When I was researching his votes in the State Senate I realized there are way too many votes to criticize him on when it comes to his pro-criminal agenda.  Instead I will focus on one piece of legislation which Barack lobbied heavily against.  We will look at HB1812 of the 92nd General Assembly, or what was called the Severo Anti-Gang Amendments of 2001.  The jist of this bill is to basically allow a judge to use the death penalty when a murder is committed in the furtherance of gang activities.  The bill was introduced after a Chicago teenager was shot to death by two gang members while trying to explain to them that he was not part of any gangs. 

It's important to note that this bill was introduced both in the House and in the Senate by Democrats from Cook County, where most of the gang-related violence takes place.  Obama was supposed to sponsor the bill until he realized what he had in his hands.  Democratic Senator Antonio Munoz, whose district the murder took place in, was the chief sponsor instead, with Republican Senator Edward Petka as a co-sponsor. 

First of all, let me tell you that this bill passed handily both in the House and in the Senate.  Barack was one of only nine liberal Democrats in the Senate who voted against it.  Although his vote alone stands to show his position on crime, the real importance of this bill is in the discussion that took place between the opponents, led by Senator Obama, and the proponents, led by Senator Petka.   

Senator Munoz, the sponsor of the bill, defered to Senator Petka who was a former prosecutor to introduce the bill and answer questions.  The first one to rise was Barack Obama.  Here's part of the argument he used against the bill:

"One of my concerns in this situation is that if an individual shoots somebody and kills them, let's say, because of an argument on the street, that they, potentially, are not eligible for the death penalty.  If that same person gets in that same argument and shoots that person on the street and kills them, but that other person happens to be a member of a street gang and the perpetrator happens to be a member of a rival street gang, that somehow, now, he might get a different penalty than that same murderer in the other context.  That's problematic."

Huh? Apparently Barack lives in a land where two rival gang members casually just "happen" to get in an argument and shoot each other without knowing the other person is in a rival gang.  Keep in mind that under Illinois law random shootings are not punishable by the death penalty but murdering someone while robbing them is.  This law aimed at giving the same status to gang related murders as someone who takes someone's sneakers and then shoots them.  Sounds fair enough right?

Barack then goes on to imply that this bill would unfairly target certain demographics.  After listening for a while the sponsor of the bill, Senator Munoz, decided to chime in.  Keep in mind this is a Democrat lecturing another Democrat:

"Sir, you're talking about the city and we're targeting certain people or certain race, or whatever the case may be.  This bill is intended for hard-core criminal killers that go out there and prey, whether it be on kids, whether it be on seniors, and they are gang members.  That's what the bill is intended for.  And so many times, yes, crime does happen mostly, as they say, in minority communities. Well, I have it in my district. And it's Mexican-Americans killing Mexican-Americans, and that's a real shame and that's where it needs to stop!"

Never a good sign when members of your own party engage in such heated exchange with you.  Barack closed by switching the focus of the discussion:

"This may or may not be perfectly legal from a constitutional perspective, but I don't want to get into a major debate about the death penalty."

Unfortunately for Barack, that's exactly where the debate was headed.  One of his other colleagues, Senator Robert Molaro, decided to dive in with this argument:

"In other words, life without possibility of parole or a sixty year sentence is not enough of a public policy statement by us that we don't condone gangbangers killing other people? What does the state gain by being able to put him to death?"

And this is where I want everyone to take a pause and try to fast forward to a few months from now, when Obama is answering questions about his stance on the death penalty.  Think of him using the above argument and then think of John McCain's rebuttal, which will sound a lot like Senator Petka's response:

"First of all, you make certain basic assumptions that putting someone in prison for murdering someone else is proper punishment.  In my opinion, it's not proportional, which is what the Constitution requires.  Second of all, the people of this State, when they had an opportunity thirty years ago to abolish capital punishment in the State, voted in overwhelming numbers not to do that.  What public purpose is served? Very simply this: right now a gangbanger who commits a murder would at least be eligible to face scrutiny from a judge or a jury as to decide whether or not they should receive society's ultimate punishment."

Obama, who had been involved up to that point, chose to no longer rise.  No one else did either.  The bill passed the Senate with only Barack and his eight other pro-criminal colleagues voting against it.

Remember when I said Obama was out of touch with the mainstream of Independents? Well in the case of the death penalty he's out of touch with the mainstream of every party.  According to Gallup Poll, 81% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 60% of Democrats are in favor of the death penalty.

I can't wait to watch McCain and Obama debate on the merits of capital punishment as a deterrent to violent criminals.  That's an argument we can't lose. Stay tuned for the next segment of Obama Watch.