Planned Parenthood worker in Illinois slams "deceitful misrepresentations" made by the Clintons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vot_b_82842.html

A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Women
by Tracy Fischman

<snip>

I formerly worked for Planned Parenthood in Illinois. I had the honor of working with Senator Barack Obama during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. He was -- and remains -- adamant about his support for women's health and access to reproductive healthcare services. His present votes on abortion-related bills were part of a broader pro-choice strategy designed to ultimately defeat bad and dangerous legislation that would have compromised the health and safety of Illinois women. As Planned Parenthood's lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats. Specifically, Planned Parenthood turned to Senator Obama because of his strong record on reproductive rights. At the time, Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Senator Obama initially resisted the strategy, as he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures, but decided to work with our strategy to help defeat these anti-choice bills. It is important to note that a present vote on a bad bill is essentially the same as a "no" vote, as the bill needs "yes" votes to pass. However, it is difficult for Republicans to use "present" votes in their campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts (also see December 20, 2007 NY Times article: "It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo"). This strategy is now being used against Senator Obama in the same way we planned for it to work in our favor then.

It is confounding to me that Senator Obama is being demeaned and attacked so vociferously on this. I came into this campaign season feeling relieved and thankful that our two main candidates support women's health and reproductive freedom. I am now deeply disappointed that politics has led to deceitful misrepresentations of Senator Obama's commitment and work in this area.

<more>

__________

And the Clinton's "appalling" tactics in New Hampshire have created problems for pro-choice groups there:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html

Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire
By Alec MacGillis

Three New Hampshire Democratic leaders who signed a letter two days before the state's primary at the request of Hillary Clinton's campaign, attacking Barack Obama as soft in his support for abortion rights, are asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice."

<snip>

"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

<snip>

"What we didn't know was the circumstances of those Illinois pro-choice votes. Since then we've learned that it was the plan of the pro-choice community in Illinois. These were subtleties that those of us in the Clinton campaign here didn't understand," she said. "I for one did not understand the present votes....I did not know the full context."

<snip>

One of the Obama supporters who signed the reconciliation e-mail, Mary Rauh, said she did so because she was very worried that the rift created by the primary could seriously harm abortion rights efforts in the state if it was left unadressed. But she said that she remained aggrieved by the Clinton attack and by the willingness of so many Democratic leaders in the state to go along with it, and worried by reports that similar e-mails attacking Obama on abortion rights have gone out in other states preparing to vote.

"We still have battles to fight in New Hampshire and we can't let dirty politics destroy the choice voice here. It's too important," Rauh said. "But for Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling. I can't tell you how it distresses me ... how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling."


__________

The strategy worked! Clinton won New Hampshire! Hurray!

One is a former Planned Parenthood worker. Not a speaker for that group.

I'm surprised they didn't say Hillary eats babies.

--p!

I noticed that you smeared the character of these women, yet you include no evidence to refute what they said. Typical repug nonsense.

read carefully---now they blame Clinton.

In the interview Thursday, Wheeler said she was not aware of the explanation of Obama's present votes by Illinois Planned Parenthood when she agreed to sign the critical letter at the request of Clinton officials in New Hampshire.

They didn't. And that is unfortunate.

It is, however, commendable they admit they were duped and now attempt to set the record straight now. As important to someone's character as the judgment to be right, is the ability to admit when you were wrong in the effort to make things right again.

Kinda like Edwards has with the IWR vote.

1. Both women are, indeed, Obama surrogates. This is only a smear in Bizarro World.

2. The evidence is in the material you yourself cited.

3. Someone is being hypersensitive, and it isn't me.

--p!

That claim makes no sense.

I read that this isn't the first time that Planned Parenthood spoke out about the deceptive claims against Obama.

It's in the cited material.

--p!

and is now saying that her campaign, by using such tactics, may have done permanent damage to both the party and the pro-choice movement in New Hampshire.

If she (Clinton)keeps up this "baby with the bathwater" tactics, we will all be hanging our heads in shame as America elects John McCain.

The scorched earth politics that the Clintons are engaging in right now will be our downfall in November. The repukes will use all their divisive strategies against them during general season. Not to mention they'll have a perfect cover for stealing it.

I mean, anyone who has been paying attention knows this already, but it doesn't seem to stop one iota of the glee the Hill supporters seem to get from using Obama's commitment to pro-choice legislation against him.

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it’s also not a 'yes' vote."

"However, it is difficult for Republicans to use "present" votes in their campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts"

IOW its an ass covering move. All for 1 Democrat seat that was remotely in danger.

What a load of shit.

Riiiiiight.

I wonder sometimes if people on these boards are impervious to actual information that stands in stark contrast with their already entrenched POV.

It has already been established by most investigative organizations that a "present" vote is procedural in Illinois. And the resistance to that factoid, as you have demonstrated, is a load of sh*t indeed.

No worries. I expect dogs that don't hunt will be trotted out over and over and over again. That's how DU rolls, I guess.

That's how DU rolls.

Yeah, so much better to let the wingnuts take over than to abandon some lofty "principle".

:eyes:

Damn, that had to hurt.

Then another and another, and soon, there goes your comfortable majority! :eyes:

Looks like Obama just does a better job over covering that up.

It is neither principled not politically wise go after him for this. All 3 of our frontrunners are legislators and have voting records which can be easily distorted.

:eyes:

Why, I think you are!

That's probably good advice. Thanks. :thumbsup:

but then, it wouldn't attract as much attention, wouldn't it?

works there or not. What is relevant is she worked there at the time of the incident and was directly involved.

Grasping at straws like this makes you sound desperate. You must be very frustrated that the coronation has been interrupted by an actual contest for the nomination.

But, go on...I laugh at supporters of ANY of the candidates that post misleading bullshit. I don't really care who you support.

Have a great day.

c 1988-1990 was the time frame, if I am remember correctly.

So now please do tell us all theses date rules Obama has created, OK?

I leave it to those supporters to decide which category they are in.

Take a stand, for God's sake and to hell with the fallout.

It demonstrates Obama's number one concern was power.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.


Apparently Obama supporters don't believe in following the rules.

Kinda goes against what we stand for as well.

Is that what Obama supporters believe?

And since I'm not a Clinton supporter, your attempt at demonizing me failed miserably.

"present" votes are procedural in Illinois, many coordinated with Planned Parenthood. Your post demonstrates your imperviousness to the facts.

Can't say I'm surprised.

But your response is, so burn that baby down. Oh, and continue to ignore the information that puts a monkeywrench in your now self-proven purposely ignorant POV. And at DU, that's business as usual.

Are you that insecure about your candidate?

Refusing to look at factual information that disputes one's POV is a personal problem on your part.

And your attacks are personal.

I'm going to have to re-evaluate supporting Obama if you are representive of his supporters.

If Obama is the nominee, I'm going to sit this election out.

No way will I support a candidate if his supporters are like you.

WAAAAA!!!

The mean ole Clintons are picking on my candidate.

WAAAAA!!!


Sad, just sad.

"That mean lady just proved I'm full of sh*t and so I'm gonna hold my breath and not vote."

Grow up.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html


This makes Obama's 'present' vote look even more the cowardly.

A NO vote indicates you are against a bill. That is the fact.

I won't hold my breath because it is clear that hate prevails and truth and information take a back seat here at DU.

Voting present, regardless of procedure, is a cop-out.

it is clear that hate prevails and truth and information take a back seat here at DU

Most of it I see is coming from Obama supporters. This thread is a good example of that.

And your insistence on turning this against Obama supporters is proof-positive that you not only have a mind hampered by purposeful ignorance, but you are trying to use that ignorance as a weapon here for some bizarre reason.

Fact: "Present" votes in Illinois are procedural. If by cop-out you mean procedural, by George you've go it.

If we followed your lead in IL we'd still be living under the yoke of a Pate Phillips senate.

The best way to defeat bills you are against is to vote NO.

I'll take my chances on any of the other candidates before I put my faith in people who have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted.

Why can't you see your candidate for what he is?

What they are doing with these present votes is very reminiscent of what the Bushies did to Kerry over his war funding bill vote. Kerry had a very valid reason for voting for the first version of the bill and not the second but his explanation was not heard over the din of the Rovian chant of "flip flopper!". What is forgotten about that is that the repukes got the idea to use that against him during the primary, when (I believe it was) Gephart who raised the issue of Kerry's supposed inconsistencies. Why the hell do we hand the GOP ammunition to use against us?

Now it's anyone but Clinton and Obama.

It's time to step...away...from...the...keyboard....

:scared:

I'm just sayin'

Is that the Obama supporters on DU are not being honest about what they post and can't be trusted?

Wow, just wow.

BTW, I'm an ABC supporter, though I did break down and vote for Obama on my early ballot today because the paper reported Hillary's way ahead in my state and that sickens me. Edwards is much closer to my beliefs, policywise but he's polling single digits here and I'm not going to waste a vote. I also defend Obama quite a bit on the internet and IRL because he's been the singular target of the wrath of Queen Hillary and her army of droids. He's far from perfect and definitely needs some seasoning but I prefer him 1000% over lying-ass, triangulating, entitlement-dripping, win-at-all-costs, powertripping Billary. If she were trashing Edwards, I'd be in there slugging it out for him. As it is, she's mostly just ripping off his platform and pretending she came up with it herself.

In fact, in this thread I see clearly why Edwards and Hillary brought up this "Present" issue during the debates.

How many did Edwards say there were now, I've forgotten.

That much is known.

How many did Edwards say there were now

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

And that's why I support Edwards. He won't pull any punches.

They have failed to prove Hillary lied here.

Get it?

"lied here"

I said she's lied before. And that has been proven.

About her support for the Iraq, for example.

Did he not explain that "Present Votes" were used against bills that were principled, but defective due to malicious amendments or technical problems?

At least Senator Obama had a good reason, and is fully prepared to accept and explain his vote. As a matter of fact, I have not once heard him say "I regret that vote"!

"The best way to defeat bills you are against is to vote NO."?
You mean like the Bankruptcy Bill, or the Iraq War?

The O supporters try to blam it on PP as its strategy. What the hell is PP doing providing political cover? I believe this is a lie to cover up the political games Obama played. So much for principles and this Obama pomp.

but you might concider that they could possiably be covering each other to protect your right to chose?

This isn't rocket science.

...if he voted NO it would be on the record and someone could use it against him during a campaign. No, it was better for him not to take a stand, to hide under the desk. When things are clear and the battle has been fought by others, he can come out and explain on and on and on why he didn't take a stand.

Obama and his supporters think those not in his camp can be snookered.

Some of the situations were coordinated attacks by Repuks. They were attempting to set up Dems in battleground districts. I sure hope that you don't run for office.

Sheesh!

Any more of my tactics that you would like to hear about - or are you content with just that one?

But it's expected considering their candidate doesn't either.

Especially if you live somewhere where the numbers are close. You obviously have no clue about how state leges work and would frankly just be dangerous. What's really sad is that your candidate is lying her ass off about her opponent's record and you are hanging on her every word like it's the gospel.

and I'm sure it will work just as well for you.

We're expected to believe that they'd rather lose than compromise their integrity and purity.

Puh leeze. :eyes:

Yet they support a woman who voted for, and continues to defend her vote for, an illegal invasion that has killed untold thousands of people. All to preserve her Senate seat and secure her political future.

I clearly stated I'm supporting Edwards.

The other poster has made no indication on who she supports.

Stop the knee jerk and address the issue of Obama being unwilling to take a principled stand.

BTW, as has been suggested to another poster, please don't ever run for a local office because you are obviously clueless about the legislative process and politics in general.

Which he is sorely lacking. Charm and winning personality can only take a candidate so far, an certainly not far enough to reach the White House.

It merely states Obama was the PP rep.

If Obama hadn't followed the present vote strategies I've no doubt you Hillaroids would be attacking him for "Not doing whatever it took in the legislature to preserve a woman's right to choose! He could have voted Present instead of No!!"

You take the issue to the voters.

Apparently Obama supporters don't believe the Democratic process can withstand bad legislation.

How many women would you like to see die while an initiative wends its way though the electoral process? That's assuming it even got before the voters and wasn't stopped somewhere along the way. How many? One? A hundred? Let's have a number there, Tempest. How many deaths are acceptable to you in that scenario?

Second, have you SEEN the way people vote in initiatives? In how many states did initiatives to ban gay marriage and benefits for domestic partners pass last year? Have you seen some of the other awful legislation that gets passed all around the country? Ask Coloradans how that TABOR is working out for them. Ask Oregonians about the zoning and eminent domain measure they passed a few years ago, that's costing the state billions in lawsuits. What chance do you think an abortion measure has of passing via initiative once the anti-choicers get out there with there propaganda and fetus pictures?

A voter referendum can be organized and voted on in 6 months or less depending on the year, before the law takes effect since most laws don't take effect until the future.

And you can keep the law from taking effect in the courts.


And it's not just the PP bill, it's the nearly 130 times Obama voted 'present'.

State ballot initiatives are voted on every 2 years here.

How many women, Tempest?

As for all the other present votes there are perfectly valid explanations for them as well from what I understand.

Every state has a unique political situation in their lege. In my state we have a thing known as a strike-all. It enables a legislator to strike out all the language in a particular bill and insert entirely different language. Most of the time the title of the bill remains the same. So it's possible for a state legislator to vote for something called the Free All Child Rapists From Prison Bill, when the text of the bill deals with decontaminating drinking water. Imagine the hay that an opponent in another kind of race could make of that.

I really hated seeing Edwards (whom I like) and Clinton (whom I don't) ganging up on Obama over this. Especially Edwards, as I expect better from him than I do from a lying, conniving Clinton.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose.


Obama voted 'present' almost 130 times in the state legislature.

Is that really the kind of person you want as a president?

Would you like living in a state with a veto-proof wingnut majority? How would that fit in with your "principles"?

Apparently, you'd prefer a president who voted for a WAR to give herself political cover. Not the kind of person I want but YMMV.

Just like Obama, I'm registering my presence on this thread without offering an opinion either way. You see, I have "technical difficulties" with this post.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

--------------

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?ref=us

Here's a sample of Senator Clinton's voting record
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463&type=category&category=2&go.x=10&go.y=14">VoteSmart.org



10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions (NoVote)

09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion (NoVote)

12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 (NoVote)

11/08/2007 On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General (NoVote)

10/23/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (NoVote)

11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (NoVote)


And I suppose we will be expecting some "Regrets" on these two blockbusters?

12/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act (YesVote)

11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Yes Vote)

You'd post whether Clinton was in Washington for the votes. Obama has missed votes as well.

Not voting because you're busy elsewhere is not the same as voting 'present' to cover your ass.

I'll ask her secretary if you as another Illinois senator how the "present' vote works.

Legislative tactics are legislative tactics are legislative tactics.......

If ya don't like the game, don't play.

This just in from our newsrooms...

All of the candidates are acting just like politicians running for office! Film at ten!!!

(We'll continue to keep our best reporters on this story to see if any of the candidates stop acting like politicians running for office...)

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I value the truth more than I value any candidate for political office. This has the ring of truth to it, and I hope others will hear it.

:dem:

-Laelth