If Obama's the Nominee

are we allowed to vote "Present"?

(from today's NY Times)

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

...

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”

in the GE, if he were to become the nominee....

I was approached early on to join his campaign by someone VERY close to Obama. My response was that I liked him but I needed to hear something concrete; needed to hear him take firm positions, not just vague expressions of "hope" from a 50,000 foot view. I was not kidding - I was ready to pitch in and help, fight for him the way I would for an RFK, but I just needed to be convinced there was a "there" there. But if there IS a "there" there I don't know where. So there.

lots of pretty words. That's what we expect from Obama. A good speech with stirring rhetoric. But when it comes to crunch time -- when it REALLY matters --, he's either "Present" or "campaigning" or has a "stomach flu".

Oh, now I see. Ok then!

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

snip//

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

snip//

Mr. Obama’s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.

“No politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage,” said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s spokesman.

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

more...

Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, even if it means telling people the “hard truths” they do not want to hear.

...

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum.

State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges.

The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.

“I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.”

...

Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

you tried to mischaracterize what the article was about. Nice try. :eyes: Why not try to raise your candidate up instead of knocking another?


For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

snip//

“It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.”

In other present votes, Mr. Obama, who also taught law at the University of Chicago while in the State Senate, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions.

Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate.

would have led you to my account page and, as I don't have my password handy and have trouble logging in to the NYTimes web page, I didn't know if my account info would be available for all to see.

but go ahead and do your best to spin it any way you like

interested in the article would do. (duh) Read my Post again: my link would have led you to My Account Page and, perhaps, my information. So, someone can go and find the article themselves, link to it -- as you did -- and not have my Account info accessible.

too lazy? Remember, google is your friend.

as I was already on the NYTimes web page. That's a good idea for next time, though. Thanks.

You're editing was disingenuous, at best.

Here are some lines you somehow managed to omit in the OP:

"Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support."

"Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy."

3870 votes out of 4,000 = 97%

so they have to go looking for dust mites.

Shouldn't he have voted AGAINST IT???

What this article tells me is he is not one who will tolerate intentional misuse of divisive issues.

of covering his political ass when he's afraid of potential consequences.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change, Hope and Change ...

original slogan and not steal someone else's? Thank you.

...Like groundhog day in the DU. :eyes:

"Why no negative stories about Obama? How come you're always dogging the Queen?" And this was the best they could come up with.

if you ask me

of Obama's ducking, weaving and side-stepping potentially damaging votes. There just is no There there with this man.

And I don't think "lame" is gonna work as an adequate response when the Repugs smash his head in with this should he make it to the General Election. He's gonna have to come up with a better answer/response/excuse than that.

To most people, those Present Votes indicate a man who doesn't have the courage to say Yes or No or, even worse, didn't take his responsibilities seriously enough to actually do the job he was elected to do. Couple these Present votes with the votes he's missed during his very brief time in the US Senate and then add the fact he has yet to hold a meeting of that Foreign Relations Committee he's Chair of, and it could look bad. Especially against a Repug who has a long resume and a history of doing the work he was elected to do.

Now is the time for Obama to address this and "lame" just ain't gonna do it. Perhaps you should just try "Present"?

Lame.

There's plenty of refutation. A post here even lists the reasons Obama abstained

Do we want to re-hash Hillary's War vote?
Or any other Bush enabling legislation where it would have done less harm to the country if she had voted "present"?

they have the political courage to take the eventual hits. Unlike Obama -- disagree with them or not --, they saw a tough decision and didn't wimp out and try and save their political asses. Unlike Obama they weren't in the safety and security of the Ill State Senate where they could rail against the war, but not be forced to actually have to decide on it.

But Obama has voted to continue the war, so where's his political courage there? Wait, which way is the wind blowing today?

Hillary and Edwards were hawkish on Iraq, even though they might have been privately AGAINST the war.

That wasn't political courage it was political cowardice to give Bush war powers when the country was in a warring mood after 9-11!!

wasn't in the senate, so you don't know exactly what he would have done.

back then, then you are deluded...

Political fear and cynical miscalculation is more like it.
To use your words: "go ahead and do your best to spin it any way you like".

*thinking* that he was the right person for the job.....

have voted with these other Democratic Senators to continue the war. Now, what was Obama's spokesperson saying about Political Courage again?

so it's easy to be critical of the others...

No way I vote for Clinton in the Primary. Her campaign is Rovian and her supporters blind.

how do you link Obama's Present Votes with Hillary Clinton? And just what ARE you smoking today?

Oh, damn! I forgot: to bring up Obama's record and raise questions about it is considered an Attack. To bring up Hillary's record and raise questions about it is considered Smart Politics.

Sorry. My bad. I need to remember to be nice and polite when dealing with Obama. Wouldn't want to hurt his feelings with facts, now, would I? Hope and Change, Hope and Change, Hope and Change ...

this country elected such a perfect person for president? I think the "Mr. Perfect" Obama thing is wearing thin....and I have never bought it.

like you ever were...

skinned. Do you have an answer for his "present" votes? Does it bother you that when there is a tough issue, he seems to sidestep it so he wont offend anyone? And as for blaming Hillary for this, pretty pathetic.

Everyone has a right to their observation & opinion.

One of the things that hamstrings a Presidential candidate is a voting record - this is why Senators have such a hard time getting elected President - a voting record can always be spun and twisted by your opponent...

One way to avoid that, I would think, is to not vote on potentially divisive issues. Looks like Obama had that in mind even when in the Illinois Senate.

could, in the right hands (or is that the wrong hands?), be made to look like an absence of political courage, of selling your constituents short when it comes to important issues in the interest of bolstering one's own political future and covering one's own political ass. Of not being willing to make the tough decisions -- publicly -- and take whatever public consequences may or may not arise.

Obama needs to address this -- and address it forcefully -- now and not let it become an issue that can get away from him like wildfire. To ignore it, to act like it's no big deal is playing into the hands of those who WILL make it a very big deal. And it could easily be something -- in addition to his overall lack of experience and his tendency to miss big, potentially difficult votes -- people feel uncomfortable about with regards to his candidacy.

Interesting... Obama is not perfect, but who can claim to be. Read Frank Rich though. He has amazing insight and believe Obama to be the strongest national candidate... AMAZING ARTICLE HERE on Obama. Sets out to articulate the potential magnitude of an Obama presidency by inferring the pragmatic genius of Ralph Waldo Emerson. WONDERFUL STUFF!!

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3037/81/

(First part here...)

THE BARACK OBAMA MOMENT

"America is on the verge of enormous calamity – and people know it. Skyrocketing trade deficits; record levels of national debt; pathological fetishism; epic corporate greed – starring the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Not to mention the warming of the globe and endless war. The dollar is plummeting. Jobs are scarce. Families are scared of the future. America's international status is at an all time low and we sense the worst is yet to come.

"But within this moment something transformative abounds. Something palpitating, an energy. Like the newness in the air before it snows. It gnaws at your conscience, it pounds in your gut. It's convulsing like an atrophied muscle. It's the ghost of Emerson, and he's speaking to us – in the language of a languished, American instinct.

""What is popularly called Transcendentalism among us, is Idealism," spoke American genius Ralph Waldo Emerson in a lecture at the Masonic Temple in Boston in 1842. "As thinkers, mankind have ever divided into two sects, the Materialists and the Idealists; the first class beginning on experience, the second on consciousness; the first class beginning to think from the data of the senses, the second class perceive that the senses are not final, and say, the senses give us representations of things, but what are the things themselves, they cannot tell." (emphasis added)

"The senses realize the peril at our doorstep. The senses know our leadership is false. Experience, to our chagrin, provided political dynasty. And experience, we keep hearing, is the light. But the senses, says Emerson, only take us so far. Behind that which the senses "cannot tell" is this atrophied American consciousness; the embryonic manifestation of a cultural surge which "experience" can only mock. It is the magnitude of what is ours if we'll only reach out and claim it. The first authentic 21 st century presidency. This feeling – this American instinct – is the birth of a new national ideal. This, utters Emerson, is Transcendentalism. It is the promise of a Barack Obama White House..."

Continues here: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3037/81/

instead of replying to the threads' OP? That article's already had threads of it's own, but why not start a new one since you seem to rely on it so much.

in Illinois means "not yes" and thus counts as "no" but can be used to express reservations. I don't see what's wrong with it.

Has he voted "present" since he's been in the U.S. senate?

of course he's going to miss some votes.

why should Obama be exempt from the scrutiny of missing votes, when no one else is? Answer; he shouldn't be.

You're an enabler. Nothing more.

but he is running for president, and that means he has to miss some votes, esp. votes that come up on short notice.

I wish Biden had voted "present" on the IWR.

clearly, we'd have different topics to discuss. You people who use that to suggest that Obama had better judgment simply ignore the fact that he wasn't even in congress to HAVE TO make that decision. That's a lame alleged asset in Obama's case.

I have no doubt, being the puppy that he is, he would have voted the same way as everyone else did.

take a stand even though he could have stayed silent. If the war had gone well, his national career could very well have died before it started. He was even at a peace rally!

he did ONE anti-war rally. One.

Take off those rose colored glasses.

better than rationalizing a vote for the worst FP blunder in US history...

The guy has one of the poorest voting records in both senates. He had some of the more "present" votes in the state legislature and a poor voting record in the US senate. Heck, he missed the most important vote (the one on Iran) and had the never a couple of days later to complain about the people who voted for it. There were 98 senators who voted on that resolution, funny that one of the absentees was Obama. I respect Hillary precisely because she can take it "like a man" and, right or wrong, she'll make a decision. Unlike the "Audacity of Hope" senator and his eternal platitudes.

it's an exercise in futility....I don't know why I bother...;-)

have to be explained?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

:shrug:

take a stand one way or the other, but straddling the fence doesn't cut it. (I'm not talking about the abortion bills when apparently he was asked to vote that way by NOW)

especially when there are so many bullshit bills - like the handgun one they keep bringing up. It was never expected to pass, but designed to use as political ammo for the pols who vote "nay" (just like that bullshit Christmas resolution that went through the House). So if Obama voted no on the handgun bill that wasn't going to pass anyways, they could stand up and sat "Obama wants to take yer gun away!" or "Obama's soft on crime!"

It is not enough to have the good will and the enthusiasm. One has to know how the system works. Look how Bush has been manipulating the system, more so since the Democrats took the House and the Senate.

In order to be effective he has to spend more time in government, or in an executive post someplace.

WHAT A FOOL!>!

His lackadaisical voting habits portend to a presidency on par with that of Bush's. I don't think Obama could ever rise up to be anything more than mediocre. He may inspire some with his vapid words...but he cannot deliver on his promises and "hopes".

Clinton is the one who is best qualified to move this country forward, IMHO.

:kick: and recommend

Your post was full of wit. It should qualify for a book of "Famous Quotations"~~~it was really that good!:rofl:

He got in because he ran for an empty seat with no opposition.

I thought his Presidential run was arrogant to the point of pompousness, but I figured one function of primaries is as a showcase for young political talent to watch for in the future. A kind of very-early coming out party. Debutante Barack.

Early on I was considering that he might have a real claim on a Presidential bid with alot more experience. This country needs a black President badly, though not nearly so much as a woman President.

Instead he has thoroughly abused an opportunity that he never earned, doesn't deserve, and isn't suited for, by turning into a low-road candidate, lying and smearing not our ideological foes the Publicans, but his primary opponents and the Democratic party as a whole.

I'm done with him, and I hope the Democratic party establishment is too.

What truck do you think we all fell off ?
The Desperation is starting to reek.

the only one I see as desperate for the presidency is Obama....

;)

been a great vocal senator. i'da rather seen edwards take hil on here. he's just a distraction imo.