The issue that will turn the campaign

I've long thought that the story of Obama's opposition to the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act was a ticking time bomb set to explode during the campaign and turn it around. David Freddoso, author of The
Case Against Barack Obama, sums up the story here and tells about how Obama has turned to attacking as liars those who have exposed his votes against the Act and the reasons he gave at the time.

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

Read the rest. Joel Mowbray also has a good, concise discussion of the back and forth.

Mr. Obama's camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature's health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn't.

Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate. And now, five years later, he might end up paying a political price for that decision.

Meanwhile, audio has now surfaced of Obama speaking out against the bill on the Illinois Senate floor. The Weekly Standard links to the audio youtube of Obama's speech and has the transcript of what he said. It's rather chilling to hear him argue against the bill because it would unfairly burden the woman having the abortion and the doctor performing the abortion to have another doctor come in to take care of the baby.

Personally, abortion is not an issue that I base my vote on and I didn't need another reason not to support Barack Obama. But I think that this issue will change a lot of people's minds and move some of those undecided voters to voting against Obama.

I can just picture the sort of ad that could be made by pro-life groups juxtaposing Obama's words and actions with pictures of babies. Even those who support abortion rights are appalled at the thought of voting against care for babies born alive during an abortion. Obama's explanations have changed several times since people started bringing this issue up. And each explanation has been knocked down by his opponents.

As it is now, most people aren't aware at all of this story. It hasn't gotten much major media coverage. But once those independent groups start airing those powerful ads, even people who don't vote on the abortion issue will start looking again at Obama and begin believing that he fully earned that most liberal status from the National Journal. He will be on the defensive.

The only thing that could save him is if McCain decided to throw away this issue by nominating a pro-choice running mate. Those voters disgusted by Obama's history on this bill and subsequent twisting defenses may just decide not to vote if McCain doesn't present himself as an alternative. McCain gained some credibility with those voters after Rick Warren's forum. I don't think he'd be fool enough to throw away those gains just because he thinks that picking a Democrat as a running mate would be such a game-changing act. It would change the game alright, but not in McCain's favor. I suspect that his advisers will prevail in pointing out to him how he'd be throwing away this powerful issue by giving the nod to Lieberman. In fact, the uproar from conservatives since the Lieberman story emerged will probably have been enough to push Tim Pawlenty into the spot that John wanted to give to his pal Joe.