I obviously knew Obama was going to disappoint me (he's a politician after all), but I didn't expect it to happen quite this soon, or to come at quite such a rapid-fire pace (what is this, three times in the last week?)

Yeah, it's been really weird. Especially because neither of these opinions seems all that hard to spin.

With the child rape case, he could easily have said something along the lines of, "I want to work with states affected by this decision to make sure these monsters face the harshest penalties allowable by law."

And on the gun law he easily could have said, "Well the court interpreted the Constitutionality of the law differently than I did, but it's the Supreme legal authority of the land. We'll work to make sure our gun policy is within its bounds."

Essentially, he could have easily just conceded to the procedural supremacy of the Court instead of actively moving to the right on the substantive rulings. It would even have gotten all the Washington pundits swooning b/c he would be focusing on "process over politics" etc... Instead, he just looks opportunistic to the right and untrustworthy to the Left.

Obama's position on the execution case wouldn't actually "expand" anything; the execution of non-murderous child rapist has always been a (not often used) option in a handful of states.

This Court ruling just eliminated that option. The opposite ruling wouldn't have "expanded" anything, it would have kept the status quo.

Having seen outstanding candidates lose on the sole issue of the death penalty, I am glad Obama has taken this off the table and made it impossible for the attack machine to demonize him as sympathetic to child rapists. I am against the death penalty and would like to see it eliminated -- but I'm not willing to risk the entire range of progressive change on it.

NS,
I completely agree with you. With answers he could have avoided looking like an opportunist and a Michael Dukakis.

Either the first link is wrong or I'm missing something. Everything here is on the gun ban, nothing on wanting child rapists to get the death penalty.

Right, Left, blah blah blah. What do those terms really mean anymore? Obama is doing what is necessary to manuever his way through the dicey shoels of contemporary American politics, and also it was always a misinterpretation by those on the "left" that Obama is lock-step with them.
Obama is middle of the road, and his "new politics" is about dialoguing with and finding common ground among the various American constituencies. Its not Bush/Clinton partisan politics.
His positions on these cases might be an effort to build his street cred with the "right," but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually reflect his own beliefs to some degree. The African American community is not doctrinaire liberal on many contemporary issues, with opinions various from those of white liberals in Boston, NYC, Portland, San Francisco. That being the case we should remain thankful that Democrats have put up a sober, thoughtful candidate who's going to try to speak for ALL the People, not just 50%+1. That's the heart of the transformation.
So while I may not fully agree with some of his recent statements, I appreciate his efforts to break through antaganisms and divisiveness in the American electorate, I still firmly believe he is the best candidate this year for President, and I will continue to support him.

I can live with some of Obama's swing-to-the-middle posturing for the general -- the public financing reversal, say, or his statement regarding the murder penalty for child rapists -- but his flip-flop on FISA and immunity for the telecoms is galling. He's starting to look and sound more and more like a politician ready to tarnish his message for mythical swing constituencies. Don't think the Republicans and their media lapdogs aren't going to pounce on these shifts. Just look at how many pixels were expended on Obama's financing change of heart as opposed to McCain's flagrant breaking of the law.

As I say, I can live with some of his political positioning, but I hope he chooses his battles wisely, building the case for his superior judgment and vision for the future. This week I'm not happy.

"Meanwhile, the issue here is not whether or not child rape is monstrous, but the expansion of execution as a legal remedy."

From Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court:

"[Nonhomicide crimes against individualpersons, even including child rape] may be devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability.'"

With the DC gun ban struck down, I'm really worried that a lot of gangbangers will now begin carrying firearms and possibly even using then.

"Obama is doing what is necessary to manuever his way through the dicey shoels of contemporary American politics"

Really? Because I had been led to believe that Obama was different, and that he was going to change politics.

Barack Obama: Running for George H. W. Bush's 2nd term!

I have to admire Senator Obama's swift about-face on campaign finance reform, gun control and the death penalty. I am just so glad the party rejected Senator Clinton's "pragmatic" approach for Senator Obama's "principled" views. I can only imagine what most Obama supporters would be saying if Hillary were the nominee-apparent making these same "adjustments" (if she would).

A great discussion of the death penalty is laid out in Justice Marshall's dissent in Gregg v. Georgia (U.S. 1976). For a discussion on mistakes see Aug. 24, 2001 Nytimes article "Illinois, Citing Verdict Errors, Bars Executions". For a great academic discussion see James Liebman's "A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973 - 1995 (2000). On a personal observation, Senator Obama's stance with regards to rape protects him against superficial demagoguery from the right. I'm all for running a progressive campaign, but don't forget 1988. Democrats simply cannot look soft on crime.

Let's be clear here.

Those commenters that herald the ruling against applying the death penalty to those convicted of child rape are not honest about their motives. I believe they argue in bad faith about this because they are categorically against the death penalty in all cases.

Is there really a crime more depaived than the rape of a child? In this case the little girl was eight and required surgery and hospitalization after this heinous crime. And then there's the lifelong psychological damage.

How is this not at least as morally depraived as murder?

I can't believe that people still see him as a progressive. If he pulls this sort of thing as a candidate, why would anyone think of him as strong or principled enough to lean left as president?

Because he's a black man running for president, he comes with the sympathies of liberals as standard equipment. And so far we have only his words to support the myth that we all want to believe. I really hope that he proves me wrong.

I have to admire Senator Obama's swift about-face on campaign finance reform, gun control and the death penalty.

Obama made his stance on child rape in 2006. This isn't an about-face anything.

Obama could have ... opposed the constitutionality and wisdom of the state widening the circumstances under which they're willing to take life.

Is that even Obama's position?

Near as I could tell, Obama opposed the constitutionality of the ruling itself and was not necessarily advocating the punishment.

We can tell the difference, can't we? You know, like the ACLU sticking up for the KKK?

Obama made his stance on child rape in 2006. This isn't an about-face anything.

Wait, are you saying that the Hillary dead-enders are playing dumb to score points?

Sexist!
.

Silva,

I don't think anyone expected the guy to float above the fray at all and remain 100% ideologically pure. What bothers me about this is the clumsiness of it. Given our recent political history, which characterization is worse: "Barack Obama once took a position the Supreme Court now disagrees with" or "Barack Obama reversed his position to pretend he always believed what the Supreme Court ruled"?

As some of the Hillary types on this thread are already showing, this kind of thing seriously hurts his branding.

I dunno, I guess there are times where you have to move away from stuff you said before (I think he was totally justified in his campaign finance move). But at least make sure that move is buying you something real, y'know? Because this move looked so transparent, I doubt that people who don't like gun control will be that much happier about Obama now than people who do.

I don't think any of us are being disingenuous El Viajero -- sure, we're against capital punishment in toto for moral and pragmatic reasons; we're agaisnt it for non-capital crimed for moral, pragmatic, and constitutional reasons.

As to your own baiting question -- yeah, I can name a more depraved crime. Fucking MURDER. Kids get raped, and it ruins some of their lives. And also, there are plenty of child rape victims whose lives are not ruined and who become perfectly actualizied members of society. Nobody who is killed gets that chance.

You'll get no argument from me that child rape is horrible. But so what? Capital punishment isn't going to solve that problem any more than murders have stopped since it was reintroduced in the '70's. It's as useless as attacking Iraq's secular government to solve the problem of Saudi religious extremists living on Afghan and Pakistani soil.

i think silva's first post was entirely accurate.
...by the way, did hillary clinton cast a vote on this or did she just not vote at all.

though there has been disappointment, i still think that barack has a very delicate needle to thread...
i dont think during these critical days where the clintons dont appear entirely on board yet, and the republicans and angered critics are waiting to herald every misstep, we can rush to judgement on some of these decisions, even though, with the first feeling of disillusionment or disappointment, that is always the first impulse.
it often takes some patience, disappointment and fingerpricks to thread a needle.
and unfortunately, one must lose some notable battles in order to win the war.

sorry, when wondering about hillary's vote, i was referring to fisa.

Bizarrely, I agree with El Viajero. If you support the death penalty in any cases, I don't see why you shouldn't support it for child rapists. I'm against the death penalty in all cases for basically pragmatic reasons, but Obama has always been for it.

Obama is being illiberal? Just how is any of this illiberal?

Keep in mind, "illiberal" means "bigoted" or "vulgar". "Illiberal" has nothing to do with political ideology.

yeah, I can name a more depraved crime. Fucking MURDER.

In my state, Texas, first degree premeditated murder convictions are not eligible for the death penalty.

My understanding of Obama's position on the DP for Child Rape seemed to be that while he might not choose that as a policy preference, the Constitution does not compel invalidation of a law allowing it under the 8th Amendment. This is a perfectly plausible reaction, and one I tentatively share (i.e. if the death penalty is ever appropriate given the criminal justice system we have, I don't see how one makes a bright-line distinction between murder and child-rape in the context of "cruel and unusual.")

The SCOTUS majorit opinion makes the (strong!) point that making child rape a capital offense provides an incentive for the rapist to add murder to the crime - to avoid a witness testifying against them. Surely a live child, though severely tramatized is preferable to a raped, dead child.

And let's not forget that not all those found guilty of crime are, in fact, the perpetrators.

The court opinion also cites faulty recoved memories (especially those strengthened by counseling or by prosecutors). Children are especially prone to strongly believing something that just isn't true or just didn't happen the way they children think they did.

I think the court ruled in the correct direction: toward fewer and fewer capital punishments since that punishment hasn't shown any tendency to decrease crime and the potential for legal error is so high.

But! I mostly forgive Obama for not wanting to give the swift-boaters ANY ammunition pre-election or post-election (impeachment WILL be on the right's agenda against Obama from day one - and they put things on the table not take them off). Recall: a blow-job and lie about it required impeachment to those GOP paragons of virtue.

This is about the politics of personal destruction, make no bones about that.

Hey, whaddayaknow? Obama is just like all politicians! And about as progressive as Andy Sullivan!

Good to know another Christian is up with the death penalty.

Here's the candidate of change, America... we, as Democrats, once had a chance in this election to nominate someone with a truly progressive policy alternative to the one we have now, but instead we bought "change", the brand.

EK: "....his campaign flipped its position on the constitutionality of the DC handgun ban (were they once said Obama believed the ban unconstitutional, now they say he has no position on it)."

Is this an "unconstitutional" typo? Per ABC:

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

"Obama made his stance on child rape in 2006. This isn't an about-face anything."

Nice try, Josh. Even if true it fails to address the other two points in the very sentence you quoted: gun control and campaign finance reform. That's not even counting the warrantless searches (FISA) bill.

Three or four major reversals in one week. Not bad for our post-partisan, new politics leader!

el viajero, wha?? so who is getting the death penalty? it has to be first degree to be eligible, which by definition is premeditated. texas, i believe is also a felony-murder state.

perhaps you are referring to the the requirement that aggravators must also be proven in addition to proving guilt of first degree murder?? aggs are a constitutional requirement b/c the class of defendants eligible must be narrowed. you know, the whole "worst of the worst" business. i'm not sure if texas is weighing state, maybe someone else knows. (weighing aggs vs. mitigators).

from my limited understanding texas is different from other states in that they have a specific set of questions that are asked of the penalty phase jury. the questions include a future criminal element/rehabiliation element, which i believe is unique to the state.

Nice try, Josh. Even if true it fails to address the other two points in the very sentence you quoted: gun control and campaign finance reform. That's not even counting the warrantless searches (FISA) bill.

Three or four major reversals in one week. Not bad for our post-partisan, new politics leader!

1. From the Audacity of Hope, as quoted in the comments section on the Tapped thread "Is Obama a Pander-Bear":

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

I guess it depends on whether the and means both at once or both even if separate.

2. Yes, what a terrible flip flop on financing - going from cagily saying you'll try to try to work something out to opting out. Wow. You've won me over!

3. FISA is most definitely an example of political cowardice. he should be ashamed of it, and shamed. Hell, the next thing you know, he'll declare the era of big government over!

I was not laboring under any illusions as to whether Obama was an out-and-out progressive. He was clearly swimming in the centrist-DLC waters sprung upon the Democratic party by the Clinton administration, even if he did deviate here and there. The same, of course, could be said of his main competitor. I supported Obama because he was better than the alternative (but not better than the alternatives!), his flair for organization has opened up exciting new terrain for progressives, and I judged him a better beginning to a longer phase of political readjustment than his alternative (and perhaps alternatives) [in other words, I though him more capable of beginning the push back leftward than Senator Clinton, even if he himself was not an avowed progressive on all issues; this has to do with issues not relating to him, such as the media jihad on all things Clinton (see your history books on the 1990s) as well to his skills as a politician and organizer).

He deserves much opprobrium for his reaction on FISA. You are right about that. Sadly, he is not alone in the Democratic caucus who deserves that.

Josh, the sentence you quote from The Audacity of Hope seems to clearly suggest both "rape and murder of a child" - a stance which would fit the Court's majority stance that murder is a death penalty crime, but rape, by itself, isn't (Obama, surely, already knew then that rape of an adult didn't meet the Court's death penalty standard).

And really, it's not the "flip flop" that's at issue, really... it's just... flop. Rather than embrace a difficult majority ruling on a controversial subject, Obama panders - whether consistently or not - suggests that he'd have preferred a different outcome. It's a frankly meaningless, easy out answer (since he's not doing a damn thing to change the Court's decision through legislation) and he gets to seem like he's in favor of something that... oops, is now unconstitutional. It seems to me none of this will stick - campaign finance, FISA or this case - because the people who would be upset with him for saying them have other, bigger issues that are still common ground. But I think the last few weeks have pretty much eviscerated the "new politics" stance, which, since I never believed it to begin with, doesn't surprise me. But I think it's generous, at best, to say his calculated statement about the death penalty case is okay and anything other than disheartening. I do expect moreof a Democrat than that.

And no, Viajero, while I think the rape of a child is indeed a terrible, heinous thing... I'm not in favor of killing convicted felons over it, due to my general opposition to the death penalty.

el viajero, wha?? so who is getting the death penalty? it has to be first degree to be eligible, which by definition is premeditated. texas, i believe is also a felony-murder state.

In Texas, only capital offenses are eligible for the death penalty. That includes murder of a peace officer, mass murder and murder of a child. Even then, only a jury can dole out the death penalty and they must be unanimously agreed. One dissenting juror and it cannot be imposed.

"pretty much eviscerated the new politics stance"

why dont you judge his actions if and when he becomes president, before you write off the accomplishments that have yet to unfold in an obama administration?

what...three weeks into the nomination, is hardly the time for naysayers to be self-congratulatory.

i dont believe in the months preceding this election, you are going to see profound change.....he needs to win the election right now.
between all of the obstacles, from here to the election, is like a field of landmines.
ye of little faith.

Josh, the sentence you quote from The Audacity of Hope seems to clearly suggest both "rape and murder of a child" - a stance which would fit the Court's majority stance that murder is a death penalty crime, but rape, by itself, isn't (Obama, surely, already knew then that rape of an adult didn't meet the Court's death penalty standard).

How can it seem to clearly suggest? Either it clearly suggests something or it seems to suggest something. I can read it both ways, so I would need further evidence to clear the matter up...you know, like his recent comments.

Rather than embrace a difficult majority ruling on a controversial subject, Obama panders - whether consistently or not - suggests that he'd have preferred a different outcome.

How do you know it's a pander and not something he actually believes?

I do expect moreof a Democrat than that.

Why in the hell would you expect more of members of that party? Hope for more, sure, but expect? This is the same party whose leadership just gift wrapped a FISA bill for President Bush, after all.

the man was walking on the tightrope,
high up in the air, and alone.
and some in the crowd, instead of wishing for him to make it safely to the end, in spite of missteps, were watching and waiting in the hope that he might fall.

Perhaps, jacqueline, the problem with your analogy is that "the tightrope" is actually not that far off the ground, nor is falling off of it that remarkable. Personally, I've never been looking up, so it's not about waiting for him to come down; I've mostly been waiting for other people to notice... that there's nothing up there. I'm neither surprised nor annoyed that Obama is a political realist - that seems to be a selling point, if you ask me - or that he's doing the obvious "tack to the middle" thing (that would be winning, after all, which is preferable). The only part I find disheartening is... I don't think he needed to tack to this middle quite as sharply as he did, and it's really yet another reason I'm clear on the fact that my own lukewarm feelings for this election have to do with this guy not really being the person who speaks for the things I care about in the way I care about them. Doesn't mean I want him to lose, or to fail... but if you're expecting me to be impressed... I'd like to see something impressive.

"i've mostly been waiting for other people to notice...that there's nothing up there."
"i'd like to see something impressive."

i would have to say that this whole process so far, has been one, long tightrope walk.
i dont know how you can look at where he has come from since the beginning of this whole process, the people he ran against, the obstacles he has come through, the campaign he has run against two of the most astute and driven politicians of our time, and say there is nothing up there.
i believe that even his most hardened adversaries would have to give him more credit than that.

I'm the Anonymous prior to Posted by: jacqueline | June 26, 2008 3:41 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the only substantive reason for supporting Obama was his ability to operate effectively independent of the Democratic Party establishment. He has done so by relying on direct appeals to constituencies that have felt orphaned by that establishment. In winning the nomination on that basis he has already changed our politics. Where he goes from here depends largely on whether or not those same constituencies hold his feet to the fire and how he responds.

There are, of course, other reasons for people's support of him but they strike me as largely speculative.

Obama did not flip-flop.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/914970,CST-NWS-obama25.article

Between this an FISA, I'm rescinding all support I've ever given to Obama. If he wants my vote, he'll have to be promising something I actually give a fuck about.

I won't vote for Obama, but not being Hillary Clinton isn't enough for me in a general election, any more than not being Bill Clinton was enough to make me vote for Hillary. I could give a fuck less what the Republican party does, but I don't want this party controlled by whackjobs who don't take the constitution seriously anymore.

Let's face it....you got P'kd. After he wins the nomimation, he flip-flops on a whole host of issues.

As I've stated before, Obama is an empty suit and will do and say anything to any group to get elected.

um, yeah el viajero, capital murder is first degree murder. texas is required under the 8A to narrow the class of defendants eligible and it uses aggravating factors like every other state. Every first degree murder has the potential to be eligible for a death sentence if certain aggravators are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here are Texas's aggs:

(1) The capital offense was committed during the commission of, attempt of, or escape from a specified felony (such as robbery, kidnapping, rape, sodomy, arson, oral copulation, train wrecking, carjacking, criminal gang activity, drug dealing, or aircraft piracy)
(2) The defendant committed or attempted to commit more than one murder at the same time
(3) The murder was committed for pecuniary gain or pursuant to an agreement that the defendant would receive something of value
(4) The defendant caused or directed another to commit murder, or the defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment, promise of payment, or anything of pecuniary value
(5) The murder was committed to avoid or prevent arrest, to effect an escape, or to conceal the commission of a crime
(6) The defendant is a future danger
(7) The capital offense was committed by a person who is incarcerated, has escaped, is on probation, is in jail, or is under a sentence of imprisonment
(8)Murder of an individual under 6 years of age
(9)Defendant intentionally committed murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit terroristic threat
(10)The person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of a cou

typically these aggravators are weighed against any mitigators that are found.

oh and unanimous juries, what a bummer. having to have the entire jury of your peers decide that you should be condemned to death. and given the requirement that aggravators have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's tough to see how to get around unanimous jury verdicts. but leave it to florida to keep fighting that fight.

meanwhile, it doesn't look like Texas' restrictions have really hampered the state's ability to secure death sentences. you guys are #1! I wd've thought you'd be proud of your state's "rock n' roll em" system.

I'm with Ezra on this. Obama could have taken the opportunity to support the ruling without being soft. The court itself pointed out that execution for rape could be an incentive to kill the victims. Obama missed an opportunity to change one of the worst elements of political discourse in this country - bloodlust - and that's disappointing.

There's very little effort to think through Obama's position here. When the death penalty is abolished-- and it will be-- it will not be on 8th amendment grounds. That's fool's gold that has impaired the anti-death penalty movement for decades. As an committed opponent of executions, I'm very glad to see that Obama might understand this.

Is there really a crime more depaived than the rape of a child?

Andrew Koppelman says this is faulty reasoning:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/worst-thing-you-can-do-to-child-short.html