A column by David Reinhard, associate editor of the liberal Oregonian:
It’s often said that it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. Here, it’s the crime and the coverup. Misrepresenting the reasons for a key vote is the coverup. Opposing efforts to help babies born alive in botched abortions is the crime – enabling infanticide….
At the risk of committing blasphemy, you have to ask: What’s with this guy?…
A column by Joan Vennochi of the liberal Boston Globe…
[H]ard as it is for some die-hard Democrats to imagine after the last eight years of the Bush–Cheney White House, Obama can still lose.
He can lose if… he keeps responding to debate questions by saying the answer is “above my pay grade.”… feeding the Republican script that Obama is not up to calling the shots in the Oval Office.
He can lose if he is cast as an abortion-rights extremist, a theme that Republicans are also pushing. A focus on abortion would give the GOP a wedge issue it can use to undercut Obama on the so-called “values” front.
By Damon LInker of the liberal New Republic:
The campaign’s response to the controversy shows that it recognizes the damage it could do to Obama’s ambitions: Instead of defending the vote, Obama and his surrogates have sought to excuse it. First they insisted he would have supported the Illinois bill had its language resembled the federal version. Then, when it came to light that the language of the two bills was virtually identical, they claimed that the candidate opposed the bill because it had no “neutrality clause”….
And yet it appears that the final version of the bill contained precisely such language – a fact that apparently did nothing to change Obama’s mind about its merits. If conservatives get their way, these crumbling excuses, along with Obama’s refusal to answer a question about when a baby acquires human rights at Rick Warren’s recent Saddleback church event, will transform Obama in the eyes of evangelicals from an electoral temptation into a morally and politically radioactive “Senator Infanticide.” (That’s what the National Review called him on its website’s homepage yesterday.)
A couple great conservative reads…