Here are ten troubling questions for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that he’d be wise to answer coming from me. If he’s the Democratic presidential nominee you can bank that John McCain and the GOP truth squad will ask him them. The questions were sent directly to him at his national campaign headquarters Friday, March 28. The questions are not campaign rhetoric, gossip, and partisan allegations. They are fully documented, and totally a matter of public record. If Obama won’t answer them, then the challenge is for his supporters to answer them point by point. This doesn’t mean hurling the usual cheap shot, brainless, personal invectives, name calling, personal insults, or character assassination. This is no substitute for factual answers.
You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that “perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.” This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same?
As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush’s disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why?
In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why?
Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon?
Chicago financier Tony Rezko has been accused of numerous financial illicit dealings.You have claimed that you did no political or personal favors for Rezko. Yet as an Illinois state legislator you wrote endorsement letters to government agencies on his behalf, as well as having conducted other documented financial transactions and dealings and with him. Why do you deny that you have no relationship with Rezko?
The head of your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama’s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. Why does she still have a principal financial role in your campaign?
You have taken money in past campaigns from straw donors. These are donors that have taken money from tainted and dubious sources and then contribute to your campaign under their names. You have talked much about financial openness in campaigns. Why did you take money from straw donors in the past?And do you take money from them now?
Following a speech by Hillary Clinton praising Lyndon Johnson for his role in helping pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an Obama campaign advisor privately released a four page memo urging hammering Clinton for denigrating Dr. King. Yet, you told reporters that neither you nor anyone in your campaign had made the accusation that Clinton denigrated King. Why did you say that when clearly it was the memo from your campaign advisor that triggered the media and public assault on Clinton regarding King?
You have not produced a single public document that would provide the public with greater insight and knowledge about legislation, initiatives proposed, your votes on key bills, and your attendance record during your terms in the Illinois legislature. Why?
You have repeatedly charged that Clinton violated a pledge not to put her name on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. However, neither Clinton nor any other Democratic contender pledged to the DNC not to have their name on the ballot. Three other candidates had their name on the ballot in addition to Clinton. Why do continue to make this claim that the other candidates, but especially Clinton, violated a pledge not to have their name on the Michigan ballot?
Obama’s campaign is based on the firm pillar that he represents a new, open, fresh, and transparent politics. He is the candidate that is the antithesis of the political duplicity, double dealing, evasions, lies and corruption that marred other candidates. Obama can prove it by answering these questions; questions that raise serious doubt about his contention that he represents a radical break from the political past. If he won’t answer them then will his supporters answer them for him? That’s again, before McCain asks them.Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other languages. He is also a social and political analyst and he appears on such TV programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR, The O'Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New America Media and a regular contributor to Black News.com, Alternet.com, BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post. He does a weekly commentary on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.
These are 10 excellent questions, Earl. You can bet that if Obama is not forthcoming, McCain will go after him on these points and he will not be buffaloed with BS. (McCain, as a wrestler at the Naval Academy, wasn't called "McNasty" for nothing.)
by
Richard Wise (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 4:23:05 PM
Several times I have read very satisfactory answers for questions number 1, 3 and 9. I remember the answers very well but will not give them here for two reasons. I do not have links to quotations from Obama answering those questions, although the answers to numbers 1 and 3 were full explanations and have been published in several places.. For number nine, I have read rather extensive and quite impressive analysis of his work in the Illinois state legislature. The second reason I do not give answers is, of course, Obama ought to be the one to give the answers in this format if he choses, as he has been directly challenged and should speak for himself. The fact this author asks questions relating to those issues where answers have been given a number of times makes me question the author's motivation for asking those particular questions. For the other seven questions I have no information.
Also, the author sent the questions on the 28th, a Friday and implies criticism that by sometime on Tuesday Obama has not answered, as if he owes you of all people an answer and right away. Is there a special reason that he does?
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 6:19:34 PM
I, for one, sure hope he does answer these questions to your satisfaction, because I wouldn't want him to be the only imperfect candidate for the presidency.
By-the-way, will you be writing a piece with at least ten troubling questions for Sen. Clinton to answer too? Or will it need to be a piece that contains 1,000 troubling questions to cover her?
by
im4unity (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 6:24:52 PM
I’m not sure McCain would ask all these questions due to the 'he who is without sin throw the first stone' politicians gentlemen’s agreement to ignore mutual elephants in the room. The Dr King allegations on the other hand might get an airing.
by
kwalsh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 7:21:35 PM
with no connections to his campaign, I am happy to take this opportunity to provide a response.
1. Why should any candidate, or in this case, partisan, speculate about a hypothetical? The fact is that Hillary Clinton cast her Senate vote in favor of a bill to authorize George W. Bush to use military force at his discretion. She did so with electoral political considerations foremost in mind. Barack Obama called the authorized war "dumb" in a public address when it was an unpopular position. He did not do so to ingratiate himself to the electorate. What ever you think of the war as an individual, these actions point up that Hillary Clinton is ambitious, monomaniacal and in tenuous touch with what is right. Barack Obama is rather more open and forthcoming.
2. The Foreign Relations Subcommittee does not have Afghanistan in its jurisdiction. That would be the Armed Services Committee which held two such hearings that were unattended by member Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama has been on the campaign hustings since the chairmanship of this subcommittee came to him in January of 2007, and as other senatorial candidates has been out of Washington for most of the interim.
3. His poor attendance in the Senate is explained, as above, by his being out campaigning for a higher office. That is the only reason, and is one he shares with Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. It has led to his missing 197 votes in the current Congress compared to Senator Clinton's 141 missed votes in this Congress. Before January of 2007, Obama missed only around a dozen votes since taking office.
How is it that you suggest that he has voted "present"? That is not an option in the United States Senate. A senator votes yes or no, or does not vote. He cast such votes during his service in the Illinois State Senate for a variety of reasons. In some cases, he agreed with parts of a bill but not the bill in its entirety. In some cases, he was holding out for concessions in the bill from the sponsors, and yes in a few cases there were, no doubt, political calculations. For you to suggest that it was a foible or flaw on his part is damnable slander.
4. I cannot provide an answer to this, so you will have to wait for a response from his campaign. However, I am not overly concerned that John "the Lobbyists' Friend and Lover" McCain would dare to breach the subject in any event.
5. Barack Obama has never denied a relationship with Antoin Rezko. Rezko himself, and consequently, any politicians that he has had dealings with have been investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald for two years without turning up any wrongdoing on the part of Barack Obama. Both Chicago newspapers have also been doing their own investigative work for a similar period with similar results. If you know of something other than that, I recommend that you report it. If not, then we can safely dismiss the subject as so much propaganda.
6. Was Ms. Pritzker charged with a crime? I seem to have missed it. Maybe you could check with her brother Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker, he served as national chairman of Citizens for Hillary. It seems from the thrust of your inquiry that you may be a member. Again here, you are suggesting guilt by association, an oh so Clintonian tactic, which is a standard that if applied to the other two major candidates for president would tar them as felons.
7. I, as an Obama supporter, cannot speak to this as I have never heard of it. You don't provide any more support for your charge than your naked assertion. If you are asking for my trust in this matter, you ask too much.
8. I can only speculate that he may have misspoke in response to a question before full information was available to him. I base this speculation on certain knowledge that he is normally forthcoming on all issues. Do not presume to compare this incident to assertions of Bosnian snipers.
9. These documents you refer to are public record. Why on earth should a candidate be required to do your research for you? Or, alternatively, is this simply a tactic you employ to create the false impression that the candidate is not forthcoming?
10.I don't recall Obama ever accusing Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel of violating a pledge, because they did not make that pledge. Hillary Clinton made that pledge and signed it, and she did violate her pledge.
It seems to me that if I have had such an easy time in answering these questions for you as simply an Obama supporter with no ties to his campaign, except for modest financial assistance, then you aren't motivated so much by curiosity or concern as by seeking a way to publish campaign propaganda. If you are wondering why I cited Hillary Clinton so much in these answers, it is because of the transparent nature of your tacit support which reeks throughout this effort.
The other day, I had to express my unadulterated disdain for one of Hillary's "investigative reporters" who was pushing this line, albeit not in such detail. Today, I wish to express my unadulterated disdain for you, one of Hillary's "analysts".
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1059 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 8:19:31 PM
You are clearly an ardent Obama supporter (nothing wrong with that).I am not, mainly because I question whether he can win the general election.If he does, I think he will have difficulty getting the Congress to implement his plans and programs unless there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.Even then, cooperation is likely to be grudging; Obama has developed a reputation as a showboat and credit-monger.
Here are some thoughts in reaction to your responses to Mr. Hutchinson’s questions.As you will see, in some areas we agree; in others we do not.My numbers correspond to yours.
1.There is a timing mismatch here.Obama made his remarks to the effect that he is not against all wars, just “dumb wars,” on October 2, 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago.Congress did not authorize an attack on Iraq until October 11, 2002.
Being against “dumb wars” is not a hard sell at an anti-war rally – it was exactly what the crowd wanted to hear.Come to think of it, it’s not a hard sell anywhere.Would anyone actually be in favor of a dumb war? Cast in that light, he really didn't say anything at all ... but it was a great speech.
2.The Foreign Relations Committee does indeed have Afghanistan in its purview.Example: S. Res. 34: “A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.”The bill was introduced by Sen. Kerry, co-sponsored by Sens. Biden, Dodd, and Feingold.There has been no action on the bill since Jan. 18, 2007.
Notwithstanding the candidates’ need to campaign, a senator’s first responsibility is to represent his constituents in the Senate, not to represent himself on the campaign trail.Personally, I think all three Senators should have taken leaves or resigned, as provided by the 17th Amendment, before they relegated Senate service to a part-time job.Their constituents have had less-than-full representation for more than a year, while the senators collected full pay and benefits.
3.“Damnable slander”?No it’s not.Confusion, maybe, or misunderstanding.Besides, I think it would be libel, not slander.The 100+ “present” votes in the Illinois Senate deserve a fuller explanation.A “present” vote is meaningless except as a way for a politician to vote “nay” without having to admit he voted “nay” – to have his cake and eat it, too.
4.It might seem sensible to avoid such a topic but McCain may well bring this up first just to put his opponent on the defensive.Once the question is asked, it needs to be answered, not deflected or parried.Besides, McCain has the easier job here: all he has to do is scratch Obama's veneer. His own veneer is long gone. "When you wrestle with a pig, expect to get dirty."
5.If Obama did legal work for Rezko, then the nature of that relationship would be privileged, of course.I do think Obama’s “bone-headed mistake” land deal, as well as his relationship with Nadhmi Auchi, need some more sunlight.
6.This is not “guilt by association”; you yourself point out that Ms. Pritzker is not guilty of anything.Both candidates need the Pritzker family’s money.And for the kind of money they bring to the table, the Pritzkers can have any jobs they want.That’s just practical politics.We may not like it but it’s real.
7.I agree, more factual information is needed here.
8.If he did not know or was unsure, then the proper response would have been, “I am not aware … I’ll look into it,” and not a flat denial.If he did know, then he clearly misrepresented the truth.
9.You ask, “Why on earth should a candidate be required to do your research for you?”Because he’s the guy who wants to be elected!Nobody requires it, of course.
10.To whom did she make that pledge, and when? Were there reciprocal pledges? You don't make an offer without getting something in return. Something tells me that if Obama thought he could win Michigan he would have had his name on that ballot.You don’t win elections by staying off the ballot and then accusing your opponent of dirty tricks.By staying off the ballot, Obama came across (to me) as either self-righteous, disingenuous or naïve.
Obama's Michigan supporters were free to vote for “Uncommitted” as a proxy for Obama and they did.The result: Clinton, 55%; Uncommitted, 40%; Kucinich, 4%; Dodd, 1%; Gravel, 0%. Clinton won and those (and Florida's) delegates must be counted.
A concluding thought: both campaigns need zealous, committed volunteers.Neither one benefits from mock outrage or indignation.Let’s save that for the Republicans.
by
Richard Wise (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 8:52:00 AM
There is no way to run a political campaign in this country right now without dealing with people of dubious connection or history. If this is the best you can come up with, I'd say Obama is golden, because he can hammer the hell out of McCain for his flipflops and double dealing.
by
Morgaine Swann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 12:24:08 AM
Obama was for the war, just not under Bush. Now that the war is not popular, he is against the war. I guess anyone can change their mind. Obama will say he is for what ever he thinks the people want to hear just like any politician.
The only way to figure out Obama or any other politician is to look at their past record. Obamas past is limited when it comes to the national political world. 2 years is not much time to get to know what kind of politician he really is.
As a person we don't really know Mr. Obama or do we? I remember a politician that spoke like Obama. His nick name was "Slick Willy" because he could talk his way out of any controversy. I think you might remember him, Bill Clinton.
It wasn't until they really put the screws to him that the lies just could no longer be believed. I'm waiting for Obamas half truths to do him in. This time it was not a stain on a dress, but a stain on the country.
He gave a great speech that no one can remember except that he did not like what his grandmother said about black men when they were in a group coming toward her. This made him cringe but his good old "uncle" Wright is just a crazy old man. That is why Obama spent his adult life learning from him.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 537 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 1:40:37 AM
that I was fired up and ready to kick some ass over the 9/11 incident........and was ready to authorize war on any country found guilty of such actions.............Thanks to our mainstream media hype, I can see where most people could get caught up in the anger and be led to make a bad judgement call............O'bama, Hillary or any of them..............
But years later, it's a different story.................the ones who are still pushing this war mongering can't be making reasonable judgement calls...........they are filling their pockets...........and I'll be damned to hell if I allow my children's children pay for this insanity............
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 4:53:28 AM
your little comment here is so small, so lame, so absent of substance, we could use it as an example of what a commenter says when he has no evidence, no facts and just the desire to throw aspersions and dirt. You can do better. Are you so desperate already?
Maslow said, "If all you have is a nail, everything is a hammer." Is slick willy all you have? Because he's a Clinton, not an Obama. And it looks like McCain is a slippery and slimy as Bill, who I'm not arguing with you on. Never liked him much myself.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1643 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 6:54:38 AM
shall we prepare 10 equally important issues/questions for Mrs. Clinton to answer................let's say just to keep it balanced?......................
Personally I think I could come up with 30 or 40 real quick like............
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 4:36:10 AM
Am I naive not to see this as a hit job against Obama?
I think #'s 4 and 5 should be at the head, but yes, he will be dogged by some if not all of these questions as the campaign progresses. Clinton's flaws will become moot if Obama wins the nomination. McCain's flaws can be sidelined with a sufficiently aggressive "Swift Boat" campaign. I don't think the article suggests either of them would make a better president because of these 10 questions.
by
Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 191 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 9:01:37 AM
