Well, in the heat of the current battle, this seems significant:
For many of us who closely watch the politics of reproductive health, it's been upsetting to see the issue become a wedge in this primary. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have 100 percent pro-choice voting records. But for months now, Clinton has been attacking Obama for seven “present” votes he cast in the Illinois State Senate on legislation that would have rolled back reproductive rights. The state's Planned Parenthood says it encouraged Obama to vote “present” — over his own objections — in order to preserve a pro-choice seat in the legislature. [emphasis mine — Charley.] But that explanation hasn't stopped the Clinton campaign from hammering the “Obama is wobbly on choice” message home with a New Hampshire mailer, multiple press releases, and a conference call with journalists.
Planned Parenthood's approval of Obama's strategy was news to me, so I'm drawing attention to it. This is plainly a desperately creative attempt to create a glimmer of daylight between candidates with quite similar views. Too bad it really has no basis in reality.
To echo Bob, I think Hillary and Bill aren't doing themselves any favors with stuff like this. If they wanted to beat up Obama on coal, or inexperience, or whatever, great. But making up hot-button stuff just makes their campaign look as Machiavellian as suspected, and reinforces Obama's themes of transcendence — whether he deserves that aura or not.
And more importantly, it detracts from the affirmative case for a Hillary Clinton presidency, something she's had difficulty delineating. It's too bad, because I'd like to hear more about it.
Edwards trashed Obama on the “present” votes at the SC debate — not specifically on choice, but clearly taking the view that voting “present” was a cop-out. That may or may not be the case, but JRE is right there with HRC on this one.
<
p>
Seems only fair to include that as well.
<
p>Anyway, I’m not going to defend Edwards on this, his voting record, or anything else to which he’s answerable.
<
p>I would point out that Hillary’s got a much more aggressive organizational/message/mailing push on this very “issue”. With the exception of the exchange above, Edwards is running a different kind of campaign and pushing a different message.
takes you to the full transcript. Feel free to post any part of it that you think relevant. My point was that Edwards joined in on the “present vote” bashing. I’m not arguing the merits of whether the bashing is justified, which is why I didn’t include Obama’s response.
…voting “present” is the equivalent of voting “no.” That’s certainly true on cloture votes, which require 60 affirmative votes to invoke cloture, and constitutional amendments, which require 67 affirmative votes to pass.
They sometimes do it to give cover to colleagues facing a tough vote. Sometimes because of shitty amendments that got stuck on the bill.
<
p>In 2004, pro gay-marriage legislators voted against pro-marriage amendments during the Con Con so they keep their options of bringing the amendments back for a vote. At the time a lot of people were confused by the votes and thought pro-marriage legislators has turned on the gay community. But it was just a procedural device to keep options open. The advocates though had to explain it to all the pissed off folks who thought the legislators had voted wrong. Once explained it was clear.
<
p>Obama is pro-choice no question so the Clintons should back off on this one. And how many votes did Edwards miss in 2004 when he ran for President, plenty of em.
<
p>And again you really do seem to get animated on this site only to bash Obama. We get the point, the Dude ain’t perfect (who is) but he is just the best candidate we got out there.
for what John Edwards said. Take it up with his campaign.
Nauseating. I can’t believe in the last month how Rove-ian the Clintons have become. Using an issue as important as choice to drive a wedge is unforgivable and is right out of the GOP playbook, as are all of the distortions the Clintons have been implicitly and explicitly presenting.
<
p>Documents a turn-around on this issue from a pro-choice activist in Chicago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Great explanation, you know, Obama bowing down to a special interest like that. But it’s okay, because it’s your special interest, which fights for people’s rights, rather than mine which is evil for some reason or another.
<
p>Frankly, I think it speaks leaps and bounds about Obama that he would vote the way some group tells him to, let alone over his own objections.
This was a disagreement over strategy by allies, not over substance. That’s what one comes away with. Either way, they don’t agree with your view.
The democratic primary is about how you would govern — which relates to strategy, approach, tone, and general view of those who oppose or agree with you. I happen to be really turned off by what HRC’s behavior says about how she wants to win, and how she wants to govern — her way by any means neccessary. Ick.
…to support that statement with some subtance and distinguish what you find objectionable about Clinton from the candidate you support?
<
p>Otherwise you are just saying, I don’t like Clinton. Ick. Not very convincing.
<
p>
you are voting in line with one special interest or other. if he had voted in line with the womb controllers, he would have voted differently and you wouldn’t be blabbering ‘special interest!’ right now. it goes both ways joe.
and voting because a special interest told you to are two different things. Obama did the latter.
they are the same thing. or are you going to get on mccain’s ass now too because he always votes in line with the womb-control orgs wishes?
….sorry but I have to agree with the criticism. There is too much strategy and not enough honesty in politics. An legislators vote should be inviolate, even to allies. If he wanted to cast a decisive vote he should have. He didn’t protect choice, he protected his re-electability. At the end of the day, it was self serving.
are you sure? i haven’t analyzed the scenario, but the pro-choice org’s statement doesn’t agree with your assessment.
<
p>as for insisting that all votes be yes or no, tell me, have you never answered a y/n question with silence or deflection? i’m happy if pols understand how to take procedural or strategic votes. if you with to conclude that this was a shirking of duty on obama’s part, you really need to provide some analysis of his record, putting votes in context.
….too silly the way that people will parse politics to favor their candidate. Obama has been picking apart Clinton’s voting record from day one and is quite happy to let stand the belief that she specifically voted to go to war in Iraq which the history of the AUMF simply doesn’t bear out. Is the war not a divisive issue as well? Then there was the Obama minion on CNN after Clintons “crying” episode. And the India crap and so on and so on.
<
p>Both candidates have used the same techniques to the same degree.
<
p>I’m sorry, but I am not relieved to hear that Obama voted “present” at the urging of planned parenthood. One major problem in politics in my estimation is strategic voting. It backfires and sometimes gets us crap like DOMA. I realized there is a difference in degree but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama allowed external forces to effect his vote. And with all the present votes he filed this is the tip of the ice berg. It seems clear to me that Obama votes with his image in mind and that is not a good thing.
<
p>
Everyone knew at the time that resolution was introduced that Bush would use it to invade Iraq. Kerry already lost one election trying to argue, in the face of common sense, that he was somehow misled by The Decider. It is fatuous for Senator Clinton now to try to make the same argument. If she does in fact again try to argue that she was shocked, shocked the President Bush went off and invaded Iraq without coming back to the Congress for another vote I predict she will suffer the same fate as Kerry.
….everyone did not know it then. Edwards didn’t know it and regrets that he voted the way he did because of what happened and Clinton is on record clearly as stating that she believes she was mislead by the White House. Bush operated in opposition to everything he said he would do and in the face of the opposition of the UN and the majority of the world community. 29 democratic senators and 81 democratic representatives voted for the AUMF and it seems to me patently fatuous to suggest that everyone of them were voting to go to war with Iraq. I for one choose to lay the blame for the Iraq war where it belongs, at the feet of George W. Bush.
<
p>
Wouldn’t you think that someone who is “ready from day one” would have known something about intelligence and its vagaries and not placed blind faith in Bush’s bunch – wouldn’t she have dug a little deeper cause she knows so much about the process. If she was so easily misled then – after her eight years of White House “experience” then why should we trust she won’t be misled into attacking Iran or someone else.
<
p>She was for the war when that looked politically popular and finally against it when she had to for the primaries.
…your assessment in terms of your first paragraph. If you feel she showed bad judgment that is legitimate. I don’t agree with you closing statement. The AUMF was not a declaration of war. There is no support for your claim that she supported the war, ever.
<
p>Further, your criticism might be more on point if close to half all democratic legisilators weren’t in fact so misled and I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that it happened easily.
Barack needs to address the question and explain it to voters in a simple and clear way, otherwise, voters will see Edwards’ attacks as real. ; )
is that some one like you Charlie hadn’t yet heard the actual story about those “present” votes yet… Planned Parenthood of Illinois have been refuting the Clintons’ attacks since they were first made, but the campaign is still been spinning so even people that are paying close attention hadn’t noticed yet.