First, from a policy perspective, Obama has used his opposition to the Iraq War as proof positive that he has the credentials to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Claiming that he has consistently and forcefully opposed the war, he uses this issue to distinguish his record from that of the two other leading candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John Edwards, both of whom voted for the war's authorization in 2002. In so doing, Obama has suggested that he has the wisdom, the temperament, and the consistency to lead our great nation.
Second, from a more general perspective, Obama has tried to cast his candidacy as a modern day "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" -- a do-gooder "outsider" who adamantly rejects business-as-usual in Washington. To that end, he has consistently and forcefully suggested that he is not a status quo politician and that, unlike the others, he has the honesty and integrity desperately needed in the White House.
And so when Obama revealed -- with an assist from Tim Russert -- that his opposition to the war has not been consistent and that he, too, plays with the truth, he stripped his candidacy of its main sources of legitimacy.
To recap the pivotal moment: Obama was asked to respond to two statements he made in 2004.
- When asked how he would have voted on the 2002 Iraq resolution, then-Senate Candidate Obama responded, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."
- Obama followed up his answer by claiming, "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."
Wow. So much for the anti-Iraq war crusader who has "consistently" opposed the Bush Administration on this all-important issue.
But then, to make matters worse, Obama gave one of the most cynical justifications for his 2004 statements: "Now, Tim, that first quote was made ... during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq."
Wow again. So much for honesty, integrity, and an end to politics-as-usual.
Admittedly, I have been conflicted about my preference for President. As someone who served many years in the Clinton Administration, my strong support and deep respect for both Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson stems from seeing their work up close. And as someone who has many friends and former colleagues working for the Obama campaign -- people who have been inspired by their candidate's candor and vision -- I have been following his campaign with a great deal of interest and excitement.
Admittedly, too, I am not a litmus test voter. Although I have, in fact, been consistent in my opposition to the war, I won't judge candidates by this one issue alone. Rather, like most Americans, my decision will be based on a whole host of issues, including the candidates' veracity.
Sadly, for that reason, Obama's unexpected implosion on Sunday made the decision easier for me.
So much for Mr. Smith.
Paul Aronsohn, who served in the Clinton Administration, was the 2006 Democratic Congressional Candidate in New Jersey's 5th District.
Comments are closed on this story.