[Peace-discuss] Correction on Obama's vote

[C. G. Estabrook]

I was just looking again at last week's roll call votes in the
Senate and realized that the example I gave in the last
paragraph below is just backwards: Obama voted *for*
disclosure and Durbin voted against it.  I'll try to get an
explanation from both offices.  --CGE  

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:06:29 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama brochure  
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>It was an attack on the views of a senator who tries to
>position himself as a progressive but is not, notably in
>regard to the war (and on the view that he should be allowed
>to get away with it); it was not of course "an attack on
>liberals in general."
>
>The damage you refer to seems to have been the rancor of one
>black Democrat.  The proper damage that was done --  we should
>have done more of it -- was the exposure of Obama's position,
>which purports to be critical of the administration on the war
>but in fact agrees with it.  Obama accurately says (in his
>words), "There's not that much difference between my position
>and George Bush's position ... the difference, in my mind, is
>who's in a position to execute." 
>
>What is Obama's "full position" that is not adequately
>represented by the quotations form him in the article? Has he
>renounced any of the quotations?  How is the meaning of any of
>them changed by "context"?
>
>Obama seems to show a certain lawyerly deficiency in openness
>(as we saw in John Roberts last week). E.g., in the Senate
>this week he voted *against* requiring public disclosure of
>pork-barrel items in the final version of this year's
>agricultural appropriations bill. Even Durbin voted for it.  
>
>--CGE