" vote on a resolution with the same IRG designation language as in the March resolution you co-sponsored?

5. Your commitment to visit five dictators in your first year as president. In one of the Democratic debates, you committed to visiting five dictators in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran and North Korea, without preconditions, personally, in your first year as president. You later tried to revise what you actually said by stating you were referring only to the principle of the need to negotiate with "hostile governments." (But that is not what you said at the debate.) Then you criticized Sen. Clinton for not being willing to negotiate with hostile governments, which is false, and you knew it was false. In fact, you knew that Sen. Clinton had already endorsed the Hamilton-Kean task force recommendation for the U.S. to negotiate with Syria and Iran to assist in finding a regional solution to the Iraq war.

6. Your position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. After Sen. Clinton gave a garbled response to her position on this issue in the Philadelphia debate, she was intensely criticized by you, accusing her of intentionally obscuring her position, and by media commentators. (She subsequently admitted she had not given a clear answer.)

Yet in the very next debate in Las Vegas, both of you were asked whether you supported such driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. She gave a simple "no," and you gave a garbled and virtually incomprehensible answer. You were hardly criticized by the media -- certainly when compared to the two weeks of criticism of Sen. Clinton after her response. So what is your position?

7. Social Security reform. You say you favor increasing FICA taxes by raising the income ceilings above approximately $91,000/year of income. This would amount to over a trillion-dollar tax increase. You also say you want a bipartisan approach to governing. Do you really think congressional Republicans will ever agree to a Social Security solution that just involves raising taxes this much?

Sen. Clinton prefers to do what President Reagan and the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did in the 1980s--appoint a bipartisan commission whose recommendations were broadly accepted on both sides of the aisle. Yet you accuse her of refusing to take a position. Would you have accused Sen. Moynihan of that? Truthfully, who has the more bipartisan approach on this important issue, you or Sen. Clinton?

*****

Sen. Obama: you are a fine and decent young man and you have been an excellent presidential candidate. However, the problem with a seemingly sanctimonious campaign theme that implies that you are the superior candidate of reform, change, and candor is that you are judged more harshly when you don't apply to yourself the high standards that you insist others have to meet.

It's time, Sen. Obama, for you to explain your inconsistent record and your apparent double standard.

It's time for you to come out behind the rhetoric of "turning the page" and read the page accurately to voters concerning your past record, your current positions and Sen. Clinton's.

And it's time for the political media to give greater scrutiny to the facts concerning your record.

* * * * *

Mr. Davis, a Washington attorney and former Special Counsel to President Clinton, is a supporter and fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Comments

[MrWinky]

Enough is enough. Recently, this site has been flooded by authors with an obvious, yet undisclosed in the article itself, connection to Hilary. All of these articles have gone directly to attack Obama and not any other candidate.

Let's have some honest discussion of the candidates, but this type of criticism, under the auspices of being unbiased, is very Republican-esque. Much like Bush, Hilary uses these outside people to criticize her opponent, so that she does not come off as the heavy and can always disassociate herself from it when it gets blowback.

If you don't have the fortitude to make your own criticisms, then keep quiet Hilary. If you are a Clinton hack, then at least identify yourself in the article to maintain some honesty. I am supporting Kucinich, but I am tired of the politics as usual that is going on in our country.

[PeaceCzar]

They're the 2 top candidates, and ALSO the 2 lousiest candidates.

Find it curious that the real voices of courage and honesty are the most drowned out?

Mike Gravel.

Dennis Kucinich.

And lesser so, John Edwards. I'd pick him in a heartbeat amongst the Top 3. Plus, he does best in national polls against the top Republicans.

Let me repeat: Obama AND Clinton are both jokes. So keep bickering with tunnel vision when you've got 6 other, better Democrats to choose from.

[Gipsytim]

Uh-oh! Looks likes the Clinton shills are worried! Their prospects as future Clinton Administration employee on the taxpayers dime must really be in trouble.

Barack Obama should explain his record, right after Hillary Clinton explains hers without the usual triangulated obsfucation. She should expain her votes on the war and she should especially explain why she votes to screw over the shrinking American middle-class every time.

NAFTA-never ever forget!!!
NAFTA-never ever forgive!!!

[SeanGardner]

This is a funny thread.

What I found most hilarious is the "outrage" that Obama missed 143 votes, to Clinton's 80 votes during the current congress. Ok. He missed 143 votes, out of 417 votes.

If someone wants to slam him for that, or slam Hillary for missing 80 votes, then have at it.

But what I finf troubling about some of the Obama haters on thread (who are for Hillary or other candidates) is the narrative that they are employing: "Obama missed so many votes so people wouln't know exactly what kind of politician he is." Huh? Is that the best you have?

Obama, Hillary, Dodd, and Biden all missed votes because they are campaigning. Do politicans miss votes because they don't want to cast a particular vote? Yes. But to state as fact (without evidence or a statement from Obama confirming it) that Obama's missed votes were to "mask his true agenda" makes Obama sound sinister. Plainly put, the "missed votes narrative" is ridiculous, if that is the way you want to spin it.

Lastly, let me respond to something Lanny Davis addressed above: "Your political action committee (PAC) donated funds to state and local elected officials in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Shortly after receiving those donations, some endorsed your candidacy." SO wait, the Clinton Campaign is attacking Obama for his PAC Money? Wow.

You know, I remember back when Gov. Tom Vilsack, a former presidential candidate quit the race. In fact, Hillary Clinton's campaign paid off Tom Vilsack's massive debt which approached $500,000. And...surprise...shortly thereafter, Vilsack endorsed Clinton. Look at the record yourself.

So, the PAC issue needs to be put to rest. Because let's face it:

Hillary Clinton can't talk
about the money in Obama's PAC,
without dealing with the $500,000
she paid for the endorsement of Tom Vilsack

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Obama '08

[jeff]

lanny,
has hillary released all her whitehouse records yet?

[bumpersticker]

These are mammothly complex and challenging issues with many facets. An intelligent, reflective person is not going to leave a consistent record of opinion on them - only an ideologue does that.

Hell, I feel differently about my dog from day to day. This "Gotcha" game is for children. I'll take someone I trust to make good, informed decisions at the moment they are required, regardless of some tablets someone digs up.

[jakibaez]

I can say with all respect, that your article was the most impressive "lecture given to a candidate" and truthful. I wish that these questions were applied in the next Iowa debate that is folding. But, the problem with expressing and reporting is that the media will not spin on it. The haterd for a woman leading our country is very strong with "ignorant" man and will continue until someone as a brillant writer as you, can point out to them these differences between Hillary and Obama. Obama strikes me as a man with two faces, the perfect example is the "secrecy" meeting with the gay voters in Iowa. Yet, he speaks loud for gay rights, but, hides when seen with them. A true leader shows his tolerance by meeting with them in public. Why not show the meeting publicly? Because he is afraid of losing the gay vote and he is afraid of offending the heterosexuals. Hypothetical promises are noted here. The promises to the Nevada immigrants with the drivers licenses is another example of robbing votes and fooling the voters. Congress (whether Republican or Democratics) will never agree on licenses for illegals and Obama will have the first defeat as President. Why lie to the hispanics voters? Because Obama as this point in time will do "everything" it takes to gain the whitehouse.

[WintonyMay]

I am encouraged by the adroit observations, of some of the respondents to this post, about Larry Davis, his function and the insidiousness of the post. I am satisfied that, for the most part, those respondents have debunked each of the points that he has declared to be factual.
Obviously, a functional mandate in healthcare would be very progressive. But, as some have pointed out, a mandate would require enforcement. However, none of the proponents of a mandate, including Klugman and Davis, has discussed the manner, let alone the cost, of enforcement. For enforcement to be meaningful, it seems that it would require setting up a federal agency, on the IRS model, to track all of those who would be responsible for applying for the healthcare.
Here, I ask Klugman and Davis, how would it be done and at what cost? Think about it, rationally.
WintonyMay.

[lumpyspun]

I'm a Democrat but I would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's it.

[HitTheBid]

Bon Jour Clinton Cabal attack talking points.

Ain't gonna work. If you only have 7 weak points to go with, watch out when the 45 point rebuttal shames you back into your silly I want back into a neo-Clinton administration to feel important again.

I cannot wait for all of the Clinton Cabal to sit down, shut up, and go home once and for all. You guys are yesterday...deal with it.

Obama has you panicked...I can understand that.

[bach]

I just love it when someone speaks with reason and logic and facts!

[cheforacle]

Yes but this "advocacy piece" does not focus on building up his candidate but merely questions 1 (the biggest challenger to HRC) of the several candidates in the race. Why doesn't he ask other candidates about their record or simply discuss HRC's record?

[ConcernAmerican]

Obama don't have to explain anything to anyone, as far as he's concern he's ONLY second to Jesus Christ.

Obama is the EPITOME of BULLSHITTER! Can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. Sanctimonious asshole fits Obama like a glove.

[Camel54]

I'm sorry but claiming that insurance mandates equal universal health care is ridiculous. When millions continue to go without health care because they can't afford it, they will be blamed for breaking the law and not following mandates. Then what, they get fined? The government provides police, firemen, education. Shouldn't it provide health?

Saying that raising the income cap on social security is a massive tax increase is right out of the Republican play book. Well done, ass. It does not raise taxes to simply include more people in the pool from which revenue is drawn.

Agreeing to meet with the leaders of troublesome countries is not the same as sending a tast force to negotiate. Not even close.

At least Obama takes positions. Senator Clinton is always all for being against things that might or might not be worth having a committee research so as to not engage in hypotheticals because she has a long record of being the old face of new ideas after being an actual politician for a few years.

[Giordano Bruno]

I was disappointed in this article as well, and yet I support Mr. Edwards. What I find most disturbing of all was his willingness to try to bring southern African American evangelists back into his tent by inviting a known homophobe to share the stage with him and when it became public knowledge failed to distance himself from that position. Frankly at that point, he lost me.

His pathetic excuse that the Obama tent was big enough for the gay community and Rev. Mc Clurkin rang hollow. On which side of the tent could we find Mr. Obama? Over with the praying homophobes or with the discriminated against gay community?

Oprah is a variation on a theme. Stand behind famouns people. He has a lot of charisma, but the substance, just ain't there.

His thinking on immigration is all muddled. And just like Hillary, he can be counted on to throw the gay community under the proverbial bus. In fact he has already done it. They are more of a liability, and if he wants to bring on minorities, there are far more homophobic evangelicals than there are gay people, so who cares about Constitutional Rights?! Even I am beginning to wonder if Hillary isn't better than Obama, push comes to shove!

Giordy