He did not answer the question.

And he should also explain why he voted present on a bill that would ban the establishment of sex shops next to schools and churches.

Or will he simply dodge the question again?

He did not answer the question.

Oh geez. And people complained about Kerry? Kerry came off as 10x more concise than Obama did in this interview. And this is the kind of thing that is a killer in the GE. Even liberals think that the records should be sealed.

that were designed to give cover to other Democrats on some sensitive bills. My understanding is that Illinois Planned Parenthood approved that strategy on some occasions.

Being the only legislator to vote present on a bill that seems like a no-brainer is harder to explain.

I have mentioned to many Obama supporters that I worry about him not being vetted and therefore being vulnerable to the Republican attack machine. It's amazing to me how many people wave this off as being no big deal.

One guy I know who is caucusing for Obama told me that when the Republican attacks come, Obama will just rise above it, and his stature will increase. You have to be kidding me. This guy is old enough to remember how well that worked for Dukakis.

Oh no, he didn't!

A total waffle non-answer.

This is a deal breaker for me. The thought of another 4 years with a professional waffler, mincing and parsing words while people suffer, is simply unacceptable.

Watching his answer, the one thing I noticed is that he doesn't seem to even really know about the bill she's talking about, which reminds me of the senator in Farenheit 9/11 explaining how most senators don't read the bills they vote on.

Watch it again and see if it looks like he has any real knowledge of the bill.

Like I said, deal-breaker. He chose to cover his butt politically instead of being honest.

Oh yeah, he was really "cought" on that one!  And goodness knows, we would never want a nominee that has not already survived "the politics of personal destruction."  Cynical much?

Has Jerome officially come out for Hillary yet?

Jerome,

This isn't rocket science.

I used to be the Administrator of the Senate Human Resources Committee in the Oregon State Senate.  Hundreds of bills came before our committee each session:

Some of the bills were intended to achieve a goal that I and my Chair opposed.  We buried these.

Some bills were well written and intended to achieve a goal we supported.  We passed these.

Most bills were intended to address real public policy problems but were either poorly drafted our faced political opposition that made them impossible to move, as written.  We worked on these and tried to fix drafting problems and work out political problems.

Obama is talking about the same thing.  Bills came to the floor.  If he supported the goal, but there was some problem with the way it was written, he would vote present.  

Rather than demonstrating that he was a political coward, this practice demonstrates that he was a concientious and thoughtful legislator.  I think you understand this, but are just taking another opportunity to take another pot shot at Obama.

By the way, I am curious as to why you spend so much time criticizing Obama.  You aim far more of your posts at Obama than either criticizing Clinton, or supporting your preferred candidate, Edwards.  I think your credibility would be enhanced if we understood, why?  Do you actually prefer Clinton, to Obama, as a second choice?  Do you not see that Clinton is a bigger obstacle to your candidate than Obama?  

You know that I strongly disagree with your take on Obama, but these questions are sincere.  I really would like to know why you seem to aim the vast majority of your fire at Obama.

I've read your diary twice now and I still can't figure out your point.  What are you saying, that legislators should not concern themselves with whether the bills are unconstitutional or can be overturned in the courts?  He is a lawyer and a constitutional law professor, he has some knowledge in this area.  And the objection to this one bill really makes me wonder what the point is.  As Mika points out, he was the only senator not to vote yes on the bill.  If the objection is ducking tough bills, that's not the way you do it by standing out alone.  

The sex shop bill is another case where the criticism against it honestly frightens me.  What is pornographic or not, and what is good for our schools is clearly a City matter, not a State.  To violate that leads us down a path straight to the type of legislating morality the Republicans want. The cities and towns are more than equipped to handle their own zoning.  Is there no principles you partisans aren't willing to compromise on to artificially tear down your opponent?

130 present votes out of more than 4000.  56 of them as part of a Democratic block against the Republican budgets, leaves you with 74.  7 of them as part of a successful strategy crafted in concert with Planned Parenthood to block the erosion of Row v. Wade, brings the total to 67.  Another 36 bills where he either stood alone or in a group of less than 5, to object to the crafting of the bill or the language, leaves you with 31 votes - less than 1%.  And what is this supposed to prove?

The "present" issue has been out for a while now, doesn't Obama have any records detailing the legislative history of some of these bills.  His problem here is not so much the "present" vote, but his explanation.  Saying things like "poor structuring" and lumping it in with other "present" seemed vague and evasive.   It was a good initial strategy to put the 130 in context of 4,000, but once his campaign saw that it wasn't going to be enough, they should have been better prepared.

The more troubling aspect is that he sounds so confident that the MSM is not going to follow up. Mica did not follow up. I do not trust Mica it was staged question.

this is on the level with saying Hispanics would never vote for Obama the dat before Obama gets the endorsement of a leading Iowa spanish newspaper....where's the mea culpa on that one?

"Upper left" above is absolutely right.

People who don't understand Obama are idiots. Real idiots.
The idea of being "vetted" is stupid. Obama is not a negative-minded candidate. He is, by nature, a optimistic, pragmatic and humble guy.
 People are just jealous. WE LOVE OBAMA. Why don't you guys just vote for your "vetted" candidate Hillary and be quiet? Are you jealous of the love of Obama?

Obama is going to win and this is why he is attracting positive energy.

Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Top Republicans

Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Obama leads 53%-35%

Obama leads 47%-42%

Obama leads 48%-39%

Obama leads 47%-43%

Obama leads 52%-36%

The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12-14, 2007.

Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.

Clinton leads 46%-44%

Huckabee leads 48%-43%

Giuliani leads 46%-42%

McCain leads 49%-42%

Clinton leads 48%-42%

Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina would beat Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, but would lose to Giuliani and McCain, the Zogby survey shows.

Edwards leads 50%-38%

Edwards leads 47%-41%

Giuliani leads 45%-44%

McCain leads 46%-42%

Edwards leads 51%-35%

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.

Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.

In polling stretching back to last year, Zogby International has identified moderates and independents as key voting demographics in the 2008 election cycle.

Among Republicans, McCain performs the best among moderates in the general election match-ups, with Huckabee running a close second. Romney and Thompson run worst - in prospective contests against Obama, the Democrat leads Thompson 59% to 27%, and leads Romney by a 62% to 23% margin. Obama leads all five Republicans among moderates. Against Clinton, McCain and Huckabee lead among moderates, while the Democrat leads the other three Republicans.

For a detailed methodological statement on this poll, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmet h.dbm?ID=1241

yeah she's vetted alright, when she loses because people simply don't want to hear her voice or see her condecending tone on their tv sets don't say you weren't warned. Everyone I know including quite a few dems find her personality repulsive. Obama doesn't need to go on likability tours.

don't think so, my candidate doesn't have half the counrty that will never vote for him and he doesn't lose to McCain in national polls.

No likability tours needed for Obama! OBAMA IS THE BEST!

Do bloggers on MyDD just take turns promoting their own and dissing the other? Where is the intellectual honesty? Bloggers or propagandists??

I've not lined up behind a candidate as I have substantive concerns about all of them. At this point, I'm leaning to write-in Howard Dean.

That being said, I think the progressive blogosphere may need to adapt its own 11th commandment -- be responsible in parsing a candidate's record, statements or kindergarten essays.

Valid criticism absolutely has its place in vetting candidates. However, I'm not convinced that a microscopic examination of decade-old activities without context serves any purpose than to drive further cynicism about politics.

There isn't a person alive who could withstand that level of hoarde-like scrutiny. And we wonder why strong progressive citizens refuse to enter public service when all they have to look forward to is being ground into hamburger by savage oppo researchers and a gleeful media only too glad to participate in political assassination by a thousand papercuts.

Quite rightly, we rail about the rampant bias, ownership consolidation, and the numerous inadequacies of today's media oligopoly. Yet, hit jobs like this -- when lobbed at a political foe -- are celebrated as brave journalism and a great service to the voting public.

Thanks but no thanks. The newsbabe with blood dripping from her fangs isn't a credible source of information about a rush hour fender bender nor selecting the leader of the free world.

Obama would be slaughtered by Republicans.

Jerome:

At first, I thought it was lack of vetting. However, watching Obama closely now for many months, I have come to a different conclusion.

It is not that we don't know his positions. It is not that he is a young politician still forming his positions. Instead, his entire political strategy is to not have any positions.

He's a tinker-bell candidate -- an imaginary symbol of "good" dancing around the room like an ephemeral light. Pinning him down with issues destroys the magic.

Figuring this out finally explained the question that most Democrats asked a year ago, "why is running now, before he has any experience?" The answer is that experience (i.e. having to take political stands) would destroy his entire messianic savior political strategy.

He's never stuck around long enough to do any heavy lifting. He gets elected to the Illinois state senate and two years later tries to beat the incumbent Democrat for the US Congress. Two years after losing that race, he's running for US Senate. The day he enters the US Senate, he's running for President.

He doesn't want to sully himself with a record of accomplishment or positions.

And on a stylistic front, Obama sure does stutter a lot for somebody who is supposed to be an effective communicator.

If a law is defective or unconstitutional, the answer - it seems to me - is to vote against the law.  A "No" on an unconstitutional or questionable law is the right answer.  Not "present," which obscures  your position.  Unless, of course, you want to obscure your position.  But then, why vote present on anything unless that's the goal.

I'm shocked he wasn't more prepared for this question and he's lucky he didn't get harder follow up.  Even if all he has is a bullshit answer, then he should at least be prepared to give it so that it sounds like convincing bullshit.

The "present" vote is designed to give legislators political cover.  It lets them vote "no" (since present is the equivalent of no) without taking as much political heat.  I think it's a lousy system.  I don't necessarily blame politicians for taking advantage of it, since that's what politicians do.  I do think those who have done so, really shouldn't be suggesting that their competitors are "triangulators" who are less than forthright about their positions on issues.   Or argue that they have some kind of unique political courage.  People in glass houses and everything.

"V for Vendetta"

Is there a chance we could see his entire answer, or is that too much to ask?

Obama is unelectable.  He cannot provide a compelling explanation for these present votes, and many of these votes are very problematic.  And I imagine he will have a more difficult time rationalizing his desire to ban handguns in 1996.

And do not forget that some of those present votes were cast in order to avoid assuming an uncomfortable stance during his abortive campaign against Bobby Rush, who is a true progressive with broad support in his Congressional district.  This may explain why Obama failed to vote on Kyl-Lieberman and on the MoveOn resolution.

What if he had a real race for Senate in 2004?  It Mike Ditka had run in 2004, at least Obama would have had a real race, which would aid the vetting process.  Obama has never won an election that wasn't a slam dunk and that is scary.

So, Obama voting "present" on a bill in the Illinois legislature is bad and inexcusable, but Hillary voting for war in both Iraq and Iran is okay, and won't ever be brought up by the Republicans?

Please.

Best case- he really did believe there was a constitutional issue that merited some attention that a present vote would bring.

Worst case- he wanted to put something in the bill to address his concerns that he felt strongly about, the sponsor said no, he got pissed off and voted present.  All knowing that his vote would not affect the outcome and prevent the objective of the bill with which he obviously agreed.

It's probably some of both or maybe it was just a mistake, big deal  We're down to parsing one vote out of 4,000 cast.  Nobody said and nobody thinks that he's perfect.

It occurred to me that there may be a better explanation for Obama's awkwardness around the question of his objecting to the sealing the court records of abuse victims. Remember that his two well funded opponents, Blair Hull in the primary and Jack Ryan in the general, withdrew after sealed court records alleging abuse were publicized. Since Obama had no compunction publicizing sealed records to win his Senate campaign he can't repudiate his objections to rape shield laws, so at best he has to talk around MSNBC's question. But at the same time his habit of exploiting the victims of abuse to win campaigns would kill his presidential campaign if it got much publicity.

OMG! Is this ALL you've got to take him down with? That Obama is cautious and uses tactical votes to help tweak a bill? You're attacking him because he's THOUGHTFUL? Isn't that the problem with our current president? If this is the worst you can come up with then I am certain Barack will wipe the floor with any of the Republican candidates. I'd rather have a President who is careful then one who actually would consider bombing Iran unilaterally.

There's an astonishing amount of gall by Obama to denounce Hillary Clinton as a triangulator as he has had a history of doing worse: not taking a position at all when it really counts.

So you are asking me to believe that Barack Obama is somehow against privacy for sexual abuse victims.

Barack Obama thinks that the names of sexual abuse victims should be made public thus increasing their agony.

Pleeeeze! Maybe his answer wasn't specific enough but don't ask me to believe this man isn't in favor of a law protecting abuse victims!

1) Nice clip -- it ends right when Obama says, "Here's the bottom line," so we do not even get to listen to the full context of the answer.

2) It takes political courage not to just vote yes to pass stuff that is popular despite one's belief it is unconstitutional.

3) As to the ridiculous argument that only judges are supposed to consider constitutionality, that's plainly wrong: executives, legislators, and members of the bar (even school board members in my state) are sworn to uphold the constitution when they take the oath of office. No ethical legislator should ever vote yes on a measure they believe to be unconstitutional. No ethical chief executive should ever sign such a measure. You don't just pretend the constitution is nobody's business except the courts'.

"To Know me is to love me!"   I am still trying to figure out why we are supposed to love him, honestly.

I am not attacking Obama,  but I am questioning "What exactly has he done that is supposed to impress us so much?"

I can name 100's of causes that Hillary has supported over the years, and legislation that she has worked to pass.  I know why I am a Hillary supporter.

What exactly has Obama done?  I have looked at his record, and I cant find anything impressive except good speeches.  

Thank the stars that Mr. Armstrong has at last realized what so many others within and outside the Democratic Party have long understood: Senator Obama has not been vetted.

There is no more lethal aspect to a neophyte politician vying for the White House than that.

And although the MSM and the anti-Clinton talking heads from Russert to Matthews to Williams never cease in their efforts to foist this novice as the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, clearly years before Senator Obama is ready, not all the collective media powers and Oprah Winfrey megamillions will ever be able to send him to the White House.

Such a candidacy in 2008 would be a non-starter.  Senator Obama's past is so convoluted; his holier-than-thou attitude so off-setting, his pseudo-intellectual and social predilections so out of the mainstream, that most Democrats will find themselves wanting to sit this election out.

And that is even before the GOP Right Wing has not permanently altered his image so that his very name will convey "Osama," rather than "Obama" and his middle name will read mnemonically like a deposed and executed dictator of very recent memory.

Driven by an ego highly reminiscent of candidate George Walker Bush in 2000, who was similarly anointed by the MSM, Senator Obama speaks in such platitudes and condemns with abandon seasoned veterans with longer public voting records than the time he has been out of puberty, so as to make many a keen observer nauseous.

And like GWB in 2000, he is painted by his adherents as being "folksy," "anti-Washington," "a novice with judgment" (somehow independent of experience), and of course, the "antidote to the Clintons."

But is that really where voters of this nation want to be today?  Particularly after the calamitous years of GWB, any casual observer would have to conclude that a "folksy character with little Washington experience" is the very last quality in a President the bulk of United States citizens would seek after.

The prayer for Senator Obama's supporters is that those wholly unrepresentative voters--"indies and leaners"--in Iowa and New Hampshire will somehow change the national dynamic among hard-core Democrats afterwards.

To which another casual observer would have to say: "When pigs fly!"

In the end, the bedrock Democrats will not abandon the Clintons, ever and always a tandem.

The very survival of the United States now depends upon it.

I agree Obama has not been fully vetted.  There is no way someone who has never ran before could be fully vetted but his book went a long way toward that.  Again, one day he is criticized for his candor in that book, the next day he is a complete unknown with deep, dark secrets.  The real problem is that Hillary has been fully vetted and the results are awful, the highest negatives of any American politician.  

I agree Obama has not been fully vetted.  There is no way someone who has never ran before could be fully vetted but his book went a long way toward that.  Again, one day he is criticized for his candor in that book, the next day he is a complete unknown with deep, dark secrets.  The real problem is that Hillary has been fully vetted and the results are awful, the highest negatives of any American politician.  

Armstrong does not understand the way legislation is crafted in Illinois senate.. or he is just being obtuse cus he hates obama.

He is worthless as any kind of analyst now as he is off the deep end with his bias against Obama.
he is now a broken record..I dont even have to read his stuff anymore...obama stinks, obama sucks..rinse and repeat.
Glomming on to these HRC/Edwards talking points,which are patently ridiculous, shows the kind of contempt he has for any readers here. Cheap tricks,ploys, whatever are not worthy discussion points for anyone half serious about politics.

This is obviously a pro-Hillary site. Jerome campaigning for blogger in chief.

Has anyone noticed that any time he gets a tough question, he starts with "Look..."

Personally I find that really condescending.  As in "Look, you moron, you just don't get it."  Although the problem is probably more on my end than his, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to find that off-putting.  If he can quit smoking (has he, btw?), he should be able to make this adjustment too.  That is if someone calls his attention to it.

As for the "It might have been unconstitutional" argument, that hypothetically could have been his genuine reason for a present vote.  But it shows political naivete at best.  Politically, that's a mighty hard vote to explain.

This entire post, not to mention the entire effort of Team Hillary to make this an issue, is completely bogus.  Has any one changed their mind about anything as a result of this post?  I doubt it.

All of the usual suspects showed up to beat their chests and exclaim their outrage at Obama's actions.  All the usual Obama supporters showed up to point out that Jerome and Team Hillary are trying to make a mountain out of a non-issue.  Obama's "present" votes were a common practice in Illinois.

This is all part of the "spaghetti" approach to political criticism taken by many of the Obama- bashing crowd:  throw a lot of stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Lame Jerome, very lame.  Give a real argument for once and not a diatribe that comes off more as personal vendetta than real opposition.

I have been an Edward's supporter since he announced.  In fact, I thought he should have won the nomination last time.

I'll admit Obama is my second choice.

That said, the criticism leveled in this post is really weak.  His answer was that at times he a
agreed with a policy in a bill but not with the language.

Regardless, this is a tempest in a teapot. Does anyone really believe he opposed the policy in question?

I'm in the "what's the big deal" camp. My sense was that he simply couldn't remember what that vote was about (out of the many) so he gave a non-committal answer. So what? All politicians do that, including HRC and JRE.

It's not even close to Kerry. Kerry's waffling problem wasn't with answering reporters' questions; it was with his stump speech and his debate performances. Too long-winded. Messages weren't crisp. No one can expect a candidate to be perfectly on-point in every single interview. I agree that Kerry has developed a little senatoritis during the last few years. But he seems to have gotten over that in the last couple of months. Dashing all of your expectations for him because of his non-committal answer to one innocuous interview question is kind of absurd, imho. It's holding him to way too high of a standard.

Frankly, this smacks of Dean's "scream" incident. It can hear it: "Dean was never vetted. Toss him overboard." So that's what happened! Great. And we end up with... 8 more years of Clinton.

God Jerome sucks.  "He thought he was a judge..."  Um, how about a distinguished professor of Constitutional Law?  I'll take Obama's opinion on constitutionality issues over that of 99% of the judges out there any day.

Obama's answer to this question was not remotely dodgy.  He completely answered the question.  

Of course Obama fucking supports the rights of victims of sexual abuse.  What kind of political bet would he be hedging by not voting yes for political reasons?  None!  That would make NO SENSE AT ALL.

This actually shows that Obama was gutsy enough to stand up for his point of view when he thought a bill needed improvement, rather than being unafraid of how his vote would look later.  Refusing to vote for poorly constructed but well-intentioned legislation is dangerous politically but it's the right thing to do.  Good job, Obama.

This site is full of morons.

Hillary is so luck 2 have an entire blogging fansite. A fansite is what this sometimes seem like. I'm still looking forward 2 Jerome's post when he finaaly comes out the closet and says he's 4 Hillary.

I don't think Jerome is biased. I just think he doesn't "get it." Just as so much of the population didn't "get" that Jack Kennedy was something special, I think that Obama's magic has somehow eluded Jerome.

Obviously everyone makes mistakes. Obama's answer to one of many many thousands of questions he's gotten this month was, in fact, evasive.

I'm reluctant to catch on to a "movement" simply because a campaign calls it that. But Barack's beliefs, his style, and his heart are so obviously good that I don't understand why Jerome has made it his mission for the past couple weeks to criticize him alone. I think any of the top 6 Dem candidates would be fantastic. But what I'm sure of is that Obama is not THAT weak a candidate that he should merit the kind of blitzkrieg that has been aimed at him by this poster.

I definitely think that it would be good for Jerome to take an approach in which he identifies what motivates him as a voter and how those candidates fit into those preference guidelines. Kos has, at least, identified the candidate he's going to vote for. But to concentrate completely on Obama's faults is certainly to cover the candidates in a distorted fashion.

As an aside, I must admit I've gone back and edited this post numerous times as a result of Jerome's "ban" threat a few days ago.

Mistakes have been made on this blog. It's his prerogative, of course. But that's my two cents.

Obama is great with speeches or something he is reading or in reciting talking points but ask him a question that he doesn't have a talking point for and you can't figure out what he is talking about.... We have people who get all the way through school without learning to read... I feel that Obama has all the through this campaign without expressing a clear thought,  it's always read my book, that's covered in my speech, he's ducked any question about drugs, religion, heritage and much more because it is covered in his book and we shouldn't ask any questions... I have a lot of questions that are not answered and I don't want to read the book....

Just another reason he's toast in Virginia.