I’ve heard that Jack Ryan’s 2004 opposition research report on Obama is floating around out there somewhere, and I’m wondering whether Nathan Gonzales got it because I highly doubt he pored over umpteen thousand Senate floor votes before he wrote this piece.

Still, Gonzales’ column is an interesting read. [Corrected because I didn’t notice that Rothenberg was reprinting a column whole cloth]

For example, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the “born alive” bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote “present” on the bills instead of “no.”

And finally in 2001, Obama voted “present” on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

Meanwhile, John Fritchey links to a column that has to be one of the most god-awful, over-thought, ridiculous thing ever written on this campaign which appeared in a supposedly mainstream publication.

Entitled “Why Daleys Endorsed Obama,” it offers up absolutely nothing of substance.

The New York Sun column gives us lots of cut and paste history: snow storms, labor negotiations, 1968 convention, Abner Mikva, Royko, Harold Washington, Lincoln, Walker and this…

Illinois history also explains the Daleys’ endorsement of Mr. Obama. The brothers learned not only from their father’s victories but also from his mistakes. They don’t want to look out of step with their times, as he did in 1968.

First of all, why is it that the Baby Boomers have to run everything through the prism of their youth? Why does everything have to relate back to that convention, or McGovern, or Woodstock or whatever?

The author of this goofy column never once mentions the fact that Daley is running for re-election and wants to show his critics he can still rack up huge numbers, and therefore needs to sew up as much black support as possible (see: Wal-Mart pandering, Olympics patronage) in a city where the black vote can ruin or make a white candidate. No mention that Obama has endorsed Daley over two black opponents, or that they both share the same media consultant (Axelrod). No consideration given to the fact that Obama’s statewide approval rating is in the 70s and his approval in Chicago is probably over 90. No ironic mentions of the fact that even though Obama endorsed Daley, his people are criticizing black leaders who endorse Hillary Clinton.

Instead, we’re treated to pure, unadulterated Baby Boomer crapola. Ugh.