but no in a more serious note:
*obviously you Hillary supporters minds were made up about this before you even knew about it, this is for Obama supporters that like the truth in their candidate

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1 207/Chicago_activists_doubt_Obamas_answe rs_on_questionnaire.html

Obama's staff also says those were his positions at the time, though there appears to be no other evidence dating back to 1996 of his stance on either side of those and other issues.

Mrs. Dobry said she recalled the questionnaire being handed out and discussed at the meeting with Obama, and the Dobrys wrote that they considered it "inconceivable" that he would have allowed a staffer to fill out the questionnaire, though they had no direct evidence he had filled it out.

Another member of IVI-IPO who said she attended a different meeting with Obama during that campaign season, Deboray McCoy, said she left with no strong feeling of who had filled out the questionnaire, or that the questionnaire mattered as much as his performance.

now to the current controversy
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9269.html

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama -- the day after sitting for the interview -- filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama's own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group's endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn't prove he completed, approved -- or even read -- the latter questionnaire.

"Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires -- a staffer did -- and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now," Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. "He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do."

Taken together -- and combined with later policy pronouncements -- the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues.

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent -- or at least notify their parents -- before having abortion.

The first version of Obama's questionnaire responds with a simple "No."

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: "Depends on how young -- possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds."

and even some older ones.  My biggest problem, which I have yet to resolve in my head, is whether he has any belief system at all.  In many ways, he seems like Romney to me -- and McCain -- well and a lot of politicians -- changing with the wind in order to get elected.

And he seems awfully sincere when he speaks and is quite captivating.  But then I read something like the New Black Panther endorsement and I wonder, WTH?  http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/o ne-degree-of-separation-klein-racists.ht ml

I've been supporting Hillary because I know what to expect, and I am still unhappy about her Iraq War vote.  I was always for giving the UN inspectors more time.  But will I have to sit this one out because some new revelation about Obama will surface?

"He should be proud of his positions, there is nothing wrong with his answers to the questionnaire. The problem is he constantly lies until he gets caught in the lie."

Yes, he also used to support single payer health care, and has gone to the other etreme in his evolving views on the issues. If he were genuinely for these positions he once appears to advocate for, I would be working for him, donating to him, and voting for him. He has gone over to the anti progressive, free market right wing side, and it appears to me that his earlier posiions, like his attendance at TUCC, was simply to garner support in his liberal district.

He is now surrounded by center right advisors and seems supremely comfortable chatting up free market competition as he answer to all out problems. You know, like trickle down economics, which amounts to the rich pissing on the poor and expecting the poor to thank them for the shower.

I am a true Democrat according to traditional liberal Democratic values. If the Democratic Party abandons me by nominating  Republican Lite candidate Obama there is no way I will ever vote for him. I have principles I do not violate, and I will not give my support to a candidate I do not believe in or trust.

It's fine to change positions, the problem is lying about it.

did you read any of the article or just this diary?

see my post below with a few more quotes that put more into focus.

Did he fill it out? He says no so that is good enough for me to prove he is lying.

This doesn't this proves he did AMEND it.

he never claimed to not have amended it, he claimed he didn't fill out the original.

thus I don't see a lie.

I think that's the point.  A long time ago Bob Novak, who for all his bad philosophy can make astute political judgments, said Hillary's problem would be that she had positioned herself in the center, thinking she had a lock on the nomination, but she failed to see the potential danger in doing this.