Report: Obama Voted "Present" Repeatedly As State Senator

Comments (108)

abiodun wrote on December 20, 2007 11:19 AM:

Why does it seem the repubs are not attacking obama? What do they know about Obama?

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 11:19 AM:

Here's the factcheck on it (Eric you should provide as a link, just like you guys linked to Hillary's fact check on Obama's mailer the other day).

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

In the interim, we should do some math: 130/4000= 0.0325 (or 3.25%).

Now let the exaggerations begin (the title is a good start, but I know we will see even crazier claims in just a few minutes).

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 11:25 AM:

Took you clinton lovers long enough. I read the article this morning and there was ONE, count it, ONE questionable vote and the vote being questionable is debatable. He voted present 45 times at the request of pro-abortion groups and at other times as part of a dem strategy in the legislature. I would not call ONE controversial vote out of 4000 "repeatedly" voting present.

Interesting this story comes out 2 weeks before the caucuses. Why not six months ago when everyone was harping on his experience. I am still waiting on a news story concerning clinton II's voting record. Where is that one? Where is a post on all her alleged experience and looking at the conclusions with a critical eye. Not one such post since august at least and I am willing to bet there wasn't one before august.

Oh, by the way I know of at least TW0 controversial votes by clinton II. That's 100 percent more than obama. That's twice as many as obama.

How about the iraq war vote. She voted to invade a freaking country based on lies. Hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans died. Hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans have been horribly maimed and disfigured. Women and children's lives are ruined. Whole families destroyed. Schools, hospitals, homes decimated. It is horrible and why? For politics. She didn't even read the NIE that said the war was based on a lie.

How about the iran vote, to start the ball rolling for a war with iran. Not a controversial vote.

What a freaking joke. Voted repeatedly my a** and the vast majority of the present votes were at the request of dem special interest groups. Pathetic.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 11:37 AM:

One other thing: you apparently skipped right over the story on Clinton on the front page of the NY Times as well (it was actually above this article). I assume you guys are working up a post on this as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Yawn wrote on December 20, 2007 11:38 AM:

Yep, I was waiting for this one.

Never mind that this is a recycled story being pushed behind the scenes by the Clinton campaign.

Never mind that when Clinton tried to publicly scold Obama over it, trying to claim the mantle on pro-choice issues, pro-choice organizations universally denounced her description of the events and endorsed Obama's strategy.

Those of us who read the article know how smart the present votes were (and how some were politically unpopular but he did them because he fundamentally disagreed with the bill or process, even when the bills were passing unanimously — hardly the picture of the mindless sheep Clinton tries to paint).

Derek wrote on December 20, 2007 11:44 AM:

Once again, a news story trying to make an issue over something he talked about extensively in his book. He even describes EXACTLY why he votes present.

bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

Yeah, this is bullshit and everyone familiar with legislative politics knows it. Obama has already addressed this and people involved with advocacy groups such as NOW have stepped forward to defend his against these sorts of attacks and have outed them as unacceptable. This is another sign of a desperate Clinton campaign trying for a December surprise. He has shown a principled and strong position on women's issues and to say anything to the contrary is being disingenuous (which is actually becoming the best word I can use to describe Clinton's campaign). Here is a quote from the Chicago NOW director: While I was the president of Chicago NOW, "Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman’s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues.” So really Hillary (and pro-Hillary media), stop trying to make issues out of nothing, it reeks of desperation.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Michael A, why aren't we looking at Hillary's crazy voting history? In addition to the Iraq vote and the "I learned nothing from Iraq" Iran vote, I'd also like some coverage of her strong position against international human rights organizations and especially her vote against the International Criminal Court. I'd also like to look at her votes concerning Israel that are in lockstep with AIPAC, one of her favorite lobbying groups and a big source of cash for her. For instance, her defense of Israeli cluster bombing of Palestinian civilians? Hillary voted in the Senate to keep those cluster bombs flowing. Oh, and landmines? She is opposed to giving them up, even though they kill and maim civilians wherever they are used. Oh, and selling weapons to parties engaged in armed conflicts who are condemned by human rights groups for their practices? Hillary says hell yeah! Hillary voted against restrictions of these arms sales. Yeah, those are just a few votes of hers I'd really like the media to look at, but I guess that is too much to hope for. So much for an honest debate about real issues. No, instead we have to put up with this rubbish.

el ranchero wrote on December 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

I'm sorry, is it not also news that the NYT published this very negative article on stuff Obama was doing years ago two weeks before the primary?

Put another way, if tomorrow the Times ran a story on Vince Foster, would there be any question at all who was behind the piece or what the motive for running it so close to the caucus is?

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

More context. Eric unless you are taking a nap or are in the john, this posts needs to be updated pronto:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

Andrew wrote on December 20, 2007 11:49 AM:

It would have been nice if the Times had done some research to find out how often other IL state legislators voted "present". As is, there's absolutely no way to discern whether Obama employed this tactic more or less often than your typical legislator. The implication, obviously, is that he used it more frequently than others but there's nothing in the piece to back this up. Unfortunate.

This whole "story" looks to be Hillary just blowing smoke.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 11:50 AM:

abiodun wrote on December 20, 2007 11:19 AM:

Why does it seem the repubs are not attacking obama? What do they know about Obama?

I don't think they're holding anything against Obama, and I also doubt they could find anything that the Clinton campaign hasn't. The only Dem they've consistently attacked is HRC, and I suspect that is only because it plays so well with their base.

Obama presents a unique problem for the GOP. He makes it incredibly difficult for them to run their Southern Strategy without appearing blatantly racist. That's a problem because Republicans have won recent elections because of support from white, college-educated people living in the suburbs and exurbs, and a racist campaign will backfire horribly in this swing demographic.

It's a problem on the Democratic side, too. Bob Kerry did no favors for Hillary Clinton when he said that stupid crap a couple of days ago. (My favorite part, which wasn't picked up, was when he told CNN that Obama could explain why so many black children are underperforming.)

Aaron M wrote on December 20, 2007 11:53 AM:

From a recommended dairy on Daily Kos this morning:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/101819/09/539/424577

In which the diarist provides excerpts from a Chicago Tribune political blog:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html

"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council"

---

"Anyone who says that a `present' vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn't understand the first thing about legislative strategy," said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield. "People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?'"

---

Sutherland just laughs. "We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present' on that one," she said. "It was all done to pull `present' votes off the fence."

Obama confirmed Sutherland's account of the legislative strategy and said, "No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was."

"Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process," said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence."

--- End

What is really crucial to have in discussing this issue (or any issue really) is context.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 11:58 AM:

Excellent link keith. The more I see this grasping at straws by the clinton attack machine the more and more that obama looks like a really, really great nominee. Way too funny.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:02 PM:

"Obama's campaign dismissed the criticism, noting that Obama cast roughly 4,000 votes in the state legislature and also that his "present" votes were often done in concert with other Democrats voting as a bloc for strategic reasons, or were done in protest of bills that Obama felt had constitutional problems."

By the way that this statement is worded, it is apparent that there were many times that they were NOT "done in concert with other Democrats voting as a bloc for strategic reasons, or were done in protest of bills that Obama felt had constitutional problems."

Otherwise, the campaign would have said "nearly always" or "99 percent of the time" or something like that.

To see some uninformed supporter on here rant hysterically that there is only one "Present" vote at issue here is both laughable, and shows how much this one hurts.

Obama is being tarred with this wimpy-on-controversial-votes brush in direct contradiction of his trying to portray himself as a leader on the same issues he ducked then, and continues to duck now (see non-vote on K-L).

JubleJohnson wrote on December 20, 2007 12:02 PM:

Hey TPM,what's next Obama did not eat a fish he caught cause it was too small ?
grasping for straws bit time.
Hey was Josh not one of the bloggers who had a meeting with BClinton in 2006 on election strategy ? Goes a long way in telling us why we are getting some on the headlines.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:03 PM:

The more I see this grasping at straws by the clinton attack machine the more and more that obama looks like a really, really great nominee.

Indeed. Every time they try these subtle smears it backfires, and yet they keep trying. Well, what the heck; let us stand back and offer them enough rope to hang themselves if such is their good pleasure.

waka waka wrote on December 20, 2007 12:04 PM:

Drudge says the NYT is holding a negative story on McCain because management has "concerns" about doing so this close to a primary. Typical Democratic/Republican double-standard treatment. Luckily for Obama this is old news and not controversial when actually examined.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 12:04 PM:

Oops. That anonymous post at 12:02 is mine.

green heron wrote on December 20, 2007 12:05 PM:

Voting "present"--or not voting at all--never seems to harm candidates running for reelection. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Obama is a smart and honest man. The voters can feel it.

bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 12:06 PM:

Urg, seriously, why is Obama repeatedly the target of SHITTY journalism? You have two of the biggest and most well-funded papers in the United States running shit stories like WaPo's Obama-is-a-Muslim emails, and now the NYT with this embarrassingly poorly researched smear piece. I mean really, enough of the bullshit, these papers should be EMBARRASSED for their utter lack of intelligent reporting and journalistic integrity. Really, it is pathetic and I would just feel sorry for these idiots if I weren't so pissed off about them helping out the Hillary smear machine.

And yeah, Hillary launched two websites to attack Obama with these ignorant smears. "Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process." EXACTLY Hillary. IG-NOR-ANT.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 12:07 PM:

I support kucinich. Read the article and draw your own conclusion from the article. At least I am informed enough concerning the content of the article, which you obviously aren't. Also, it seems kind of strange to sift through 4000 votes to try to find something, anything.

How many votes did clinton II make in the senate? How many were controversial? How many did she miss? Where is this information to do a comparison? Hmmm.

Derek wrote on December 20, 2007 12:07 PM:

More context. Eric unless you are taking a nap or are in the john, this posts needs to be updated pronto:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

Ahaha! What a wonderful timing coincidence between the NYT piece and their domain registration. I'm surprised the website isn't active yet.

Enquiring minds wrote on December 20, 2007 12:07 PM:

He didn't vote on Kyl-Lieberman. How do you interpret that?

along wrote on December 20, 2007 12:10 PM:

OK, regardless of the wording the Times used, your use of the word 'repeatedly' is ridiculously misleading. As Keith points out above, Obama voted 'present' 3.25% of the time over 8 years.

Their headline now has the word 'often', which is also misleading (I don't remember that word being there last night...)

In any case, I'm glad they did the research and gave some of th context. But as Andrew above points out, they didn't do all the necessary work. here's the email I sent to Raymond Hernandez soon as this piece came out:

Re your latest article on Senator Obama:

I'm thankful you've done this research and presented it in a measured fashion.

But after reading your article, one question jumps out at me:

Over an 8-year span, Obama voted 'present' about 3.2% of the time. How does this measure up to the numbers of his colleagues in that same time period? Is it high, average, or low? We know voting present is an accepted tactic in the Illinois State Senate, but we don't know how often it occurs.

I understand that the research involved in that question may take a lot more time than you had for this piece. But it seems to me that that particular context is a very important one to inform your readers about.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 12:14 PM:

Colonpowwow:

36 times he voted present alone or with six or fewer (according to the article). So of the 4000 votes, we are talking about 0.009 or less than 1% of the votes.

I know, I know . . . he's still wimpy because Clinton says so. Got it.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

green heron wrote on December 20, 2007 12:05 PM:
"Voting "present"--or not voting at all--never seems to harm candidates running for reelection."

Uh, yeah, that's what "Present" company was (is) counting on when confronted with controversial issues.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 12:19 PM:

Enquiring minds:

He was campaigning in NH when the vote was called (at 12:14 according to the Congressional Record and was held at 12:44 according to Roll Call), which as of the prior night had been tabled for the foreseeable future (again, according to the Congressional Record). He and McCain, also campaigning (and a co-sponsor of the measure), missed the vote.

NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 12:19 PM:

I was struck by two things about the NYT piece.

First, it was clearly the product of oppo research, and probably a little pressure on the ol' hometown rag from Camp Clinton, just like Solomon's leadership PAC piece in the WaPo. Not whining about that, its how the game is played. Team Obama has done its share, I'm sure.

Second, this story is a classic example of why the implicit assumption of the Hillaroids that absence of dirt = absence of scrutiny is bunk. Over and over again, we see the MSM and the other campaigns putting their all into digging up some seriously horrible dirt on Obama but, invariably, they just end up looking silly for trying to portray a fart in a windstorm as a festering stagnant cesspit.

This time, we discover that, on 130 out of 4000, votes in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted "present" and, on one, count 'em, one of those, he may have done it to duck a difficult issue rather than as part of a a concerted political strategy or to express actual ambivilence about the bill. Whoa, that's devestating. Just like the shocking reports that he bought a house for less than its initial asking price, bought a strip of land from a somewhat shady longtime supporter at actual market value, and, gasp, ran up a lot of parking tickets while he was at Harvard that he paid off before he announced. Oh, and let's not forget that his leadership pac gave money to democratic politicians in an apparent attempt to make them think well of him. Man, the scandals just keep coming.

Look folks, back in the 90s, a lot of us, me included, got very comfortable with a morally relativistic defensive frame in which we put Bill and Hill's relatively venal moral and personal failings against those of their Republican tormenters and we were right to do so. However, in so doing, many of us also, without really thinking about it, adjusted our normative expectations downward to the point of cynically assuming it was naive to believe that anyone in politics could be any better. That pathological cynicism is a big part of what causes Hillary's supporters to insist that Obama will just crumple under the presumed pressure of the presumably omnipotent Republican attack machine. The truth, however, is that that cynicism is one of the subtle toxins that's been working its way into the tissue of our democracy for the last fifteen years.

It doesn't take some delusional leap of faith to get over that cynicism. It just takes a willingness to fairly consider the availible evidence rather than rejecting it out of hand if it doesn't confirm our cynicsm. The availible evidence is that they have, in fact, tried very hard indeed to find some dirt on the guy and they keep coming up empty.

john mccutchen wrote on December 20, 2007 12:20 PM:

Gee there was another story in today's NyT

How could Sgt Kleefeld have missed

Clinton Foundation: Mrs. Bill's Secret Slush Fund

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 20, 2007 12:21 PM:

The facts according to Hillary? better slow that mustang down: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

Keith:

Agreed. .0009 times or whatever voting "Present" sounds much better than 130 times voting "Present."

Got it.

Now, I wonder what the percentage of Hillary's votes you disagree with is against all of her Senate votes . . .

southpaw wrote on December 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

I'm an Edwards supporter who admires Obama but distrusts his instinctive dive to the center and is disappointed by his failure to show up to oppose Kyl Liberman or support Dodd's FISA filibuster. Reading the Times article this morning I was struck by how careful, how deliberative Obama was in evaluating legislation. After reading this article, I am sure that unlike HRC, he would not have voted to go to war with Iraq without reading the actual NIE, not a staff synopsis. His "present" votes seem strategic and often to avoid punitive laws. I think HRC is making a mistake focusing on what seems to be an estimable legislative record, when hers is so thin and features sponsorship of a pandering flag burning bill.

JoeCHI wrote on December 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

When Clinton was in China speaking about womens' rights, Obama was in the Illinois Senate voting "present".

"Present" is for p*ssies.

Allen wrote on December 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

You guys need to take a look in the mirror. You have become the MSM.

If you can't see the bias, then i feel sorry for you.

Koshembos wrote on December 20, 2007 12:32 PM:

It turns out that courage means to vote present. I am shocked at how successful an arrogant, empty and almost Republican Obama is. Even Krugman spelling out the problems is not enough. Worse of all, the so called progressive are voting for a centrist Obama. What is progressive about the center? I thought Cesar Chavez was a progressive; I probably missed a turn in that carousel.

chris brandow wrote on December 20, 2007 12:34 PM:

obama supporter here (just to let you calibrate my comments accordingly :-) )

1. I am really struck by the new site that clinton's campaign has gotten together: votingpresent.com . It really does strike me as a swift-boaty kind of thing. Of course politics is not tiddly-winks, but it seems pretty cheesy.

2. As for Kyl-Lieberman, my understanding was that the timing of the vote was switched at the last minute to a time/day that conflicted with major campaign event. some say it was on purpose by Reid. It is unfortunate either way.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 12:37 PM:

Anon@12:23

Less than 1% and just over 3.25%, neither strikes me as "often". If you can provide me with a list of all her votes/non-votes and the underlying rationale (all of them cause I know she shifts over time), I'll be happy to play along.

JoeChi: You forgot that he was voting present at Planned Parenthood's and Illinois NOW's request.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

There literally is no there there.

grover_rover wrote on December 20, 2007 12:37 PM:

Ohhh, I forgot about that horrible and reactionary piece of shit non-issue flag-burning bill, and about the fact that Hillary sponsored it.

Yeah, her legislative "career" stinks of ineptitude. The fact she is attacking Obama on this just highlights that fact even more. Sad sad woman..

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 12:38 PM:

Yeah joechi, voting to invade a country and kill innocent people based on lies and for politics is what? . . . . . . I can't think of anything funny for that. It's too disgusting and depressing.

LJ wrote on December 20, 2007 12:42 PM:

Funny stuff. I watched several of the debates and saw Hillary Clinton answer "present" repeatedly. But then again we can't have a candidate who telegraphs her policy positions to the voters.

RaymondA wrote on December 20, 2007 12:47 PM:

Great post, LJ. I distinctly recall that line from Hillary.

More fundamentally:

Where is TPM's story on the Clinton Library! Hillary pal Denise Rich gives 450,000 shortly before her husband is pardoned? If you are collecting prominent stories and noting them, how come the disparate treatment?

Argggh!

Radha wrote on December 20, 2007 12:51 PM:

This site has lost all its credibility with me, with their constant shilling for Clinton and to a lesser extent (and mostly by not publicizing negatives against him) Edwards.

All they needed to have done to put this hit piece in context is to just look at a couple of stories about Obama in Illinois.

Sad, sad excuse for journamalism, even...

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 12:53 PM:

Was it 450,000 Raymond A? I totally forgot about rich and pardon thing until someone brought it up this last week. Isn't it priceless that the negotiator of the deal was scooter? Talk about bush/clinton/bush/"clinton."

What I have been complaining about and really don't understand is why none of this stuff is in the right-wing media? People should have this information to be informed to vote in the primaries. There is absolute silence. I can guarantee and will bet the farm, it will be 24/7 in october of next year if she is the nominee. Why aren't dems concerned about that? It makes no sense. Can you see the attack adds on her white house experience? Ugh, it gives me nightmares. The only known experience is bad stuff. Everything else is super double secret or fluffy conclusions.

Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 1:12 PM:

We're talking about legislating and we haven't even brought up one of the most startling sections in today's NYT piece on Mrs. Clinton:

Early on, donations to the library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the pardon came after Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s library.

That spring, Mrs. Clinton co-sponsored legislation to publicly identify donors to foundations of future sitting presidents. She referred to that legislation in the debate three months ago, although the bill had died in committee.

So not only is she intimately involved in multi-million dollar fundraising for her/her husband, she's using her post as a United States Senator to provide political cover for when questions may be raised later.

Obama, on the other hand, mastered the deep culture of Illinois legislating (which reminds me of a certain other U.S. President) with relatively little knowledge of the power structure at work in Chicago and Springfield. Using a political maneuver to out smart your opponents and deliver for constituents shows Obama's adaptability and intellect, not a hungry power grab.

And I mean Jesus, with a man like Obama, do we really want to start debating Mark Rich again? It seems only to play into the GOP hope of skewering the Clintons in the general election.

Aden Nak wrote on December 20, 2007 1:20 PM:

Why isn't the GOP attacking Obama? Simple. They want him to win. Not that I think they'd have the easiest time against him (to be honest, I think they will have a hard time in a general election against Clinton, Obama or Edwards no matter who wins). But they've pretty much said every awful thing they can think of about Hillary already, and they don't know how to beat a southern Democrat. So they figure their best bet is to go up against Obama and hope their base will come out to the general election based on racial prejudice.

It's not a GOOD plan, and probably not a winning one. It's just the only plan they've got.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

Keith:

Okay, I'll play along on the percentage- of-wimpy-votes game as opposed to number and import of wimpy votes (remember, it was his CAMPAIGN that responded he OFTEN voted "Present" as a strategy - implication = he often did not).

Won't you be surprised when you discover that you agree with Senator Clinton on 99.744% of her Senate votes ;-) ?

Gregor wrote on December 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

The next test for the NYT will be how they handle new polls showing Obama has much better spreads in the general against a GOP candidate, than Hillary. Seems to me that many of the lemming DEMS, once they get their head around such numbers, will realize they were for Hillary from the get-go for very few reasons that had to do with Hillary, herself.

Obama is a bull market now, climbing the classic wall of worry. It's delicious that that everyone from Shaheen to Krugman, to Bill himself, fail to see that. It's especially surprising to see Bill fall for it. In fact, I think his original instinct up until that disastrous Charlie Rose show, was to say nothing. Bill's original instincts are almost always correct.

If Obama is as clever as I think he is, and I think he is even more clever than Bill, which is saying alot, he is wiggling his toes in delight at this barrage of attacks.

I must say, he played Iowa beautifully. Staying close to Hillary, then going into over-drive for the last 8 weeks, and capturing perfectly the rhythm of the news cycle which has now dead-ended into the Holidays. He has left the Clinton camp trying to counter-attack into the Holidays.

Genius.

blackstar wrote on December 20, 2007 1:26 PM:

firstly, this particular reporter, Christopher Drew, is responsible for at least 4 quite negative pieces about Obama, more than any other NYT reporter (including Krugman).

secondly: who gives a !^#* about 130 "Present" votes? if he cast around 4,000 votes, and 130-odd of them were "Present", that means he voted "Present" about 5% of the time. wow, that really seems like such a huge deal it deserves a full article.

furthermore his campaign, rather than writing these votes off (as some other campaigns might do...), comes out and addresses nearly every "Present" vote individually, giving explanations for why the Senator voted how he did.

this isn't newsworthy, as a positive OR a negative story. its just nothing.

Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 1:36 PM:

Aden,
I don't think the GOP has a plan to run against Obama. They don't even have the foggiest idea of who they're nominee will be. The Republicans know how to fight the Clintons, and I think most of the GOP is desperate for Mrs. Clinton to pull this out and win the nomination. With Clinton as the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will have one thing that unites them when they are currently so divided: the Clintons. Just look at their early debates. The one thing every candidate agreed on and stressed was the need to prevent Hillary Clinton in the White House.
This is the most wide open GOP field in a generation and the party is not used to lacking an establishment candidate around which to rally the different factions of the conservative coalition. With Hillary, they find their common ground. With Obama, they have no idea how to deal with him and the number of Reagan Democrats who will come on home.

Tom wrote on December 20, 2007 1:42 PM:

Obama is a coward. He's afraid to stand up to the powerful interests. That's why he talks about unity. John Edwards knows we can never have unity when one side is evil. He will fight them and defeat them. He's not afraid to stand up for what's right. He's been doing it all his life.

LJ wrote on December 20, 2007 1:43 PM:

From the ABC article:

"I don't think people want a lot of talk about change," she told Iowans early this month. "I think they want someone with a real record -- a doer, not a talker. After eight years of incompetence, they don't want false hope, they want real results."

Real results:
Hillary voted "yes" on the authorization for the use of force against Iraq, enabling President Bush to start an unnecessary war that has killed thousands of Americans and countless innocent Iraqis. In her floor speech before voting "yes", she admitted that her vote might lead to war. She was right. It did.

Real results:
Hillary voted "yes" on the Patriot Act. The real result is that the civil liberties of Americans are diminished.

Real results:
Hillary voted "yes" on No Child Left Behind. The real result of Hillary's vote in favor of this awful law's unfunded mandates is more federal control of our schools and less local control. Thanks, Hillary.

This is Hillary's track record, folks. These are her real results. Much of the "change" she talks about now consists of fixing problems that she helped create. If you want "change", you need someone who wasn't on the wrong side of the issue in the first place. A comparison of words and deeds is not a place the Clinton campaign should go.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 1:43 PM:

Colonpowwow:

I would be surprised, especially considering (1) you don't know me and (2) you don't know my position on all of those votes. Or is this Clinton oppo research team THAT good?

Pepper wrote on December 20, 2007 1:44 PM:

Senator Obama claim that with the luxury of hind site and focus testing he now knows unequivocally that if he had shown up and voted or voted yeah or nay instead of Present he would have voted different then Senator Clinton is not creditable and when reviewed with the record no different than the casting of oneself as a compassionate conservative without the hard work.

Gregor wrote on December 20, 2007 1:45 PM:

Stefan is correct. The GOP is expert at repeating old stratagems. If they are called upon to come up with a new playbook, it's gonna be very tough on them. By the time they figure it out, the game will be over. Stefan's post points out that no matter who the GOP nominates, they'll never have a "leader" greater than Hillary, to bring them together. They could still lose against Hillary. That's not so much a forgone conclusion. But what's more clear is that Obama would present them with a real problem. Obama presents the GOP with a puzzle I'm not convinced they can figure out. Instead, they'll just throw at Obama whatever they have thrown at the DEMS in the past. Not gonna work this time.

One caveat is that things are changing very quickly in the global financial markets. The landscape could in fact be radically different one year from now. Since the GOP is always slow to react, however, this too probably disfavors them.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 2:03 PM:

Don't ask, don't tell.

steve wrote on December 20, 2007 2:04 PM:

Unbelievable that the Obama supporters somehow call foul on this story and see it as a media attack. The NYT piece was way to soft and forgiving; if this had been about Hillary, it would have been much harsher. But it's not about Hillary -- because she doesn't back down from fights. To the Obama supporter who calculates that this constitutes 3.5% of his votes ... you seem to think that is a small number; it alarmed me to see that math. I don't want a nominee or a president who weighs in 96.5% of the time; I want a 100%er, which is what Hillary is. And this is not relegated to Illinois politics; even in his (very brief) time on the national stage, Obama has hidden under the desk ... Lieberman/Kyl, anyone? He was supposedly so opposed to that, and it was so dangerous, that he couldn't even show up to vote. That's not a leader, and not someone who can take back the White House for us.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 2:05 PM:

Pepper:

If what you said was true, then Senator Obama wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Luckily he was on the record at the time events unfolded, so we have his contemporaneous statments and accounts to judge his actions, instead of the recasting you and other HRC supporters are attempting. But if that's all you've got, then that's all you've got.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

bob wrote on December 20, 2007 2:13 PM:

Damn, you guys are suckers! TPM, say it ain't so!

Selective coverage = bias. Period.

Nothing about the front page article in the NYTimes on the cozy Clinton relationship with large anonymous donors to Bill's presidential foundation? Donors can use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198173632-E8ZIx2Agt7/pZXMJSO5mAg&pagewanted=print

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 2:15 PM:

Steve:

I'm the Obama supporter you are apparently referring to, so I'll respond directly. First, I'm not crying foul, but putting context the characterization of him voting present "often"--he voted yes or no 96.75% of the time. Perhaps you are afraid of numbers, I don't know, but no one with any credibility or who actually read the story, would be "alarmed". According to the story, only 36 of the present votes were not part of a larger strategy, so that brings the number down to less than 1%--far below the YAWN factor.

And I've clicked through on to the fact checker (I certainly doubt you have for fear that your brain my explode when confronted with contemporaneous accounts of events ) and I don't see any evidence of hiding. Rather the record establishes that he took principaled stands on these issues.

But hey, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just correcting the misinformation that is littered throughout your post.

Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 2:18 PM:

Steve,
I see it as just the opposite. I see the "present" votes as Obama adapting to the environment which he found himself in, much like he did his entire life up until that point. In this case, it was the Illinois statehouse. The fact that he would be able to employ a legislative move in order to make his point in the face of unanimous majority votes only strengthens my belief that this man is a man of principle, regardless of who is watching. It would have been much easier to go along with his colleagues in the Senate and yet he voiced his concerns over bills that he believed were unconstitutional. How refreshing that even as a young man he was rooted in Constitutional law and applied himself wholly and passionately along those lines. An obscure nobody in a state senate and he still upheld the values we should expect in a president.

kjoe wrote on December 20, 2007 2:26 PM:

Gut feeling on this----when Bill Clinton tried to wrest control of Hillary's campaign away from mark Penn last week, he was clumsy about it, (the bush senior and him together fiasco) but pretty effective in what he was doing on behalf of hillary(charlie rose interview).

Penn has re-established control---and in f#**ing with Bill Clinton, Penn is a middle relief baseball pitcher with an era of 5.5, facing Albert Pujols.

He is capable of sabotaging Hillary's 2008 campaign just to remind Penn he is the alpha dog.

steve wrote on December 20, 2007 2:27 PM:

The Obama-supporter hysterial on this continues to dazzle me. "The media is so hard on him!" or "But voting 'present' 3.5% of the time is so small!" C'mon, folks. If Obama thought a bill was unconstitutional, he should vote against it. Shouldn't he? Let's play that out ... hopefully, he thinks it's unconstitutional to deny "terror" detainees their due process; would he simply not take a "yes or no" stand on that, since he thinks it's unconstitutional? This is nonsense. One missing piece of the NYT article, unfortunately, is how often Obama just didn't show up (a la Lieberman/Kyl, once he got to the U.S. Senate). We're getting a fuller picture of Obama, and it's not of a man who stands for his convictions -- it's of a man who hides under the desk when there's a tough call to make.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 2:33 PM:

Steve:

You seem awfully naive with the nonsense you are posting. This is state politics, where Republicans controlled the state legislature and forced through bill after bill to get Democrats on record either supporting wacky bills or voting against them--rock and hard place. However, in Illinois the third option deprives them of their ammunition. If you and HRC don't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Here's his statement:

The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said.

Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 2:36 PM:

Some facts, from a few years back:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

Planned Parenthood President: Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a 'duck.' Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based...I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

Ok, steve, give us clinton II's voting record. Where is it and what did she vote for? I guarantee its not 100%. We know she's missed votes for campaigning. Also, we know yes votes for wars, the patriot act, the ridiculous flag burning amendment and the other votes pointed out here. What's her freaking record? Does anybody know?

No colonpowwow, I don't want to see your list again about the puerto-rican national forest or the woodstock museum. I want to see her stupid record. If someone is going through the trouble to sift through 4000 of obama's state legislature votes to find ONE freaking allegedly controversial vote, somebody had to do it for clinton II that's not a republican sitting on it, wouldn't you think?

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 2:38 PM:

Keith,
We are not the ones who are naive.
There is no way to interpret Obama's 130 present votes as an expression of strength.
They show a risk-averse politician preparing a run for national office.
I have no problem with that strategy---I simply object to mischaracterizations of it.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 2:39 PM:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13989.html#more-13989

Steve wrote on December 20, 2007 2:40 PM:

Keith:

There's nothing richer than an Obama supporter calling someone "naive."

So there's Obama's statement, framing the present votes as more proof that he's above normal politics. Sorry, folks: These present votes show that he's just another politician, and not a very skilled one at that.

Bottom line: We need a nominee who shows up every time, stands up every time, and fights for his/her convictions. Let's take Lieberman/Kyl ... I wasn't entirely comfortable with Hillary's vote, but I'm definitely more comfortable with someone who shows up and votes (knowing, as she had to, that there will be tough criticism). Where was Obama. Not even 'present.'

Presidents don't hide from tough votes or tough calls. Obama does.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 2:41 PM:

in f#**ing with Bill Clinton, Penn is a middle relief baseball pitcher with an era of 5.5, facing Albert Pujols.

Totally off-topic, but as a St Louisan and rabid Cardinals' fan, can I just say how tickled I was to see "Albert Pujols" used as a euphemism for "really powerful, very hard to beat." Go Cards!

Xeno wrote on December 20, 2007 2:42 PM:

Obama refuses to vote on bills because he is a coward who lacks principles.

Period.

A politician who refuses to do his job (i.e., legislate) is totally worthless. Not to mention spineless.

Pepper wrote on December 20, 2007 2:44 PM:

What folly, the GOP dosent have to change anything to run against Obama, they have been running an anti Obama campaign since the 60s when Senator Clinton was a young women the only thing that would turn them out more would be a gay running for the White House. It dose not matter who the Dem Nominee is they will be ravaged severely and if you havent imagined the viciousness of the attacks do and prepare for the battle.

RaymondA wrote on December 20, 2007 2:44 PM:

The more I think about it, the more galled I am by the hypocrisy of Election Central.

One great innovation that Josh Marshall added to this blog was "TPM Muckraker," which seemed at its inception and for a while thereafter to truly be a sort of good-government reformist nonpartisan corner of the site.

The nondisclosure by the Clinton library of folks and even foreign nations giving massive sums of money is something that would bother any true reformer. Sure, it was not illegal, but it's completely contrary to any acceptable understanding of transparency to allow large anonymous contributions to a Presidential library when that President is not retired from partisan politics.

When these laws were drafted, no former President had ever waded deeply and intensively into partisan campaigning, and no one expected a first lady to become a candidate herself with the active campaigning assistance of her husband.

Now that we've seen this change -- and of course it's perfectly legit for a First Lady to run -- it appears that Bill and his fat cat donors have simply been exploiting a massive unintended loophole in the law.

Shame on them. This is far worse than voting "present" a few times, and doing so publicly.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 2:45 PM:

Steve, you are completely distorting even the NY Times distortions. There was one allegedly controversial vote, ONE, out of 4000. Not 130, not 100, not 50, ONE. Alot of the present votes were tactical and due to the tactics in a state leglislature. Is that too hard for you to understand? Read the stupid article.

The distortions of clinton people is just mind boggling. This is what we have to look forward to if she gets the nomination? Oh brother.

loki wrote on December 20, 2007 2:46 PM:

Sorry if I missed it, but what's all this compared to? Are there others with roughly 4000 votes? How many times did they vote "present?" If this really is no big deal...if other legislatures around the country have similar 3.5% "present" votes let's hear it.

Again, I may have missed it...if so, I apologize.

On it's own, however, it means nothing.

loki wrote on December 20, 2007 2:47 PM:

Hi Unhinged! How's it going? ;^}

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 2:48 PM:

This is state politics, where Republicans controlled the state legislature...

Dear Keith,

I am in broad agreement with most of the post from which this was pulled, but I am not quite certain that this particular line is true. I am fairly certain that the democrats had control of the IL general assembly during the whole time that Mr Obama was serving there. I could be wrong, however, and would welcome correction if I am.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 2:51 PM:

Michael A. (thanks for using my full handle ;-)

What's so funny about co-sponsoring a bill to protect the Puerto Rican rainforest? Please explain that to me - how this is not a liberal, progressive issue that she has shown leadership on. Sure, it's a small piece of the big picture of her tremendous list of accomplishments, but after all, she IS on three senate environmental affairs subcommittees (and chairs one of them that meets regularly - unlike the subcommittee that Obama chairs that hasn't met ONCE!!).

A knowlegeable hard-working Senator translates into a knowlegeable hard-working President. Even Trent Lott has complimented her on what a hard working Senator she is back early in her first term.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 2:54 PM:

"Obama's campaign dismissed the criticism, noting that Obama cast roughly 4,000 votes in the state legislature and also that his "present" votes were often done in concert with other Democrats voting as a bloc for strategic reasons, ..."

Kind of like when Hillary voted for the Kyl-Leiberman with along with Dick Durbin and a bunch of other Senators?

bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 3:01 PM:

@Anonymous

Haha, and what "strategic reason" was that for? Is there a strategic reason to war monger and repeat the mistakes from Iraq that I'm not aware of? Ohhh, could be the the tens of thousands of dollars Hillary gets from the AIPAC lobby every year, which pretty much seems to control every aspect of her foreign policy toward the Middle East. If being in the pockets of AIPAC and being a rubber stamp for Bush is what you mean by strategy, then sure!

Listen, do yourself a favor and don't compare apples and oranges, or in this case, things you don't understand and things you don't know about.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 3:08 PM:

Hi loki, I'm trying to keep the world safe for democracy. I want to assure you before I use any more cliches I will double check them. How are you doing?

Hi colonpowwow, I've been using your full name for weeks after an exchange some time ago. Took you a while to notice.

On the national forest, obviously it's "liberal or progresive" but it really is not that big of a deal. As you know, I disagree with the "tremendous list" of accomplishments conclusion. By the way, as you searched for your list, do you know what her voting record is? I am finding out more about that record on this thread than I have in the right-wing media or in an article. It's kind of like the black hole that is her white house experience. Zero information.

I find it very odd to say the least that someone sifted through obama's 4000 vote state senate record to find ONE alleged controversy and nothing has been written about your candidate's senate record? Other than the iraq war vote and the iran war vote. Don't you think that's odd?

Lott has repeatedly sung her praises. I actually pointed that out to you months ago. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Sweater looks nice on you wrote on December 20, 2007 3:17 PM:

even though you did not mention it

pertty

Verb(ose) wrote on December 20, 2007 3:20 PM:

I will vote for one of the top 3 dems

not Obama

not Edwards

oh my, what to do

Kefa wrote on December 20, 2007 3:23 PM:

Wake up people.....the VRWC wants Obama.
It's a setup. They want him...he's the Willie Horton of 08. They want a race race.
A Islamic race. A north/South deal. They can't get with a woman/man deal but they can with the race issue. Wake up people.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 3:31 PM:

Michael A.

So co-authoring bipartisan legislation out of her environmental subcommittee to save the Puerto Rican rainforest is no big deal. Got it. You know, the difference between us is that if Obama had been the one who did this, my comment would be (and has consistently been), "Good for him."

Anyway, what about the fact that the important subcommittee that Obama chairs attached to the Foreign Relations Committee hasn't met ONCE yet in Obama's entire Senate tenure? This also no big deal?

Hillary's Environmental Affairs Superfund Subcommittee met in October. I understand she's been busy campaigning as well.

Who's showing attention to their job, to detail, and leadership here? Just wondering. No big deal.

NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 3:33 PM:

Regarding that update, wow! That really is great timing on the part of the Clinton team. How utterly fortuitous that they put themselves into a position to exploit this unexpected windfall by registering these domain names at precisely the time the Times was preparing to print this story. Why, its almost as if they somehow knew it was coming! No, no, I can't really believe that that was the case. Nope, I'm sure that the crackerjack political reporters at the NYT began this story on their own initiative, with no input or prodding or research assistance from Hillary's team and Hillary just used here well-known ESP powers to see into the future. Boy, those powers will come in handy once she’s president, though I kind of wish she’d used them before she cast that AUMFAI vote.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 3:42 PM:

Greg D:

Sorry it took me awhile to find objective proof, but the President of the Senate was a Republican from 1993 to 2001. Obama served in the Senate from 1997 to 2004.

http://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/02bluebook/legislative_branch/senatepresident.pdf

Here's another article from the Chicago Sun-Times that establishes that Republican rule ended in 2002:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F76257AD48C37E7&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 3:48 PM:

Colonpowwow,

Sorry it doesn't float my boat. Incidentally don't you think "saving" is over the top. Did she hop on a plane and stop poachers or something? Comeon. I'd rather see some action on pressing issues, like iraq, the economy, healthcare, repealing no child left behind, things like that, not the puerto rico rain forest. Sorry.

By the way, good for her. Incidentally, I would surmise that your opinion of the issue if the roles were reversed would be the same as mine.

Leadership, where was the leadership on iraq or iran? Where was the leadership on the patriot act? Where was the leadership on health care reform? Where was the leadership in putting the breaks on every child left behind? Puhlease.

Incidentally, anything on that senate voting record?

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 3:52 PM:

Steve:

Look I don't mind you backing your candidate, but I would appreciate you not mischaracterizing events to further your cause. I've already provided the factual events surrounding the KL vote--he didn't duck the vote, he missed the vote. HRC and all of the other candidates have missed votes campaigning (it happens), but I'm not going to suggest that they "ducked" the Mukasey vote.

As to this comment:

These present votes show that he's just another politician, and not a very skilled one at that

If I recall correctly, even Bill Clinton disagrees with you. The link is to the transcript.

But -- but Obama is a person of enormous talent. You know, staggering political skills.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/interview_with_bill_clinton_1.html

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 4:08 PM:

Dear Keith,

Thanks for those links. As I indicated above, I already mostly agreed with your earlier post, except for that one reservation. Given that my one reservation was apparently bogus, I totally agree with your earlier post.

:-)

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 4:20 PM:

Thanks Greg.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 4:22 PM:

bridoc wrote:

@Anonymous

"Haha, and what "strategic reason" was that for? "

That's a good question, why don't you ask the Obama campaign who I quoted from.

Dick Durbin, who is the chair or co-chair of Elect Obama said about his vote for KL, "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no."

So for you and the Obama camp to use HRC's vote on KL as a hammer is disingenuous to say the least. And then to say Obama is a uniter and will bring people together when he plays the same politics everyone else does is just plain dishonest. Just pointing out the facts.
_______________________________________
"Listen, do yourself a favor and don't compare apples and oranges, or in this case, things you don't understand and things you don't know about."

Ooohhh, you told me didn't you. I love it when you Obama supporters get all elitist and explain what everyone else doesn't understand. How do you walk with that stick up your but?

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 4:24 PM:

@birdoc:

I had changed it from ass, but in trying to be polite, I misspelled "butt".

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 4:36 PM:

Unless I missed something, the concerns about KL wasn't about what Clinton or Durbin thought, but how the Bush Administration thought or would use it.
Hence the critique from Edwards and Obama about her giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Come to think of it, Biden jumped in on that one too. So did Dodd.

The Durbin point misses the point of the criticism (why trust Bush) and basically is an attempt to muddy the waters.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 5:07 PM:

@Keith

I'm not currently an Obama supporter, so perhaps my rose-colored glasses aren't quite as dark as yours. No pun intended.

If Obama thought voting for this was a serious mistake, why didn't he even once mention it before the debate? He was 1 of only 2 senators who didn't show up for this vote, the other was John McCain. I don't care about Edwards/Biden/Dodd, they are not front-runners. It looks like one of his "present" votes.

Who's the triangulator now?

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 5:13 PM:

He did and he was on record against it. I actually went off on this issue when it happened and keith straightened me out about it. Apparently he was told by reid before he left washington that the vote would not come up the next day, which also explains why mccain wasn't there. I would think mccain would be all over this red meat for the base type of vote. Then reid pulled a fast one and set the vote the next day on a very short timetable, 20 minutes or something like that, so that there was no way possible for obama or mccain for that matter to be present. I wonder if reid is fishing for a job from a clinton II administration for a relative. It sounded really political, sneaky and lame. Bottom line, it wasn't obama's fault for not being there it was political games as usual.

ATP wrote on December 20, 2007 5:15 PM:

Obama is a cheapshot artist. He has this arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude lecturing Hillary to take tough stands on unpopular issues. Then, he votes "present" on tough issues when he had a chance to show his "leadership and toughness". His hypocrisy and sanctimony is a bit much.

CC wrote on December 20, 2007 5:18 PM:

Obama supporters who are supposed to be attracted by Obama's "new politics of hope and civility" for sure are not shy about spewing venom at people who disagree with them!

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 5:19 PM:

@MichaelA:

give me the link to Obama's "on the record" comments.

You're characterization of what happened does not sound credible. And that has nothing to do with your lack of credibility on everything else you've posted.

Not to sound like an Obama supporter, but don't get your apples and oranges mixed up with the facts.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 5:43 PM:

You look it up monal. What exactly have I posted that is not credible?

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 5:44 PM:

MonaL:

Either you believe that he and McCain missed the vote because they were campaigning, or you believe that they both were ducking the vote. Take your pick. Same with Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama missing the Mukasey vote, either you believe they were ducking the vote or they missed it because they were campaigning.

And if you want the chain of events, I'll direct you to the Congressional Record--I've spent to much energy reposting and walking the hard of head through the chronology of events.

Here's his comment from Sept 26th:

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 5:49 PM:

MonaL:

Here's a blog that tracks the Senate debate. You can scroll down to Sept 25-26. All of this can be confirmed with a search of the Congressional Record, Roll Call (and Think Progress on September 25th independently reports the same comment from Reid regarding the tabling of the vote).

http://cboldt.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 6:51 PM:

@Keith:

HRC voted her conscience, Obama spoke through a press release in the 3rd person AFTER the vote was taken. Dick Durbin, bff of Obama voted for it, so did 74 others.

Bottom Line: If BO really felt that this was such an important vote (like he claims it was), he should have been there for it and/or been more forceful in his dissent. Like maybe delivered his press release in person or at least in the 1st person narrative.

And I don't believe the story that he didn't get enough notice from Harry Reid, is he still sticking to that story?

At the risk of repeating myself, it's disingenuous and dishonest of him to use this vote to attack her. It goes against the "politics of hope" meme he's fooling you with.

P.S. - Thanks for the links, I'm sure MichaelA appreciates you doing that for him.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 7:34 PM:

MonaL:

I figured that would be your response-- because the facts don't quite fit with the narrative you've settled on you ignore them. As long as you understand that Senator Obama has never actually said any of this. I just looked up the Congressional Record to get the story. He's always said he missed the vote; never once offered an excuse. Can't say the same for your dear Senator Clinton.

As for attacking her on the vote, then remove Obama from the picture. You still have Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel that attacked her on the vote. Now tell me why they aren't allowed to critize her vote?

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 7:44 PM:

Keith wrote:

"As long as you understand that Senator Obama has never actually said any of this."

In all honesty, I don't know what you're referring to here. He never claimed that he didn't get enough notice that the vote was going to happen? Please clarify. And if that's the case, then his supporters should stop using this as an excuse.

As to your second point, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel aren't promoting themselves as the "above the fray" candidate. And truthfully, none of them are serious competition for HRC, except maybe Edwards, but not so much.

As to your first point, facts, schmacts, you should look in a mirror when saying that.

Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 9:29 PM:

MonaL:

Obama's never made any excuses about the vote. I'm not offering an excuse, just refute your nonsense opinion that he "skipped" the vote. I just provided you with the FACTS. You chose to dismiss them because they didn't support your contention.

So only someone that voted on KLA and is claiming to be above the fray and is competitive can challenge her on her KLA vote? Got it. Add more qualifiers as needed to avoid critique.

By your criteria then, Senator Clinton who was never in the Illinois Senate, shouldn't critize Obama for his voting record, since she can't say what she would or would not have done on questions she did or did not have to answer.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 10:18 PM:

Do my eyes deceive me? Is John McCain buying ad space on this blog? Fair enough, of course. If the republicans want to pay the bills on a site dedicated to defeating them in '08, they are free to do so and I will laugh with Josh Marshall & al all the way to the bank. Still, however, I am finding this kind of hard to believe.

Zapatiotis wrote on December 21, 2007 12:33 AM:

Says MonaL:

And I don't believe the story that he didn't get enough notice from Harry Reid, is he still sticking to that story?

If you're too lazy or stupid to figure out on your own whether the "story" is worth believing or not, you've got no business whining about it, while pretending to believe that this is important.

Senator Obama could have gone in front of a camera and pointed out, truthfully, that Harry Reid (whose son works for the "Hillary" campaign, for whatever that's worth) screwed him over in the matter of the Iran-vote schedule.

Do I wish Obama had made a small-minded, petulant speech about the internal politics of the Senate Democratic Caucus? Gosh, not really. Can you imagine?

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 2:50 AM:

Read this, Kleefeld, you friggin' hack:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

When will this end?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)