I posted this on Jonathan Martin's Politico.com blog:

From the makers of, "My dog ate my homework," comes the new and improved, "My staffer mischaracterized/misrepresented my views."  Also, "This may be a situation where my accountant, through oversight, didn't do it."  This clown doesn't take any personal responsibility unless he is caught red handed!

He filled out a detailed survey/short-answer that said in pretty strong words that he would ban all handguns.  His excuse?  Staffer mischaracterized his views.  How did the staffer get that opinion and why didn't Obama direct someone on his position on a crucial issue?  Why didn’t Obama proof the staffer’s work or at least check with him and file an addendum once he found the mistake?  Isn't that position what he stands for?  Don't people elect politicians based on what they stand for?

On campaign finance and specifically his taking public financing - same thing - he fills out a survey and makes some verbal comments - but his strongest statement was on a survey practically guaranteeing he would take public finance if John McCain was the GoP nominee and McCain agreed to take them.  They had a “finance truce”.  And guess what?  Staffer mischaracterized him again.  No one else seems to have this problem... The staffer didn’t mischaracterize him when he was behind in the polls and needed a jump from good publicity, it was only when Obama looked like the Dem nominee did he renounce the survey.  He also made a verbal promise to aggressively pursue public financing but he opted out of that too.

Obama on not checking off the $3 for public financing fund on his taxes even though he supports public financing which is funded through that channel?  See the quote from above - blames it on his accountant, an oversight... right… Who does he think he is, Ken Lay?  Isn’t this one of those things that you make sure you check because it is one of your core convictions?Is anything his fault? What an elitist nabob!  Unless he makes a boo-boo on camera, like he did in San Fran last week, he doesn't take responsibility for it.  Which means either he thinks we are dumb enough to believe that load of crap or he actually believes this kind of stuff isn't his problem.  If things like communicating with the general population on what important positions you take/hold are not his responsibility, and committing to a fund he professed belief in, public financing (which he now says is a creaky system - you know it is creaky only after he gets more money than what public funds could give him), then what exactly is his responsibility?  And how can we hold him as credible and believable?  Not to mention this kind of "not my problem" mentality is highly elitist.