It's Time for Sen. Obama to Explain His Record
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.).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Waah waah waah. Because Clinton is losing it is time to re-write history with a fine tooth comb. "Senator Obama you weren't really against the war." Can we roll the tape?
I'm assuming you also believe Karl Rove when he says that the Congress pushed Bush into the Iraq War, that he didn't really want the vote so soon. This is sad.
Mr. Davis, the problem here is that neither Obama nor Clinton really are good candidates for the democrat nomination. Obama is popular and somewhat engaging but not qualified. Period. Clinton, while marginally more qualified is a walking calculator and corporate shill, who, if elected, will be such a divisive figure that her ability to govern will be irreparably impaired by the opposition party. If you had cancer, would you not want a surgeon with a plenty of experience and a successful track record? Using that analogy, both these candidates are like med students, rather than board certified oncologists.
What a Clintonian piece of hypocrisy.
What you see as inconsistencies are nothing but the normal differences of opinions concerning the end effect of unwritten and unenacted legislation that might happen or more likely will never see the end of days.
Let's face it, Hillary has not been any more forthright than Bill was when he disclaimed "sex with that woman."
LENNY WE ARE TIRED OF THE PAST WARS. IT'S TIME THE CLINTON'S GO TO PASTURE AND WORK ON THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FUND!
hey lanny, go kiss clinton butt somewhere else. hillary is a sold out corporate pawn whose entire senate career is a tribute to buckling to bush when someone needed to stand up to the bastard. at least obama didn't vote for this war. hillary's vote is UNFORGIVABLE as far as i'm concerned. i won't vote for her.
FOr everyone on this thread who claims Obama stands for nothing, and has done nothing, well, I also want you to chew on this - its a serious REALITY CHECK and smackdown to all of the lies being ciirculated on this thread and elsewhere: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php
Obama has missed 142 votes in the current Congress, so it is difficult to know where he stands on many important issues (maybe that is his strategy). Nevertheless, there are two votes that disturb me.
1. Vote 20: S256: Dayton Amendment No. 31. To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent. Obama voted NO.
2. Vote 9: S5: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The passage of this bill means “consumers who have valid claims against corporations [can] be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse. Obama voted YES.
Both votes are in favor of corporations, not the people. For a look at his missed votes and voting patterns, click on the following link:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
Lanny, you forgot number 8.
Obama must come clean on the kindergarten essay issue. Either he did want to be president BEFORE his disclaimer or he didn't he? How can we trust this man to be president if he can't even get his own history straight?
The clear facts about Obama's waffling and flip-flopping on the issues is plain to see. He has never shown any leadership in the U.S. Senate with his brief few years in the Senate, with either any original Bills to be voted upon by his peers, or even taking leave of supporting his peers when his vote is needed.
leadership is clearly lacking in Obama...and having Billionaire super-star entertainer Oprah to help sell his image and platform to the voters, falls flat on my ears to support him.
Demo's of all persuasions must look at the candidate with a cool long pause...and ask yourself this question: Style over substance, and charisma over governance, is the prerequisite to be elected the next President of the United States? Didn't the Republicans already try that successfully with Ronald Reagan during the 80's? Where did that get America? It lead us to the Bushes...how nice!
"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."
Warmest regards,
Lanny Davis
Is Davis the same guy who relentlessly defended Bill Clinton's boorish behavior night after night on TV?
He is a sophist in the worst sense of the word: more salesman than statesman.
The Clinton attack dogs have been unleashed: they are strong in numbers but weak in most other regards- moral, intellectual & civil.
How unoriginal. Every single one of these issues is a dead horse that has been beaten to death for weeks or even months.
If you're going to write something, why not come up with something new for your readers?
Is Clinton's candidacy so pathetic that her supporters are better off with these kinds of dumbed down attacks on her opponents?
There seems to be a legitimate debate as to whether more people get covered by mandates or by making insurance more affordable. Krugman has his position. Obama's people have theirs. You don't answer Obama's side by simply pointing out that Krugman disagrees. And you certainly don't do it by asserting that your side involves facts while ignoring the position that you are supposed to be refuting.
I hope Clinton does not get the nomination because she has clearly been the worst on foreign policy. But another plus to having her out is keeping at these kinds of childish attacks by her supporters.
When Congresswoman Lee supported Obama she managed to do it by making the case for Obama and not just the case against his opponents.
This is so grossly misleading, I'm embarrassed for those who think this isn't.
On each point, facts are deliberately withheld that would dilute the one-sidedness of this attack.
I don't have the patience to correct every attempted attack, but I'll mention two:
Point #4: Lanny Davis provide one instance in which Obama described the terrorist label of the IRG as his problem with the Iran vote.
Surprise! His problem with it is with respect to OUR MILITARY PRESENCE IN IRAQ.
Point #5: Uhh, Obama never backed down from being willing to meet the bad guys, sorry. How does that position conflict with his principle of meeting hostile governments?
Newsflash: in the memo war after the debate, Hillary made clear that she thought meeting with bad guys without precondition was a bad idea. Just don't like the fact that he keeps bringing it up?
Per Imus, Obama has missed 80% of his votes in the Senate since September 1, 2007, only showing up to vote 20% of the time. In 2006, in Obama's first 11 months in the Senate, Obama missed close to 37% of his votes as a novice Senator while he began his run for President.
During this same time, in August of 2007, Biden voted against the Lieberman-Kyle Amendment on Iran (Obama didn't vote); In August of 2007 Biden stated he would fight to impeach Bush/Cheney if they took any military action against Iran,(Obama has been silent on impeachment); in September of 2007 Bush/Cheney began to talk of WWIII in Iran - Biden continued to publicly challenge them, (Obama remains silent); in October of 2007 Biden put forth his Resolution in the Senate getting 75 votes from Republicans and Democrats to end the war in Iraq (Obama didn't vote); in October and November of 2007 Biden lead the Senate Democrats against confirmation of the Attorney General for failing to define waterboarding as torture, (Obama didn't vote); In October and November of 2007, Biden has been on the phone with the President of Pakistan, Isreal, Iraq, and talking to world leaders who have quit talking to President Bush (Obama has not been contacted by world leaders but cites his experience as a child in foreign policy); in December of 2007 Biden has repeatedly called for impeachment of Bush/Cheney for military plans to attack Iran and for a Special Indepedent Counsel to investigate and bring criminal indictments against wrong doers for the destruction of the CIA tapes (Obama has been silent before other more experienced members of Congress).
Biden does what Joe says. Biden's words and Biden's deeds are consistent. Obama says one thing, but does nothing. Obama speaks empty words, but doesn't act when given the opportunity to do what only 100 people in America are priviledged to do in the US Senate - vote.
Biden is in international news. World leaders want him to be President. Biden has earned a reputation of trust gained from 35 years of experience.
These things have been answered; where have you been Mr Davis? Senator Obama has been very clear in providing answers when asked questions. I could myself go through each point and answer them, but so could you, if you REALLY cared what the answers were...REALLY....asking why, when he was going to deliver the address at the DNC for Nominee Kerry, he didn't speak out against the war, knowing Kerry had voted for it and was our nominee? Please, sir.
Memo to Lanny Davis:
I'd like to know why you don't have any links in your post. I'd like to see the complete comments Obama allegedly made, and in their context.
As you yourself said, "It's time for the American public to know the facts".
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
