Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another whopper!

by oh puhleeze, Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST

Another whopper from the pander-lie-spin-parse machine of Senator Inspiration.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9269.html

Obama was running for the state senate in 1996, and had a meeting scheduled with a very influential voters group, the Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization. IVI-IPO describes itself as:

"The only multi-issue, statewide independent political organization in Illinois, IVI-IPO has led the progressive good government movement here for over 50 years. Through our National Affairs, Legislative Action and Community Action committees, IVI-IPO drafts legislative proposals and lobbies for passage of progressive legislation in Congress, the Illinois General Assembly, the Chicago City Council, and other governmental bodies."
http://www.iviipo.org
It has a 37 member Governing Board.
http://www.iviipo.org/Board.html

All candidates vying for the support of the organization are required to fill out questionnaires on their background and positions for review by the Board prior to the interview meeting, and for posting on their website.

The questionnaire included Obama's positions on important issues, like abortion, gun control and the death penalty, positions which are quite different from those he now proclaims.

When confronted in December '07 with questionnaire answers taking positions Obama apparently no longer holds, the campaign claimed that he "never saw or approved" the questionnaire, and asserted that  "the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who 'unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.'"
Indeed,  a fact sheet was provided by his campaign flatly denying Obama ever held those views.

Politico recently uncovered an amended version of the questionnaire, containing handwritten notes and additions Obama admitted to be in his hand.  When confronted again with the problematic assertion that Obama could have entered amendments in his own hand without ever having seen the document,  his campaign still contended it doesn't prove he completed, approved -- or even read -- the questionnaire. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's campaign responded: "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. 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."

And, as it turns out, the "aide" who typed Obama's positions onto the draft of the questionnaire was his campaign manager, Carol Harwell, a savvy politician, "active with the IVI-IPO prior to his candidacy... who would know perfectly well that the candidate would have to answer questions based on these answers."  As IPI-IVO board member Lois Dobry, who hosted the 1996 interview session at her home put it "... to suddenly have the candidate discover that somebody else had written answers that they were in no way in agreement with would be pretty embarrassing, right?"

Yes, it would indeed.  But not nearly as embarassing as making a career out of pandering to whatever group he is currently courting.  And not nearly as embarrassing as lying about it when caught.  And then, confronted with stark evidence to the contrary, trying out another lie, mixed liberally with parsing and spin.  

The IVI-IPO, who had endorsed Obama in every race he'd ever run, decided not to endorse him for his presidential bid.

************** *****

A footnote: Also on the IVI-IPO website is Obama's 2004 US Senate candidate questionnaire.  In it he states:
"One particularly egregious piece of legislation introduced by the White House is its
Energy Bill, which provides billions of dollars to oil companies and big polluters while shortchanging efforts to promote conservation and renewable fuels.  I would strongly oppose such measures as a U.S. Senator."

http://www.iviipo.org/2004queries_primar y/Obama-response.pdf

A year later he voted for the Cheney Energy Bill.




Tags: Obama, Senate, Politico, questionnaire (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment


this sounds resonable... (2.00 / 0)

"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. 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."

The Clinton smear machine is really cranking now...but is this the best that they could come up with?


by JoeCoaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM EST

Re: this sounds resonable... (none / 0)

Some context from Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group's treasurer.

Patt, though, conceded the inevitability of the group's endorsement could have led Harwell to be "less than 100 percent careful" in filling out the questionnaire, "because it probably didn't matter that much at the time. It's only in the context that it's now found that has much greater importance than anyone could have imagined it would back in 1996."


by JoeCoaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this sounds resonable... (1.50 / 2)

Besides the fact that her argument makes no sense, Aviva Patt is hardly a neutral voice, an Obama endorser who recently called those who took Obama to task over his unattributed copying of Duval Patrick's speech "petty and feckless."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi cs/blog/2008/02/obama_says_he_should_hav e_give.html


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll rating (none / 0)

Please be reminded that troll rating is not the appropriate response to a comment you disagree with.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oy (2.00 / 1)

can we get even a little bit of honesty from this guy?


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:06:18 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 3)

It sounds reasonable, but it's a bold-faced lie.  It appears you may have a problem with reading comprehension.  His campaign manager wrote the draft, not an aide.  He reviewed it and made amendments by hand.  He met with the Board the next day --   I'm sure that would have gone swimmingly if his answers to questions on major issues like abortion, gun control and the death penalty were different from those in the questionnaire.  

The "Clinton Smear Machine" is nowhere near this one, just reported on Politico.  

"It did not happen"
"I wasn't in the pews"
"I never held those positions"


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (none / 0)

This was intended as a reply to "sounds reasonable" by JoeCoaster.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton Smear Machine.... (none / 0)

finger prints...

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign


by JoeCoaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Smear Machine.... (none / 0)

Finish the sentence.
"were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization."

On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Smear Machine.... (none / 0)

It's interesting that the current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki is a Clinton supporter (from the Politico Article).


by JoeCoaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (2.00 / 1)

Busted.  

"The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama's campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run."

And how does the group feel about Obama now?

"...many members of IVI-IPO, some of whom have relationships with Obama that date back nearly 15 years. The group had endorsed Obama in every race he'd run -- including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) -- until now.

The group's 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.

"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."

"Dobry, Patt and current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki, a Clinton supporter, agreed Obama likely didn't write every word of his campaign's 1996 answers. But they all dismissed as unbelievable his presidential campaign's assertion that Obama never saw or signed off on the state Senate questionnaires."

And just to follow up...

"Harwell, a veteran Democratic operative who got her start working for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s and who now works for Cook County Clerk David Orr, last year told Politico she filled out the first questionnaire."


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup the Clinton Smear Machine at it again (none / 0)

They have no shame.


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 0)

"It did not happen."  A meeting between the Obama campaign and the Canadians on NAFTA, as it had been put to him in the question, did not happen. You can call that parsing, but given that the meeting that took place was not an official campaign meeting, was not about NAFTA, happened at the request of the Canadians, not the other way around, and was probably unknown to Obama at the time, I think he answered fairly. Besides, once the details came to light, the Obama campaign was completely open about what took place.

"I wasn't in the pews."  Now who's parsing? Obama was clear that he was not in attendance during the comments that were the subject of the YouTube clips. That has been verified. Obama heard Wright make other controversial statements regarding our foreign policy, but not the 9/11 comments or the God Damn America comments.

It amazes me how some people seem to revel in inflating accurate statements into "bold-faced" lies. They trot these same tired "whoppers" out in post after post.

I could easily produce a long list of Clinton lies, exaggerations and omissions to counteract these claims, being sure to include both the verifiable lies and the "lies-that-aren't-really-lies-but-kinda- sound-like-lies" -- but what good would that do? I'd much rather talk about the merits of my candidate than try to catalogue every time Clinton plays with the truth.    


by jdusek on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 1)

"It did not happen."
No, I don't call that parsing, I call it lying.

Not known to Obama at the time? At the time of what? Him saying it did not happen?

Withing 5 minutes of the first newsbreak on the story, with Ohio looming, Axelrod was on the phone with Goolsbee.  How many senior economic advisors were there? Goolsbee, does this sound like a anything you might have said?  I guess we could say it did not happen, and if more comes out we can define the "it" that did not happen.
Obama was open about what took place? Give me a break. The only openness would be sorry, I lied to the press because I thought I could get away with it.

I won't bother to get into the pews, that one takes my breath away.  

What we do know is Obama threw away every scrap of paper from his years in the state senate, but didn't manage to throw this one away.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (none / 0)

The details of Goolsbee's non-official, non-sanctioned, non-NAFTA conversation with the Canadians differed sharply from the official meeting that Obama was asked about. The meeting that was being described to Obama did not happen.

And as far as openness goes, I'm much more comfortable with Obama's explanation than I am with Clinton's "it did happen, it really did, I guess I misspoke, I was really tired" explanation for her Tuzla fabrication.

I guess Clinton could have said, I'm sorry, I lied to the press because I thought I could away with it.

But that's different right?


by jdusek on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 3)

It did happen, Obama campaign knew because it was a Sr. Advisor, and Goolsbee was asked about a number of things INCLUDING NAFTA.

Obama lied, obfuscated and then tried to parse what happened.

Obama admited to being present for a number of "controversial" comments, yet continued to stay in the church, many years before Rev. Wright decided to retire.

Those are the facts.  You can have a version of the story, but not your own version of the facts.  Remember, words matter.  Actions do as well.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (none / 0)

Nobody is denying that a conversation took place, but it was significantly different than what was being described. It was not an official meeting, Goolsbee was not representing the Obama campaign in the meeting and had no authority to discuss NAFTA, the NAFTA comments were 3-4 minutes of a much longer conversation on other subjects, and according to people who were there, he did not say what was being reported.

Those are the facts, but those details aren't important to you. Details matter, though, because without them, it's easy to paint lots of things as lies. If you ignore nuance, then Clinton was lying when she said she never supported NAFTA, and was most certainly lying when she said that the National Guard didn't have health insurance until she took action.

Regarding Rev. Wright, Obama's comments about what sermons he heard and did not hear are not inconsistent. And so what if he heard a few things he didn't agree with and stayed with the church? I thought intelligent people were supposed to be able to listen to views they disagreed without bolting for the door. I hear things on MyDD that I think are crazy all the time, but I keep coming back.


by jdusek on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Please read the memo (2.00 / 2)

You know, I have to say it's getting tiresome repeating things to the who-cares-what-the-facts-are based community.

Please read the memo. Read it all.  There are not one, not two, but three separate entries that say exactly what we've been satying they say, if you catch my drift.  Remember that the memo itself is already just hits the high points.

Then go ahead and tell me the note-taker is part of the Hillary conspiracy or that Goolsbee was lying or that green is blue, whatever.  I'm done.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Please read the memo (2.00 / 1)

Forgot lionk to memo:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/pol itics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf
On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Please read the memo (none / 0)

You know, I have to say it's getting tiresome repeating things to the who-cares-what-the-facts-are based community.

I know how you feel.

I've read the memo.

And I've read Goolsbee's comments that DeMora's notes don't accurately reflect what he said.

And I've read the Statement by the Canadian Embassy supporting Goolsbee.


by jdusek on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Please read the memo (none / 0)

The memo was wrong all three times?
Goolsbee denied it? Don't make me laugh.
His ass was on fire.

I've never seen a credible denial by Canada.  Show me a link.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Please read the memo (none / 0)

Just to make it clear, in case this is what you're talking about:

"There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

This was days later, after Canada was horrified at the dust-up, and had been accused of interfering in our election.  And even then, it doesn't say "The memo misquoted" or "It was phony" or even "DeMora got it wrong."
"There was no intention to convey" -- talk about a first class parse.

Whu-evah.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire (none / 0)

Lots of words; no substance. Sorry; you've got a lot of nothing.  Too bad that doesn't stop you from tossing around words like pander, lie, spin, parse, and whopper with a side order of pew from yet another meaningless Wright reference.  You RNC guys are really desperate.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:10:33 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire (2.00 / 2)

Poo poo all you want, what is your factual response?

Is your position that Obama never read the questionnaire?
And that he went into the meeting and provided answers different from those on the questionnaire?


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire (2.00 / 0)

Poo poo all you want, what is your factual response?
I'd provide a factual response if you had a factual diary.  What you have is your personal spin of a partisan article.

Speaking from experience - I have been a candidate for office - I am quite familiar with these questionnaires.  They're at best a necessary distraction from what you want to do, but necessary because you have to do it to please the organization who gave it to you.  They are to be disposed of as quickly and simply as possible.  I was seeking only a small-time, county-wide office; but if I'd had a staff, I'd have gladly passed them off.  I hated them.  That part of the campaign's account is absolutely right on.

Secondly, you're focusing the question of whether or not Obama saw the questionnaire as ridiculously broad, as though if he'd ever even seen the pieces of paper, he'd be lying.  More relevent is whether or not he had seen the final, prepared document.  A few notes on the cover or one page is certainly not an indication or proof that he intimately reviewed the entire contents of the multi-page document.  It's actually likely that he did not.  That's why he, or anyone, has staff.  

Last is the notion that over time, an evolution or clarification of views represents a contradiction.  That's simply foolishness.

You've trotted out a lot of chronology and isolated instances that you want to mean something; but as far as factual proof of what you assert, you have nothing.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's toast in a general-------- (2.00 / 2)

let's say he disenfranchises FL and MI over the voters' dead bodies.

Now, all McCain needs is Romney as a VP to win FL, MI and MA (yes-- they would WIN Massachusetts).

Then, we have Reverend God Damn America back on the airwaves plus the fact that Trumpet magazine called Conservatives Al-Qaeda or "God Bless Americans" --in a Presidential campaign, are you folks even old enough to get how bad this is?

Now, Obama loses every red state he claimed he could possibly win----------EVERY state across the south and heartland, MANY states out West (different reasons) AND MI, FL and MA!!!!!!!!

Obama has made sure Romney's switches on GUNS, ABORTION, AND THE DEATH PENALTY---HIS ONLY FLAW (unless you count religion, and let's just admit that's never going to be a problem for Romney against Obama and his 20 year preacher of hate, plus whatever else he's hiding).

So Obama is a McGovern/Mondale Electoral NIGHTMARE scenario.  He cannot win.


by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:12:19 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 4)

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. 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."

What's absurd on its face about this account is that the questionnaire is amended elsewhere in the text -- namely with regard to the question about parental notification of abortion, where the answer is changed from a blanket "No" to making a possible exception for 12 or 13 year olds.

No matter what else, how could that precise qualification have been made without consulting Obama himself on that point? Of course that must have been run by Obama -- and on what ground might the other questions somehow have been skipped? How plausible could that possibly be?


by frankly0 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:14:04 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 3)

Man, if I were part of the Clinton campaign, I'd be all over this.

After the huge stink the Obama side made over Hillary's Bosnia thing, how could Obama's side possibly have a problem with the "negative campaigning" of calling him out as a liar over this?


by frankly0 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 1)

Great points, thanks.   Obama has been emboldened to cook up these preposterous pretzels because the lockstep support of his followers trumps logic and reason.   We've just had one of those in the white house for 8 years.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And...? (2.00 / 0)

No matter what else, how could that precise qualification have been made without consulting Obama himself on that point?
And if the staffer had consulted Obama on this issue, how would that support the hypothesis of the diary that Obama had lied?
The questionnaire was completed by a staffer - check.
Obama did not see or complete the questionnaire - check.
Obama's campaign told the truth - check.
Given the opportunity, Obama's campaign clarified his positions - I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.  Because if clarifying a previous statement is equated to lying, I don't think Hillary is finished with the Bosnia crap yet.
Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And...? (2.00 / 3)

Look, the question which was amended was question 24 of 35 in that survey, OK?

Now I suppose it's scientifically possible that Obama was asked about question 24 of 35, without being asked about any other of the questions, and without being in the slightest aware of the content of those other questions, even though many of those questions address issues of a more controversial and basic nature than this amendment -- such as whether he supports capital punishment in any case.

But I'd like to see Obama explain how, of all the questions he might have had input into, it was only that little detail in question 24 that was run past him.

Of course, maybe a Pod Person resembling Obama in every way actually answered those questions, and even went on the interview with the voter organization.

But I don't think that's very likely do you? And maybe it's not so likely either that he managed to be asked one detail of one question well into the survey but not any of the other questions.

Of course, if you want to believe that Obama isn't lying about this, go ahead. I'm sure that with enough KoolAid you can drink these problems away.


by frankly0 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And...? (none / 0)

Belief / proof

See the difference?


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (none / 0)


by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 4)

"Clinton smear machine is really cranking now...but is this the best that they could come up with?"

There is almost nothing we can know about Obama's non-illustrious first 6 years in the Illinois Senate, because he didn't keep any records of what he did for that part time job. Oops, there is just nothing to go on, how about that. So the only crummy little bit of evidence anyone can glean from his state senate record, which covered most of the small amount of time he has spent and a public official, is from community groups that tried their best to poll him on his views to see whether he deserved their support, and to hold him accountable to his role as an elected. I mean, otherwise he has voted "present" on any issues of any controversy.

Isn't it pathetic that we voters are forced to be making a decision on whether to nominate him to be the president of the United States and Commander in Chief of the largest and most powerful military on the face of the earth, and Leader of the Free World, and standard bearer for the entire Democratic Party,and all we have to go on to see what he might stand for is a scrap of old paper with handwritten notes on it, mostly written by his staffer? There is no other paper trail by which to determine whether he has been a person of consistent conviction?

Is this by accident, or on purpose?

Whatever the basis for this turn of events, should we feel we are the ones lacking, for having so little clear evidence of what this candidate really stands for? Guess what, I think it's his problem, not ours.

Anyone who votes for this empty suit has a lot of explaining to do.


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: another w (2.00 / 2)

I really don't know how he gets away with it.

By the way Obama is getting crushed in my neighbouring state , Kentucky.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=93b1b163-e67d-4e0b-b06f-174b4c 7542b5

Clinton 58

obama   29

I don't see how she doesn't score above 60 in both WV and Kentucky


When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line
by lori on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM EST

Re: Kentucky (2.00 / 0)

Great news in Kentucky! Thanks


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe Austan Goolsbee filled it out? (2.00 / 2)

That would explain it.


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST

Re: Obama not in pews for questionnaire: (2.00 / 2)

Excellent discovery!  Good diary.

....and on the "footnote" Obama's energy policy position.  Well, he must be correct, that wasn't he didn't care about how bad the Energy Bill was, because, given all those problems he correctly pointed out, he went ahead and VOTED FOR THAT TERRIBLE BILL ANYHOW!.


by LindaSFNM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:11:40 PM EST

Re: Obama (2.00 / 4)

I think what's telling here is how many times Obama has changed his positions on so many issues (including abortion notifications), going from progressive to centrist fairly quickly. He seems to excel at telling people what they want to hear, as the head of the organization mentioned found out.

HRC is much more progressive on abortion and womens' issues in general, and what's more, she has a great record to stand on. That's one of the many reasons why she got my vote.


The world cannot survive four more years of Bush.
by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST

You know what is funny? (2.00 / 2)

Is that he claims he doesn't have any records from when he was my state senator because he had a one person staff. His excuse for this and other things is that a staffer filled it out for him and he didn't didn't do it.

Which is it? One staffer who couldn't keep records and do the work or staffers who filled out questionnaires without him knowing?

This is about as believable as Ron Paul saying he didn't know what was printed in his racist newsletter.


"Barack did Hillary just like he did Alice Palmer. He was 'riding dirty'"
by LatinoVoter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST

Oooooooooooooooooooh THIS is BAD! (none / 0)

That's wat you want to hear isn't it?

You missed his knee cap there Tanya, try again.


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:53:59 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: