In one of those New York Times articles best read backwards, the paper challenges Senator Obama's statements about some legislation he worked on in the Senate. The Times goes after him for making false statements in campaign speeches: the legislation he sponsored died. In fact, it was backstopped by the then Republican majority in the Senate and had to be rewritten and substantially changed. It appears that his efforts had the effect of tightening up procedures for toxic spills and nuclear leaks in his state's nuclear industry even though his original bill didn't survive.
Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis.
Reading the Times article back to front and front to back, one comes to the conclusion that any conclusion drawn from the story of Obama's fight for tighter regulatory procedures will be countered by people on both sides with a series of "yes, buts..." The real problem for Obama is that he can't afford to inflate his accomplishments, even when there is a good deal of justification for pride in his efforts -- not even a little.
He can certainly take credit for fighting the good fight even though his original bill was altered. But he is foolish to take credit for passing legislation which in fact suffered the outrages of Senator Inhofe and other corporatist Republicans before being significantly weakened. If he does play up his accomplishments, the media (and, of course, the opposition) will come down on him like a ton of toxic waste.
Comments