On the day the NY Times endorses Hillary in a strong and balanced editorial, making the case for her candidacy but not overlooking the brutal campaign, the LA Times brings us a new report of more mysteriously arcane Obama votes in the Illinois State Senate.
These six votes, not to be confused with the over 100 "present" votes, are the so-called "mistake" votes.
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
In their endorsement of Hillary, the NY Times said Obama was "undefined," but "incandescent." The more hard-core reporting that comes out of the nation's best newspapers, the less and less "incandescent" he seems, and all the more "undefined."
The LA Times article is analyzed below, with link.
Here is the report from the LA Times:"Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes".
These six votes are yet another indiciation of the phenomenon known as the OBAMAFOG already discussed in these pages, wherein Obama votes in a way that allows him to either obscure his real position on an issue or avoid it entirely for political cover, and later offer an obfuscatory circuitious explaination that even further obscures what his postion was and may be currently.
Regarding the vote that stripped millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side, the LA Times reports:
That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.
The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.
But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."
This was the obfuscatory tactic Obama chose to employ in dealing with a 1997 casino bill on which he had tried to play both sides:
On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.
The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.
Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling.
The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."
The vote that stripped millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side was more controversal, and much more politically fraught:
On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.
Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."
A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.
Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.
How can a man now running for President of the United States not be aware that he voted no on one of the most debated and most contenious pieces of legistation in the Illionis State Senate in that legislative year?
Anyway the obamaramas try to spin this it is bad news. They may try to argue that six out of 4000 is a drop in the bucket, but the six were on highly contentious issues about which Obama was publicly known to be conflicted.
Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."
You can't "goof" in the Oval Office. You can't have "a lapse in attention," or "stumbly fingers" when those fingers are about to unleash a nuculear bomb. You can't be perpetually "undecided" on an issue or wait until the right pieces fall in place the right way to then take what is at best a mild stand.
You can't "be confused about how to handle the issue" when the issue is the war in Iraq or health care or energy policy or the unraveling of Pakistan.