While Obama “poses” as good guy, his campaign continues to try to bully Hillary Clinton out of the race. Not the first time for these Chicago thugs.
Democratic Superdelegates Obama is trying to strongarm into supporting him know there is much about Obama we all do not know. Increasingly, it becomes obvious to the sentient that Obama is a flim flam man. Obama, like all flim flam con artists is also a methodical and repetitive liar.
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
You won’t see any of these stacked up Obama lies on television.
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.
Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.
But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.
What a shock. An inexperienced boob making mistakes.
Taken together — and combined with later policy pronouncements — the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues. [snip]
Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion. [snip]
The evolution continued at least through late last year, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire for a nonpartisan reproductive health group that answered a similar question with even more nuance.[snip]
Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”
He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.
But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws.
On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
After Politico’s story on the first questionnaire, Clinton aides seized on the handgun-ban answer in particular, which a campaign press release asserted called into question Obama’s electability.
That was a curious argument to make in a Democratic primary. But Republicans will certainly seek to make it in the general election if Obama is the Democratic standard-bearer against the presumptive GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Blame the staff, that’s what Obama does. You read it on Big Pink first.
It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences.[snip]
“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.
“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”
Unbelievable, another way of saying “liar”.
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.
Big Media will not take notice of serial liar Obama but the people will and do increasingly notice that Obama is a flim flam man and liar. Yesterday we noted the clumsy Obama as flim flam man is trying to charm people who are not taken in by his “pose”. In the birthplace of the Reagan Democrat Obama tried to pretend that he is not the Chicago thug insider that he proves every day to be. Pretending disdain for “designer beers” Obama posed as friend of the working class. Obama’s constituents, whom Obama’s slumlord friend Rezko tormented, could have used a friend to the working class.
More evidence of how the “Reagan Democrats” are not fooled by Obama’s schtick and poses came this morning.
While Democrats increasingly worry about winning ugly, Barack Obama was losing beautifully at a bowling lane in this central Pennsylvania city.
“My economic plan is better than my bowling,” Obama told fellow bowlers Saturday evening at the Pleasant Valley Recreation Center.
“It has to be,” a man called out. [snip]
Saturday night, it was Obama Bowl-a-Rama.
And it was clear from the start that Obama was way out of his league, certainly any bowling league.
Obama bowled a 37. Reagan Democrats know about is out of his league in running for president.
Meanwhile people powered Hillary was in the real world of North Carolina.
Hillary Clinton kicked off her North Carolina primary campaign last week at a technical school that bills itself “College for the Real World.” After some pleasantries and a stab at a basketball reference, she began to outline what she called “the problems that we face” as a nation.
“Our American workers work harder and are more productive than anyone,” she said. “And yet for too many, here in North Carolina and elsewhere, that hard work doesn’t seem to be paying off.”
That same morning, Barack Obama hit New York City for a speech on America’s housing crisis. He opened with a 300-word history of the Founding Fathers’ views on free markets.
“In the more than two centuries since then,” he said, “we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson—self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen.”
The difference in those speeches helps explain Clinton’s success in fashioning herself as the “Working Class Hero” of the 2008 Democratic presidential race.
Hillary is people powered because Hillary understands what ordinary Americans who can’t afford to shop at Whole Foods are suffering.
Clinton makes for an unlikely modern Rosie the Riveter: a suburban-born corporate lawyer, a former first lady who never worked an assembly line, never picketed her employer. But across the country, particularly in manufacturing hubs feeling the pains of globalization, blue-collar voters have kept her candidacy alive.
Voters, analysts and political strategists trace that support to lingering affection for Clinton’s husband and the economic boom of his presidency — but only in part.
They also say a range of strategies has won Clinton working-class backing: her focus on economic problems and solutions, the clarity of her speeches, and a personal story of trial and survival that, in its own way, hits home with many voters suffering financially this year.
“For blue-collar Democratic voters choosing a candidate, the first question is usually, ‘Does he or she understand my life?‘ ” said Mark Kornblau, who advised former Sen. John Edwards in his unsuccessful presidential bid this year. He said Clinton has improved in that area over the course of the campaign. “I don’t think it’s natural, and I don’t think it comes from any real life experience … but she uses language that really describes what’s going on in people’s lives.” [snip]
Melissa Dunston and her husband bought a new house two years ago. She lost her job before they made the first payment. They started a trucking company. When fuel prices shot up last year, they lost that too.
Dunston identifies with Clinton’s public struggles. “To have been through everything she has, she really is ‘I have overcome,’ ” said Dunston, a public school teacher’s assistant.
Clinton’s campaign doesn’t have all the money it needs to keep pace with Obama, she added, “but they still make it. You think, ‘I can relate to that.’ “
Contribute directly to the campaign:
But the blue-collar vote delivered campaign-sustaining victories to Clinton in Ohio and Texas earlier this month. In both states, exit polls showed her beating Obama by 15 percentage points among voters who lacked a a college degree. She also won solid majorities among those who earn $50,000 a year or less.
Those voters figure to drive primary results in West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and North Carolina, which vote May 6; and Pennsylvania, next on the calendar, where polls indicate Clinton leads handily. They’re also a key piece of the Clinton campaign’s electability-themed argument to “superdelegates,” the Democratic elites who are all but assured of deciding the party’s nominee.
Barack Obama is today’s George Bush. Obama promises unity but so far has only served division. Obama supporters now threaten death and destruction at the Democratic Party National Convention if their precious Obama does not get the nomination. Obama supporters are threatening a fight at the convention. Our response: Knives or Guns?
Hillary has made it clear: we are convention bound. We will fight for the rights of Michigan and Florida voters. To get to Denver, Hillary needs financing, today.
We’ve helped before. Let’s help today. We’ll help tomorrow.
Contribute directly to the campaign: