Login HereObama wanted to take credit for opposing the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman bill -- a vote he ducked. He then said he ducked the MoveOn vote because it was political theatrics -- even though he showed up and voted "yea" on the politically theatrical Barbara Boxer bill that very morning. Now he wants us to think he's pro-choice because he ducked yet again and voted "present" on important abortion legislation, ostensibly to "give cover" to Democrats in vulnerable districts who couldn't afford to vote "yea" themselves.
Oh please. Would this pass muster if Obama had voted "present" on important civil rights legislation to give cover to Democrats who lived in districts with lots of bigots? Somehow I don't think so.
Obama's rationale for voting 'present', lacking plausibility, is probably more simple:
Obama's friend Link offered another reason for the strategy: to protect those with plans for higher office. A "present" vote helped "if you have aspirations of doing something else in politics," Link said, "and I think [Obama] looked at it in that regard."
It's single-issue politics and not particularly helpful to a big tent strategy, but among democratic primary & caucus voters, particularly women, it seems like a pretty big opening for groups like NOW and Emily's List to go after Obama.
I seriously doubt it. Illinois Planned Parenthood is standing behind this stupid "present" strategy like it was some kind of brilliant tactical move. But then again, Planned Parenthood national told their membership to thank Joe Lieberman for his Alito vote. This smells a lot like NARAL endorsing the "fetal pain" torpedo that right-to-lifers were trying to launch into the abortion debate in order to give cover to Democrats who didn't want to take a side on a potentially divisive vote. It's a chickenshit move to give cover to people who don't want to take a stand, and the fact that pro-choice organizations engage in this kind of ass-covering rather than defending the rights they're given big money by their membership to uphold is largely why people think their opinion on these things is worth squat these days.
The institutional pro-choice groups may line up based on who is supporting who, but I don't expect any courageous stands on principle here.
It ain't the moral trump card it used to be.
(h/t RevDeb)
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Jane!
Hi Jane.
1
BADA BING! (my first zed on the newly designed site…)
I just posted an EPU on this Jane!
BTW Zee-nophilia!
Obama better grow up and start taking responsibility for his decisions.
Unfortunately I think this describes an awful lot of our political climate on many issues.
You did it, biodun!
Barack Obama: No hat, no cattle.
Biodin, that means you have to figure out how to get downstairs and let them know.
I knew it. Barack Obama is HoJoe Lieberman.
Thanks, Jane.
And Obama: WTF is up with this guy? I guess he’s counting on Oprah to come to his rescue somehow…
I already did. But Elliott beat me to it…
BO is now officially boring the shit out of me.
What’s up with her anyway? She’s throwing her whole book club of the month weight behind a guy, who if she looked close enough, only faintly resembles a Democrat.
Oprah Winfrey knows how to market I think. That worries me.
Obama needs to make a choice about choice…
PS: it’s a pain to even find where to comment on some of these threads…
I never realized what his initials were before.
The more I hear of Obama, the less I like him, and I wasn’t high on him to begin with.
Well, according to today’s Strategic Vision Poll, Obama’s history of not taking a stand on anything except Iraq in 2002 is working.
Your diary is exactly why I can’t vote for Obama….there is something “wrong” with these types of events - and I can only put it down to him being just like Holy Joe on so many issues.
Actually, I’m sick of the whole process. I don’t know why anyone would ever run for office. In fact, anyone who does must have a lot of screws loose.
WHO DO WE VOTE FOR????? I’M LOST.
Crikey. Away for a few days, and now I hardly recognize this place. I feel dizzy.
Pols who don’t stake out clear positions are fakes and panderers.
Hill’s good at that, ain’t she?
I have read that this is the way Obama has operated even since he was in the Illinois Senate. There have always been votes of present on issues that he deemed might be a problem later on. This is a dishonest evasion it seems to me. Calculating and dishonest.
Love the new site. Kudos to the techs and brains behind the upgrade.
eCAHN:
I left you a message at the end of the last thread…
Which means we’ll have to put up with a “Where’s the beef” retread any minute now.
One would think that ANY pro-Choice candidate would have more than enough Statements and votes that he could be targeted on those issues by the Right Wing in any case. As pointed out, Obama was in a safe district. But he argues that he did this (with NOW’s consent) in order to “save himself” from challenges on his votes on controversial issues. Wouldn’t we want a candidate to be willing to stand up on those issues rather than some “stealth candidate” who never actually had to defend those positions?
Without a REPRESENTATIVE actually facing the consequences of votes there is no way to ascertain if the individual is going to be there when the crunch time comes. They can shape-shift between audiences…framing their vote one way to right-wing crowds, and the opposite to left-wing assemblages.
And it seems with the Kyl-Leiberman run-away he took another flyer…and stuck his finger in the air (despite being a co-sponsor of S.970 which also designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization”)…and decided that it was a way to make Hillary appear set to declare war on IRAN.
And why should some Pro-Choice candidates and Representatives have to be taken out of contention for “higher office” while others are “protected”. I can see that this is practice when making such a vote might cause an issue in a close district. But to pander to a candidates whims to be President by “protecting him”? Whatever happened to “voting ones conscience” and defending ones positions with ones constituents?
This all seems so Machiavellian and manipulative of the voters. “That’s not how the game is played”…but doesn’t Obama keep asserting that he’s not the typical “in the beltway” politico?
Saw it. Don’t know anything about the guy.
eriposte talks about Obama and PACs
Taylor Marsh talks about “Lieberman lite” Obama: “Decoding Obama”
Can anyone say l-e-a-d-e-r-s-h-i-p, or lack thereof. I do not want a D in the WH who is afraid to favor privacy. After all, if there’s no privacy in the U.S., all the other “rights” are meaningless.
” President Obama, what are you going to do now that China has called in it’s debt from the United States and OPEC has declared it will no longer sell oil to the US also?”
” Present”.
That ought to go over well in Peoria.
Obama’s district — both at the state level and US Congress –is one of the most liberal districts in Illinois. There is no reason on earth he had to fear that casting a vote on the merits would somehow endanger him . . . unless he was looking beyond his state district seat and his place in the US Senate.
I want a president who is more than just “present” in the White House, when difficult issues come up.
Oh pox on you for suggesting it. Now someone will.
That’s the odd thing about the Hillary derangement syndrome..Hillary only does politics by triangulation..I don’t think Hillary ever ducked or triangulated a vote on choice..She also has one of the best record for voting against Bush’s “wack-job” judges and AJ’s.
If you want to read the manual for triangulation, he is Obama’s d-kos diary from ‘05…kos
OT but interesting. Thom Hartmann just said that he has heard that Senator Leahy may be bring contempt of the Senate charges to the full Senate tomorrow regarding Rove and perhaps others. Popcorn time. Lots of time between now and tomorrow but here’s hoping.
I don’t know what BO actually believes (not uncommon for me, or for most of the candidates), but his moves have DLC (Donna Brasile) written all over them. I’m not giving him a break, but his advise would seem to be among the worst I have seen since President Gore’s last time out.
OT - Wow. Just listened to a segment on our local NPR station, where Michael Krazny spoke with Alan Keyes. I hadn’t paid much attention to him before, but that man needs some mental help. He’s bugfuck crazy.
What Woody Allen said about most jobs: Obama’s presenteeism…
Sigh.
The no vote on K-L is bad enough. “Present” on this is very weak tea.
Sigh.
For some reason, Obama’s strong base is (mostly white) middle- and upper-middle-calss women… And Oprah is supposed to help him with all the other categories of women.
Oh, yeah, this is someone you want for President! Someone who will not stand up for a big principle because it might hurt his political image. Might cost him some future votes. How does someone like that progress in politics. Nobody knows his stand from his record, because his record remains neutral, that is, neither positive nor negative? Geez!
My money is on Edwards!
IIRC, he will have the SJC vote on contempt on Thursday.
Edwards or Dodd or Kucinich or Biden. Any are better than the two who make the front page above the fold 12x a day.
Dennis has no problem making his position clear on ANY issue. So naturally no one takes him seriously.
Why is that?
Peace Dept.?
BO is present and a cowed tent for.
La vache, punaise!
Yeah, I like those guys, too, but Edwards has a better chance in the long run. Hillary will rally the republicans and Obama isn’t mature enough or is already “Washington-ified.”
peace department sounds like a great idea…
You prefer a war department or homeland security?
Sticking with Edwards, but by the time the NC primary rolls around in May, I presume it will be over.
Ahem, I think it’s called the State Department already.
yo, Bio!
Based on what metrics? Of the candidates with Senate records, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Biden…All except for Biden are essentially the same. Biden is the corporatist in the bunch. In voting scores, Kucinich ranks 121st of the House Dems..a lot of that due to missed vote. Obama is probably the most politically calculating of the bunch, even though that is Hillary’s rep.
Steve I’m a Texan. My vote doesn’t count anyway. I support Edwards and Kucinich but won’t have my vote matter this round.
Good post.
However, if this post was a diary at Daily Kos it wouldn’t make the recommended list.
Only Hillary-bashing diaries are allowed on the DKos rec list.
Mine won’t either..BTW, I really enjoyed this story: The little synagogue in Brenham….a little know part of the early history of the West and the role of German (mostly) Jews.
Even if voting “present” on this legislation as a way to give cover to others made sense (which it doesn’t) - it hasn’t take him long to see votes as bargaining chips rather that important decisions that impact the lives of millions of people.
BTW, SanderO, I would favor renaming DOD back to War Dept.
Off to visit a friend in the hospital who had creast cancer surgery this morning. Her husband called to tell me she’s out of recovery & doing well.
See NYCers tonight!
I thought you moved to PA?
I was thinking yesterday that one of the pluses of a long campaign season is that it gives us a chance to see who the candidates really are. We knew, for instance, that Hillary was a triangulator but but her campaign has shown a certain rigidity once a course is set as well as a certain ineptness when it is challenged. Neither helps the image of experience and inevitability she strives to cultivate.
Obama is running on charisma and idealism but his history of ducking tough votes shows a calculation that is anathema to both, a stealth triangulator if you will.
And as I have said many times before, Hillary and Obama portray themselves as leaders but to date they have shown no concrete evidence of this. Talking about leadership and exercising leadership are not even close to being the same thing. Obama and Hillary would have us believe they are.
OT, and yet the same theme:
Bob Barnett is shopping around Karl Rove’s book even as we write, asking for offers by Thursday.
Word to publishers: I will not buy Karl Rove’s book. I will actively discourage others from buying Karl Rove’s book. I will complain to libraries if they spend my tax dollar on Karl Rove’s book. I will write LTE’s to every medium I can think of challenging the lies in Karl Rove’s book [yes, there will be lies, like the Turd to his Blossom, the truth is not in him….]. I will call whatever teevee or radio show I can to counter his book tour.
Which reminds me, I must go ask News-weak if they’re still proud of hiring on a dog that even the wretched Time rejected…..
Present is the worst of all worlds. He’s still going to be painted as pro-choice by goopers, and the vote will piss off choice people.
It is unacceptable for choice to be a “wink wink nod nod” issue.
Personally I think it should be a big issue for Democrats along with other health care inequities for women –including health plans that pay for viagra but not birth control.
Look to the primary campaign of Ed Rendell against Bob Casey jr. Choice is a winning issue and will turn out voters.
Triangulate in haste, repent at leisure.
Sure hurts Feingold, doesn’t it? In every election the percentage of the vote he gets increases. It’s why a lot of us like him. He stands for something. He’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes in even though it is not always popular.
LOL
Rendell is DLC, sadly. Casey is good on economic issues. Things like choice, not so much.
Anti-abortion is a paper tiger. I want more candidates to run on it(pro-choice) and expose these people for the minute fringe they really are.
No, that’s RevDeb.
good thing, we’d have had to call you PAtsy.
Steve AR, is this the article you were referring to?
Brenham synagogue’s caretakers guard their memories
http://www.statesman.com/news/…..ukkah.html
Speaking of the Magic Negro, here’s MY Latest FaBlog, which deals with one of his most notable supporters, the lovely and talented George Clooney.
Thanks Punaise. If I move to PA I’ll change my handle completely.
Blue Texan upstairs.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12…..mentalism/
I don’t think the dept of state is a peace department.. as much as it is a lube point for transnational business.
Hard to believe but the agents of the Clintons are now promoting the distinction between the Clintons and Obama is that the the Clintons are more pro choice than Obama. I guess Hillary can think up anything.
For those of you who get to talk to Hillary, apparently the press does not, please ask her whether she still supports Tenet
hey eco, I just saw the meeting in new york 2 night and it’s too late for me to make plans to get there
any chance of getting together in lawn guy land new yawk?
You’re increasingly selective with these text excerpts, Jane. You omitted this part:
“The Obama campaign points out, though, that Obama was the only pro-choice Senator — Democrat or Republican — to help raise money to repeal the complete ban on abortion in South Dakota last year. They say Clinton was asked and said no. They also sent over a thank-you note from Malcolm to Obama for his efforts.
“And the campaign released a statement from Chicago NOW director Lorna Brett, who devised the strategy on abortion issues that led Obama to vote present, saying “I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an Emily’s list donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. 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 Obama was following NOW’s suggested strategy in Illinois, and now he’s to pay for it?
Just come out, Jane. Put the pro-Clinton banner on the site and stop voting “present” yourself. It’s not fooling anyone.
Just this afternoon, I went to hear Michelle Obama speak in Peterborough, NH. Wow, she spoke straight from the heart & I was verrrrrry impressed. I actually cried during her speech - and we hear them all in this state but I have never ever been so moved by a candidate or spouse…ever.
Anyhow, I asked about the Obama Choice issue and am happy to report that Obama is indeed Pro-Choice - it’s in the literature handouts. He says it out loud and Michelle personally assures me that he completely supports Choice for Women.
Amen. I’ve finally made up my mind about a candidate. Barack is my guy.
Don’t like the calculation. Don’t like the strategy. If he’s really pro-choice he would have voted that way. Period.
Obama is a deceiving insider that is more to the right, more insider than he wants anyone to know. No progressive is going to be happy with him if he is elected.
.
Nicely put, Maxwell. What other inference can we draw from Jane’s selectivity on this and other issues concerning Obama? Note also, that these posts have come increasingly since HRC started looking less invincible in the polls. Fess up Jane, your agenda is showing.