At a Planned Parenthood event on July 18, 2007, with Planned Parenthood written all over the background, Obama specifically mentions Alan Keyes and mocks him saying:

OBAMA: I remember Alan Keyes–I ran against Alan Keyes–I don’t know if you guys remember Alan Keyes–

AUDIENCE: [laughter]

OBAMA: –but I remember Alan Keyes him saying [mocking voice]: “Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners.”

AUDIENCE: [laughter]

OBAMA: And, [shrugging] you know which, I don’t know–

AUDIENCE: [laughter]

OBAMA: I didn’t know what to tell him, heh heh. [pause] BUT IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Really? I didn’t see the part where it said Grades K-12 SHALL receive a comprehensive sex education course. Additionally, abstinence only education simply doesn’t work, that’s as plain as your VP selection.

I’ll defer to what he says unless you have actually read the bill and can refute what Jim says

McCain’s Ad Is Right on the Sex Education Bill

I was going to avoid too much partisan politics today, but there are new details the sex education bill that are worth getting out there.

I continue to get furious e-mails from allegedly longtime readers (who I’ve never heard from before) now say they’ll never read me again because of my assessment of McCain’s ad hitting Obama on education. (Their rhetoric is suspiciously similar to those “longtime Republicans” who call into C-SPAN, who have never voted for a Democrat before, but who are now outraged that Republicans oppose universal health care/windfall profits taxes/the Fairness Doctrine and now are going to vote for Obama/Kerry/Gore.)

Anyway, having now looked at the text of the sex education bill in question… it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” Yes, the legislation permitted parents to take their children out of the class. But that was already existing law.

(Note that the legislation also aimed to change the language from “All public elementary, junior high, and senior high 20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual –intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)” to “All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.”)

Yes, there is a section stating that course material ought to be “age and developmentally appropriate.” But the bill also talks about alcohol and drug use education instruction in grades 5 through 12. So the legislation clearly recognized that some topics are best held until later years, but deemed that instruction on sexually-transmitted diseases - not merely “good touch, bad touch” - wasn’t one of them.

The bill was approved by the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee with the support of… Barack Obama. The bill must have run into objections from the full chamber, because shortly thereafter, one of the bill’s original sponsors, State Sen. Carol Ronen, apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6. But the revised bill never came up for a vote in the full chamber.

In this argument, it is worth noting which side is actually quoting the bill and how it sought to change existing law and which side is arguing, as one reader put it, “common sense suggests that McCain’s ad is b*******. Shouldn’t the fact that it was first used by Alan Keyes have given you a hint?” If a broken clock can be right twice a day, it is not unthinkable that Keyes would raise a legitimate objection to the bill.

I’m sure it’s a lot easier to scream that McCain is a shameless liar and that those who deemed the ad valid are hacks than to concede that one’s preferred candidate backed a bill with an unwise provision.

UPDATE: Okay, I think McCain’s ad is wrong in one respect. As the bill never passed, it’s wrong to call it an Obama “accomplishment.”

09/11 09:31 AM

Okay, I think McCain’s ad is wrong in one respect. As the bill never passed, it’s wrong to call it an Obama “accomplishment.”

And seriously…not a great hit. but an even worse response from the chosen one, honestly…questioning McCain’s honor? Obama can’t take the high road on that one.

And this is at least grounded in fact…unlike every Governor Palin smear you’ve reprinted in this blog