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
Here are your answers to your questions on Iraq.
http://www
Driver's license question in the debate (read the transcript
"No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the same level can make that happen."
http://tra
The relevant part of the Union Leader op-ed you selectively quoted:
The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. [snip] It ... states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran [snip]
http://www
Damn - this anti-Obama stuff is becoming a theme on the blogs...wo
Hardcore liberal bloggers seem overwhelmingly in support of Edwards and the establishment of the party seem well in line with Clinton - where oh where is this support for Obama coming from?
I applaud the fact that you are transparent in your support for Clinton. I think it is good when people advocate for their candidate. I am an Obama supporter - know his work from Chicago and have heard him speak enough times to find the magic in his candidacy (call me foolish if you want, but a part of citizenship is believing and he helps me believe).
It comes down to whose troops are going to be able to win this primary battle on the ground and right now it is a toss up. But, wow, is this ever going to be fun...
"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.)," would probably be better stated at the beginning of the article, so there's no pretense of objectivity.
Everyone has their own bias in this debate. i make no secret that my own bias is in favor of obama. as such, it is natural that i would see most of his actions in a more favorable light. if i didn't, i wouldn't support him. like many anti-obama articles from clinton supporters, this particular dirty laundry list frames itself as a series of "questions" that obama ought to answer. of course, we all know they're not really questions, they're attacks on his record, which is fine in a close campaign. ultimately i think having to deal with this sort of attack will make Obama a stronger candidate, just as it has done in the past when the right-wingers did it to Bill and Hillary.
Done.
http://fac
4. Mr. Davis its not the 35 years of experience that turn me off with Hillary Clinton, its the lack of quality it has. Let me explain:
In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:
• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site
• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month
• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor
• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall
• Name courthouse after James L. Watson
• Name post office after John A. O'Shea
• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day
• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day
• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death
• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship
• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program
• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda
• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death
• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are "substantive":
• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11
• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
• Assist landmine victims in other countries
• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care
• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System
Excellent post, Mr. Davis. It's about time HuffPo presents a poster that is pro-Clinton that actually has great facts and logic to support his arguments.
Most of the pro-Clinton posts are merely "vanity" pieces that are sickening even to me, a Clinton supporter. And for every one pro-Clinton post on HuffPo there are one hundred pro-Obama posts.
What is funny is that Obama supporters get so incensed by that one pro-Clinton post. They accuse the poster of being a Clinton supporter. Really? OMG, a Clinton supporter?!!! And the one Hundred pro-Obama posts aren't by Obama supporters? Get a brain people.
I would like to hear the counter points all the Obama supporters have for these very damning issues Davis brings up in his post. Saying they have been addressed is not the same as addressing them.
Obama, himself, has this problem. He presents himself as the candidate of change and yet never gets around to telling us what the change will be. All I have ever heard is "me too" to everything Clinton says.
Obama says that he doesn't see red states and blue states, just the united states, but beyond platitudes doesn't address how he will bring together Republicans and Democrats.
You know, Bush ran on the promise that he would be a "uniter, not a divider." Remember how well that turned out. By dividing the country more than ever. I'm not saying Obama will be like Bush, but I want to hear exactly how Obama will unite the red and blue states, not more empty rhetoric.
3. Dick Durbin is not running for president is he?
Obama was against the war in Iraq before it began at a time when President Bush had a 61% approval rating and knowing he was risking his political career if it turned out he was wrong. If the Iraq War was a success, do think Alan Keyes would have a chance of beating him? Do you think we would have a Democratic majority now? Take a guess and marinate it on it. My question to you is did Clinton read the NIE report? Yes or No? If not, why not? Senator Kennedy, Durbin, Feingold, and Levin did , why not Senator Clinton? Fair enough question right? Obama mentioned recently why he decided to vote against Iraq war funding without a time table because after months of funding it, he changed is mind after Bush decided to move more troops into Iraq. He pretty much decided the president would not listen to reason. There is a difference between funding troops to survive and funding the war altogether and Obama made the choice of common sense. What sense does it make then to give the president another "blank check" by voting the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment like Senator Clinton after the "Surge"?
"Sen. Obama: you are a fine and decent young man"
This kind of condescension is really irritating and says more about you than about Sen. Obama.
Since when is 46yo too young?
As previously pointed out, Sen Obama is one year older than Bill Clinton at the same point in the campaign. Just make your point and stop with the patronizing, contemptuous attitude.
2. Mr. Davis, you also mentioned Obama's PAC activity. Thank you for pointing that out but let me ask you a question. Was that legal or illegal because I seem to be hearing was it "might" be illegal. Is it illegal or not? Maybe your candidate should return the $2300 contribution back to the Obama campaign. What about the corporate lobbyists running Clinton's campaign, after all they " are people too". I am business and I know what an investment is and these federal lobbyist who are contributing millions of dollars to Clinton are not doing because they like who she wears her hair. How is Clinton going to convince the drug companies who are paying for her campaign to lower there costs their main objective is to please their shareholders? I think mandating insurance would benefit them more than not having a mandate because Obama's plan would be to make them compete with the U.S. government and who how are they going to compete with that?
Lanny Davis is a long-term Clinton supporter. The fact that he's coming out at this time to attack Obama means that Hill and Bill are calling in some markers and getting Lanny and other surrogates to launch attacks at, and throw mud at, Obama. This, after Hill acted so very aggrieved that Obama was drawing attention to her own record and questionable experience.
Hill claimed that Obama was throwing mud at her - poor thing! - when he questioned exactly what government experience she had for 'the past 35 years' per her claims. Now that Obama is pulling ahead the shoe is on the other foot, and Hillary can't take the heat.
Her campaign has been something of a marvel to me. She claims 35 years of government experience. But during her time in Little Rock, Arkansas she was a $100,000/year partner in a local law firm that traded on the contacts made by her husband, the long-term governor of that state. What she did 'in government' was go to cocktail parties, dinner parties and the like as the governor's wife.
Similarly, as the wife of a sitting president for 8 years, she gave lunches, dinners and the like after her one failed foray into politics, when she tried to bring people together on a new health care proposal. With experience like that, perhaps we should ask Barbara Bush or Mrs. Carter to run for President as Mrs. Carter, in particular, has almost exactly the same level of non-experience as Hillary - wife of the governor of Georgia and wife of the president.
Hillary got a big boost in her first run for the Senate when Rick Lazio, her opponent, was seen to be bullying her. She got the sympathy vote and edged him out in the general election. That won't work this time around as no one will be fooled except her most ardent supporters. And slandering Barack Obama, the best leader we've had come along perhaps in decades, through the use of surrogates like Lanny Davis, won't convince anyone.
This is one scared lady.
Would you mind if I take a little of my precious time to respond to your article Mr. Davis? Thanks.
1. Obama's health care plan vs Clinton and Edwards. I may not be a Rhodes scholar but its seems obvious to me along with the 47 million other Americans that we need to control costs to the premiums that insurers charge the average consumer. Do you think? I think you and many other "health care experts" know that premiums have risen considerably over the last ten years. Would you agree with that? With that being the case, why would you then mandate that everyone get health insurance if premiums are too high to afford in the first place? How are you to enforce it? Fiscal responsibly? Would impose a $219 tax penalty for people with children when they won't mind paying it after they receive their $4000 refund check? Obama is not against mandating insurance because he did mention of moving eventually to a single-payer system. He just does not think it makes good policy to mandate insurance until the premiums that insurers charge come down. Does that make sense? You see Mr. Davis, health care reform takes time to implement, its a process not an all or nothing policy. Americans do not mind a little government intervention but to start forcing people to get insurance when government has not taken the steps to lower the costs just sounds like more bureaucracy to me and does not even sound politically viable.. Ask Mr. Krugman how its working in Massachusetts and get back to me.
Yet another surrogate attack on Obama with no substance. We've debunked these already.
Speaking of rhetoric and a lack of a progressive position on an issue, how's Joe Lieberman doing?
I have no idea once Hillary loses the aura of inevitability and once Obama is closer and closer to beat the front runner, there are many critical postings suddenly emerging here.
Are these pro-Hillary hired guns hoping to tear down Obama?
One interesting dynamic that comes from these various endorsements is how the individual spells out their support. While supporters of Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, and others explain why they feel their candidate is best suited to be president, Hillary supporters choose a different method altogether. It's quite telling, and it reveals something about them and to some degree about their candidate.
The Clintons must really be in trouble. When else does Lanny appear?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
