Questions, Questions
EmailPolitical Punch has obtained the questionnaire that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois filled out in 2003 for the Illinois Chapter of the National Organization for Women. (Read it HERE).
In that 2003 questionnaire Obama vowed to vote to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, though he said he "would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully drafted proposal …"
Two years later, Obama voted in favor of re-authorizing the PATRIOT Act.
"This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe," Obama said as he voted to re-authorize the bill.
Asked by NOW in 2003 if he would support "legislation that eliminates all discrimination in the military based on sexual orientation," Obama then hedged a bit. Though in many of his answers he simply affirmed "Yes," in this one he did not.
"I would have to examine specific legislation," he wrote, "but I would oppose policies that fail to advance equal rights in the military."
Obama today as a presidential candidate -– giving an answer that many gay and lesbian voters no doubt approve of — has directly called for "Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell" to be repealed.
Asked in 2003 if he would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (erroneously called the "Protection of Marriage Act" in the questionnaire), Obama wrote, "I support laws recognizing domestic partnerships and providing benefits to domestic partners. However, I do not support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
Obama changed his mind on that issue in 2004 and now supports repealing DOMA. Per Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Obama has opposed DOMA. He felt it was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal."
Burton’s general comment about the questionnaire? "It’s obvious that the Clinton campaign is desperately grasping for anything they can find. This is about as news-less as it gets. The only thing that’s changed since she said she wouldn’t attack her Democratic rivals is her poll numbers."
Burton also referenced the e-mail that a Clinton deputy campaign manager sent apparently looking for dirt on Obama’s days as a community organizer, published yesterday by the New York Times.
Obama opponents have been drawing attention to a story in the Politico drawing attention to a questionnaire he filled out in 1996 for the Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO) in which Obama, in the words of our Politico friends Mike Allen and Ben Smith, came out "flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns."
You can read those questionnaires for yourself HERE and HERE.
It is perhaps not surprising for a candidate to shift his views as he trudges up the ladder –- it can be seen as either pragmatism or selling out, evolving or losing touch, I suppose. Obama’s opponents say he has not been truly vetted and Republicans will make hash out of him using these questionnaires come November 2008 should he get the nomination. Obama’s supporters say his opponents are desperate and grasping at straws.
The inimitable Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times followed up with a look at Obama’s responses in the IVI-IPO’s 2003/2004 questionnaire, saying, "Portraying Obama as a liberal — even if he has moved to the center since 2003 — speaks to the general election electability issue and puts Obama on the defensive over his liberal roots."
From here on the ground in Iowa, I don’t really sense that these questionnaires and the larger issue of whether Obama is too liberal –- or has been too liberal -– is impeding the wind at his back. But what say you?
– jpt
UPDATE: Phil Singer of the Clinton campaign writes: "Given how little experience Senator Obama has, it’s understandable that his campaign doesn’t want any kind of focus on his record. These stories clearly raise questions that deserve real answers, not attacks. They serve as a stark reminder about how little the public knows about Sen. Obama’s views and positions."
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back? 
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
Worried, are you Kaj?
Feeling outnumbered? Welcome to Election 08!
GoBama!
Posted by: JRE | December 12, 2007, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
If his experience as a moderate, progressive senator were more substantial, then this would be less of an issue. Which is why I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama shouldn’t have run this election cycle. If the democrats nominate Obama and Guiliani gets the GOP nom, Guiliani will make lunchmeat of him.
Posted by: cordelia525 | December 12, 2007, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Obama is running for president in the age of the internets, the first real test in that era, I might add. People from campaigns and the media have been furiously digging for dirt on him for nearly a year, and they all come up pitifully short. Clinton would like to throw out there the mysterious and scary “we don’t really know what is in Obama’s closet,” when, in fact, the closet has proven itself to be pretty darn empty. This guy has past Republican foes singing his praises! And the extent of the “cleanup” work the campaign had to do at the beginning of this run was to pay off $200 in parking tickets from 20 years ago. Look at what Huckabee is going through now for a small glance at the difference. It didn’t take people even weeks to find things that could really hurt him in this campaign, once they focused on it. With Obama, they got nothin’.
Interesting to consider whether or not WJC would have made it through the primary if the internet was ubiquitous then as it is now. He’s a master, so he probably would have. But it’s not a given considering HIS skeletons.
Posted by: cms | December 12, 2007, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
@JRE:
I don’t care who becomes president, as long as he/she is mentally capable and thus not a Republican.
Chances are slimmer with Obama than with Clinton, though!
So yes, I’m worried, JRE: at least 50% of the voters in this country tend to vote real goofballs into the White House (2000, 2004). Don’t want to see that happen again…
Posted by: Kaj | December 12, 2007, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Why does the Obama Campaign think it is okay for them to attack others, but not okay (“its an act of desperation” )for others to point out inconsistencies about his stance, words and associated actions??? I am switching my vote to anyone but Obama.
Posted by: Jing Yuvienco | December 12, 2007, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
You know, if this election focused on issues rather than just Clinton smearing anyone within 10 points of her, we might find out a little bit more about the candidates. All I can ever find is a Clinton smear and rebuttal. Geez.
Posted by: Steve | December 12, 2007, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
Phil,
Hillary has been around longer the Obama & I still don’t have any idea where she stands on issues – not sure that she does either.
And I don’t think Hillary really wants to talk about records. We can talk about voting records and hers has some really big mistakes. Oops, I guess you can only call them mistakes if she admits they were wrong & she hasn’t! I wouldn’t go there if I were you.
Posted by: Jessica | December 12, 2007, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
So the worst the Clinton campaign can come up with is that Obama said 4 years ago that he’d have to see specific legislation before commenting definitively, and then 3 years ago gave a firm decision?
Wow, talk about skeletons in Obama’s closet — he considers an issue and makes a decision!
No wonder Barack Obama is on an upward trajectory in all the early states.
Posted by: Roy | December 12, 2007, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
Jake, Jake, Jake. Get a clue! Burton said it all: “It’s obvious that the Clinton campaign is desperately grasping for anything they can find. This is about as news-less as it gets. The only thing that’s changed since Clinton said she wouldn’t attack her Democratic rivals is her poll numbers.”
A new day, another feeble attempt to discredit the next President of the United States. Obama 08!
Posted by: PatriotforObama | December 12, 2007, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
Jack’ey boy, why would you put yourself in the same bottomless pit?
Where is the do-diligence in this? The fact is, Campaigns get 100′s if not thousands of questionners to fill out every cycle and not all of them will be filled by the candidates or even seen! The Obama campaign has clearly said, it is not a questioner the Senator had ever seen or gave the go ahead. It was a mistake, sure, but dont tell me you found one questioner and tell Obama’s position.
I suggest you check this source:
If Obama’s positions were the ones you said they are on that one questionner, it’s deceitful! Will you collaborate your points before actually firing your hoses?
Posted by: Wayne | December 12, 2007, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
We love Obama and he is the right person for the job. And we support him all the way. He was sent by god to us, so stop being negative.
Posted by: demos | December 12, 2007, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
The more of these really silly ‘outings’ I see about Obama, the more I am thinking that he really doesn’t have any dirt on him. When his kindergarten essays are brought up, or his campaign questionnaires are so scrutinized, it really shows that he is the cleanest, most electable politician. To find a juicy Clinton scandal you only have to go back as far as… last week? This week? When was the last fundraising issue raised?
Posted by: Karen | December 12, 2007, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
I don’t see it as a huge shift in anything. There was no specifc flip-flopping. It does smack of desparation, to go to such lengths to find ‘dirt’. That is all that it is, an attempt to discredit an opponent.
Obama/Biden ’08!
Posted by: Louis | December 12, 2007, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
You want to quote someone directly besides a Clinton spokesperson? I think you guys are desperate – just like the Clinton campaign – and no, I don’t think this will have an impact in Iowa. Again, just like the Clintons, you all are quite out of touch with middle America!
Posted by: MK | December 12, 2007, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
Hillary has been on every side of every major political issue over the last 8 years. But instead we keep hearing about Obama’s “changing positions.”
Posted by: nate | December 13, 2007, 12:28 am 12:28 am
Hillary and her staff are making real mileage out of the tactics she learned as a mentor of the Marxist Saul Alinsky. The one on whom she wrote her college thesis. No wonder the Clintons stopped Wellesley College from releasing it. Go Barack, keep up the good work.
Posted by: gc | December 13, 2007, 1:36 am 1:36 am
if obama gets the democratic nomination then huckabee will make mince-meat out of him .please GOD help the U.S.A.
Posted by: caa loma | December 13, 2007, 3:21 am 3:21 am
Obama defines the Democratic primary race as pure outsider versus tainted insider. Regardless of whether Clinton has been ‘all over every issue’ he might possibly have been, too, and he is hypocritical for calling her too much of a politician.
Posted by: BDG | December 13, 2007, 10:04 am 10:04 am
This is ridiculous. As stated above, if this is the worst they can come up with on Obama, what’s the problem?
The Clinton campaign is attempting to keep media focus on campaign smears lest she be asked how she’d actually govern. Her platform of experience is a false one. If experience were that important, she’d bow out of the race as she’s flattened by the resumes of Biden, Dodd and Richardson. Instead, we’re supposed to consider experience at battling Republicans a top qualification for the White House.
I’d like to think we, as a country, are better than that. It’s past time to get beyond partisan battles.
The upside is that the Clintons are showing their true colors. In their minds, they’d all but signed an 8-year lease for the White House. Now that there’s serious competition for said lease, they’ll say and do nearly anything to get what they believe is theirs. The Clintons refuse to see that what’s best for them may not be best for the country.
Posted by: JR | December 13, 2007, 11:26 am 11:26 am
Sounds like Obama’s people can’t take the heat now that it has been directed toward them. Hillary has been in the kitchen a long time. Now it is Obama’s turn, and Oprah can’t be in there with him to defend him. He has to do it himself. Let the people hear the facts and decide for themselves. It’s time for full disclosure,just like Hillary has had full disclosure by Obama at the debates!
Posted by: Ray | December 13, 2007, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
This is a real deal-breaker for Obama. His narrative is one of integrity and principle leadership and here we have him flip-flopping on major issues without so much of a response from their campaign. Instead, they attack. He will not last a minute in the General elections.
He is an ex-cocaine user who flip-flops on major issues, who has lied a number of times about his campaign and his opponents’, he has used a loop hole in the law to force a competition in Iowa and he is the least experience candidate since World War II. They haven’t responded well to any of these points.
Their response to the cocaine use alone speaks volumes as to how they would be able to manage a full on attack. “I find drug use to be a waste of my time” – that’s what Obama said about his cocaine use. Not that it’s dangerous. Not that it has the capacity to destroy lives. And he’s asking the people to trust his judgement???
Posted by: Ralph | December 13, 2007, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm