Can Congressman Dan Boren Honestly Explain Why He Won’t Endorse Obama?

Democratic Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma has announced that he will not endorse Barack Obama for President, while he will vote for Barack Obama in his role as delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The reason? Obama is “the most liberal Senator in Congress.” Boren did endorse Hillary Clinton during the primary process, but somehow Obama doesn’t pass his own personal litmus test. What Boren does not talk about are issues — or in fact any issue — that makes Hillary Clinton a candidate he can endorse, but that makes it impossible for him to do the same for Obama. Instead he just uses the tired, old, Republican talking point, that Obama is “too liberal” without actually backing that up with any substance.

So which differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caused Boren to endorse her in the primary, but refuse to endorse him in the general election?

Is it the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to give the authorization for the President to invade Iraq, but Obama had come out against that move? I wonder if Boren still believes that the US should have gone to war against Iraq — but in any case, both Clinton and Obama had campaign positions that the troops should be brought home, so that can’t be it.

Maybe the issue is guns — Oklahoma is a big Second Amendment state. But the only time Obama and Clinton differed on a gun issue was when there was a vote for an amendment to stop the confiscation of legally-owned guns during natural disasters — but Obama took the pro-Second Amendment position of preventing confiscations while Clinton voted to keep those confiscations legal. So that can’t be Boren’s problem with “liberal” Obama.

Another difference in the way they voted was when Obama actually voted to allow a Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, to still practice not-for-profit medicine while being a Senator. So Obama took the free-enterprise position and Clinton took the more restrictive position — but I doubt that Boren would have voted against allowing Coburn to be a pro-bono physician so that doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Maybe it is their health care plans. But Clinton’s health care plan is considered larger with greater government involvement than Obama’s plan, so if you had to label them, Clinton’s plan would be described as the more liberal proposal.

So I would like someone to ask Congressman Boren what are these liberal votes that Obama made in which Hillary Clinton took the opposite position? What is so egregious exactly about an Obama candidacy?

Maybe Boren was attracted by the fact that Hillary Clinton’s husband had been President and thus could use her name and political connections to run for office, just like Boren did by running on the coattails of his father, the great former Democratic Senator Dave Boren who is now President of the University of Oklahoma. (Dad, by the way, endorsed Obama back in April.) Obama took the hard way and actually had to build his own support and political organization. Maybe Boren believes that Obama should have found an easier way to Congress.

But maybe there is a bigger difference that Boren just doesn’t want to talk about — race. His comment about his district was:

“We’re much more conservative,” Boren said of district. “I’ve got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them.” He called Obama “the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.”

But as shown — the voting records of Clinton and Obama are not much different, and in places where they differed, Obama often took the more conservative position. But maybe the “I’ve got to reflect my district” explanation means that his district just isn’t ready for an African-American President, because we have yet to hear a substantive problem Boren has with Obama.

Of course Boren does not say that race is a problem. He says that he will vote for Obama as a delegate and as a voter in November and thinks it will be an important historic moment, explaining, “It’s a testament to the Democratic Party.” But Boren does not seem to be a brave enough man to be part of that celebration.

But again, if it isn’t race — what is the policy difference between Obama and Clinton that has caused Congressman Boren to turn his back on his party and his party’s presidential nominee? What vote did Obama cast differently from Clinton that has led to Boren’s visceral reaction? Would someone please ask him?

UPDATE: Howie Klein at Down With Tyranny has a good piece on both Dan Boren’s DINO record, as well as how Obama isn’t even close to the “most liberal” member of the Senate.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: