A Pennsylvania gun shop owner scrutinizes the candidates' positions.
The battle over the word "bitter" between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has sparked a new look at the candidates and their stance on the Second Amendment.
In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned.
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington D.C.
The Democratic presidential candidates' silence is part of a pattern. For years, the national party has downplayed its historic sympathy for gun control for fear that emphasizing it would be politically costly.
When Obama first ran for the Illinois Senate 12 years ago, he answered "yes" to whether he backed banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in the state.
He's softened that position in recent years. When she was asked why Obama didn't sign one of the Supreme Court briefs, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms."
Clinton has a long history as an outspoken supporter of tough gun-control measures, but she, too, has moderated in recent months; last month in Wisconsin, she described how she once went hunting in Arkansas and shot a banded duck.
At a January debate, she called herself a "political realist, and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street."
Barack Obama chows on a burger with some supporters in Muncie, Ind., just like a regular guy.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, known for his skills as an orator, conceded today that comments he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser about working-class Democrats clinging to "guns or religion" were poorly chosen.
Barack Obama's condescension reveals a man out of touch with the rhythms of American life to a degree that's hard to fathom. As Michelle says, they "chose" to "leave corporate America", and Barack became a "community organizer" and she wound up a 350-grand-a-year "diversity outreach coordinator". I've no idea what either of those careers involve, and most of us seem able to get along without them. But their remoteness from the American mainstream perhaps explains why the Obamas seem to have no clue how Americans live their lives.
And yes, I'm a foreigner. But it takes one to know one.
It's worth saying that I'm not defending Obama here. I see nothing that he needs defense from. There's no actual attack being levied that anyone can rebut, or ideas being tossed out that anyone can argue. Instead, Obama has said something Politically Damaging. And it will Damage him. And we'll all watch to see how badly.
But let's be clear: It's not damaging because we think it foretells him doing something harmful to the country. It's not damaging because it suggests his policy agenda is poorly conceived, or his priorities are awry. It matters only because it matters, not because it means anything about Obama, or illuminates anything about his potential presidency. It's a hollow scandal.
