Sen. Obama's got a history of skipping votes and blaming others. Or excusing his absence or a "present" vote by saying the vote didn't matter. Take the MoveOn vote - Hillary refused to slam MoveOn over their ad re Gen. Petraeus (sp?). BO said the vote didn't matter - his campaigning was more important.
Then there's his failure to show up for the vote on Kyl/Lieberman resolution. BO loves to slam Hillary with her vote, failing to mention she played a key role in declawing that resolution, or that he skipped that vote - choosing instead to campaign in New Hampshire that morning. When anyone challenges him on this, he claims he never knew about the vote and lays the blame squarely at the feet of Sen. Reid.
Now in last night's debate, when he was asked why he never held a substantive meeting or hearing of his Sen. subcommittee, he said he'd only been chair since this campaign began - meaning he was too busy running for his next job to do the job he's currently getting paid to do. And I have to wonder how he'll pin this one on someone else - his target or scapegoat most likely being Hillary.
Make the jump - there's more...
First, I thought it’s be useful to take a look at the Wiki entry for BO's subcommittee - the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs - maybe see what this subcommittee has jurisdiction over...
The Subcommittee on European Affairs is responsible for United States relations with the countries on the continent of Europe, except the states of Central Asia that are within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. It also oversees U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, relations with the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.
This subcommittee is also responsible for all matters within the region under its jurisdiction with respect to terrorism and non-proliferation, crime and illicit narcotics, U.S. foreign assistance programs, and the promotion of U.S. trade and exports.
I’d say all that’s pretty important given the state of the world right now and yet, after over a year as chairman of this subcommittee, BO’s not seen fit to convene even one substantive policy meeting or conduct a single hearing.
Now let’s take a look at why these policy meetings and hearings are important. From a December 29th article on Salon.com – Obama’s European Problem...
Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January. That startling fact, first uncovered by Steve Clemons, who blogs on the Washington Note, prompted acid comment in Europe about the Illinois senator's failure to visit the continent since assuming the committee post, and even speculation that he had never traveled there except for a short stopover in London.
But why should those questions matter to Americans who consider Senate hearings so much useless verbiage?...
The simple answer to the first question is that Senate hearings do not merely provide occasions for grandstanding as many voters may suspect, but fulfill a critical purpose in providing information and perspective to lawmakers. In the Senate, the foreign relations subcommittees have few direct legislative responsibilities, but they have traditionally gathered substantive research for the committee itself and for the rest of the Senate.
Ritch points out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change -- and of course, the undermining of the foundations of the Atlantic alliance by the Bush administration. There is, indeed, almost no issue of current global interest that would have fallen outside the subcommittee's purview.
Now BO’s been campaigning as the squeaky-clean candidate of hope and change but as far as I can tell, it’s just more of the same. He’s gone pretty negative where Hillary’s concerned and no one’s really called him on any of it yet. I’m sure if they do though he’ll just say Hillary made me do it!. Check this out...
Source
Obama's Negative Campaigning
2/25/2008 5:57:37 PM
Today, Howard Wolfson said the following about the Obama campaign on a conference call:
"I think it is true that every time the Obama campaign in this campaign has attacked Senator Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacked her veracity, attacked her credibility, said that she would say or do anything to get elected, the press has largely applauded him."
(Click here for more and for hyper-links to original sourcing)
Journalists are finally starting to pick up on the disconnect between BO’s flowery rhetoric, and his actions. Take a look at what Sean Wilentz had to say in todays New Republic...
After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.
Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place."
And as for his Ohio mailers lying about Hillary’s NAFTA stand...
Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.
And he goes on to talk about how BO played the race-baiting card to the fullest extent possible...
The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.
Yeah yeah yeah. I know... this is politics and everyone plays to win. But here’s the thing... BO’s running as the candidate of change who’ll bring everyone together but he’s doing it by going negative on Hillary and if someone calls him on it you just know he won’t be able to own up to it and say ya know you’re right – I am full of shit and I need to stop it.
Like I said, I’m sure he’ll find a way to pin all this stuff re his failures as a subcommittee chairman on Hillary (ie it's her fault for bringing this up in the first place). Sorry but that’s NOT the kind of leadership I’m looking for.
I found the following clip from last night's debate on YouTube. First part deals with the whole Subcommittee thing - the second part deals with an earlier question (2004) as to whether he thought he was ready to run for President.
(Full transcript from last night’s debate can be found here)
Now a few years ago BO was asked about a presidential run around the time he delivered the keynote speech at our party’s convention that summer. Too soon he said – he’d have to start running before he served even a day in the Senate.
Fair enough. However, it looks like he changed his mind because after just a year at his job he decides he’s ready to lead one of the most powerful and influential nations on the planet.
Yeah.
As for his complete and utter failure to hold substantive meetings or hearings of his subcommittee...
Ya know this would be bad enough in its own right – but when you take into account the way BO used the story of that soldier who was sent to Afghanistan with fewer troops and than he needed, in an effort to bash Hillary, it gets worse. That subcommittee BO chairs (you know... the one that’s never met for hearings or held substantive meetings under his stewardship?) has jurisdiction over things like – well to pull one thing out of a hat – NATO. NATO – who’re also engaged in the fight to bring bin Laden out of the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I would think as chair of that subcommittee he’d understand just how important his role would play in fighting for troops, supplies and funding for that effort.
BUT apparently his run for the presidency is more important to him, NATO and those troops on the ground in Afghanistan be damned.
BO seems awfully concerned with our troops over in Afghanistan – to the point where he uses their stories to go after Hillary during a debate. We’ve already seen how he’s failed to use his subcommittee to investigate ways to engage NATO more in their fight. FleaFlicker posted something earlier today that points to this further...
Illinois' disabled veterans are at "rock bottom" -- "dead last" -- in benefits and claims processing of applications for disability. But Illinois' veterans take a back seat because their junior senator is running for president. And that senator, Barack Obama, has missed an astonishing number of hearings and meetings of the Senate Veterans committee.
But Obama has skipped 19 of 37 VA committee meetings in the 109th congress. Obama's attendance record was the second worst of all Democrats on the committee. He attended just 18 of the committee's 37 meetings in Washington D.C.
But he really cares and has given lots of speeches to prove it. But that showing up for work thing, the thing he was hired to do (and is paid by the taxpayers to do) he isn't so good at.
On the campaign trail, Obama stresses the importance of providing "the best care" for veterans and their families: "Providing the best care for our service members, veterans and their families is one thing about this war we can still get right."
But Sen. Obama has continually skipped hearings on the veterans budget. Chairman Craig opened a hearing Obama missed and said, "we will consider today ... legislation touching on veterans insurance, housing, burial, compensation, and employee benefits." Obama also missed all four committee hearings in a series that focused on the President's proposed 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ranking Senator Akaka noted during the hearings that "we must learn a lesson from last year's budget crisis and do everything we can to ensure that veterans and their family members have access to health care and benefits they have earned." (From the GPO on 6/23/05, 2/28/06, 3/2/06, 3/7/06, March 9, 2006.)
Read more about it here
Now BO’s been making a lot of excuses as to why he hasn’t convened any substantive meetings or hearings of that subcommittee of his – he didn’t have time after all with his campaign and fundraising efforts (maybe he just agreed to serve as chairman because it looks good on his resume). But in the meantime Hillary’s also been running for that same job (you know... President?). During the last year she’s managed to propose and gain passage of a bill that will make our children safer in and around cars. She’s also managed to put forth and get signed into law legislation that protects our troops and gives them medical coverage once they return home. Not to mention forcing the administration to stop taking back signing bonuses of our troops if they discharge early due to injuries suffered on the battlefield. The list goes on and on and on – take a look at what Carl Levin – Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has to say on her work on behalf of our troops and veterans – and watch this lady in action...
Guys she’s done all this while running for President.
Hillary’s managed to do the job she was re-elected to in the Senate while running for the same office BO’s been running for. She gets the job done – he apparently can’t.
I don’t know about you but I’m looking for a leader who can walk and chew gum at the same time. We’ve already tried giving the job to a guy who can’t and I’m not willing to make that same mistake again.
As for how he’ll blame Hillary for his complete and utter failure as Subcom. Chairman...
It’s all her fault for raising the issue in the debate last night. Negative campaigning I tell ya!!!!
Umm... yeah – I don’t think so.