Only Obama fails to vote in favor of allowing victims of sexual abuse to seal their court records

[Karmadillo]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26724

Vetting Obama, the Ongoing Saga

Mr. Obama was the only Illinois state senator to not vote in favor of allowing victims of sexual abuse to have court records sealed to protect their privacy. Explain that one. Unfortunately, he can't, because, frankly, nobody could.

People are starting to wake up and smell the coming onslaught. Of course, I've been sending out warning signals since last spring, though nobody started listening until recently. Better late than never, as my mama always said.

This video defies description. Is Mr. Obama kidding? His answer, actually the lack thereof, doesn't come close to passing the presidential election test. People actually believe he's ready for the national meat grinder of a general election campaign? The more he's asked about his own record the worse it gets.

Note to Democrats: This is no joke; it's deadly serious. Oh, and in case you hadn't thought about it, next year's election will be a tough one. So please keep that in mind and play the negative ads in your head before making a primary vote decision. This could be ugly if we don't.

more...

[Olney Blue]

1. The Republicans would swiftboat Jesus Christ to win.

Not just Obama.

[Bitwit1234]

26. So the republicans made up Obama's mind....alert!! alert!!

Obama takes orders from republicans.

[Olney Blue]

36. Huh?

I didn't say that.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Another lame chapter in Taylor Marsh's incessant shilling for Hillary.

Bah.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. why do you constantly attack without addressing the issue?

[jefferson_dem]

5. The "Obama votes present" canard has been thoroughly debunked and Taylor knows that.

That's not an attack. That's a fact.

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. it has not been debunked at all. It is an issue for people to consider

I have been watching the news and reading the newspapers--I have not seen it debunked at all.

[jefferson_dem]

14. People can consider whatever they want.

Here's a Fact Check -- http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

[MNDemNY]

29. Your self serving "fact check" link is nothing but obamanation BS.

Your guy is a cowering Il. politician. Nothing more. gobama..go home.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "thoroughly debunked"? HA! Dream on, Jeff.

"If you mention Obama's ducking tough issues by voting Present, you're a HillBot!"
That's not "thoroughly debunking" anything.

[acmavm]

13. No it hasn't. It's a fact. And this is just another stone on the rockpile.

And I'm not a Hils fan.

[MNDemNY]

60. 'cus that's all they got.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. You can't dispute the Truth, so you attack the Truth Bringer?

Typical ObamaNation tactic.

[Lurking Dem]

67. Tayor Marsh is a "Truth Bringer"???

Holy fuck that is funny!

"Progressive cannibalism" Taylor Marsh?

[ccpup]

3. this video was discussed earlier

and the BamaBots found nothing at all wrong with the meandering mess of obfuscation and desperation to change the subject that was his answer to that question.

Right now, he's too easily thrown off his game when faced with something other than an adoring crowd chanting his name, believing the hype but unaware of the reality of his (lack of a) record, ready to applaud his every word. Give him more time in the meat-grinder of DC and he'll be better prepared to play serious ball with the big boys (and girls).

[MethuenProgressive]

11. ObamaNation want Obama's record banned from discussion.

They are terrified his record might be focused on by other Dems, and dream that the GOP will be too polite to mention if he's elected.

[ccpup]

19. sounds about right

the GOP, if nothing, has always been fair, polite and respectful of the sensitivities and feelings of the Dem Opposition.

Do I really need to add a :sarcasm: thingy-ma-bob?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Nailzberg]

57. Quit spamming DU, you've used this "reply" on several threads

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. this is what I don't understand

he guy hasn't been in washington that long, and people are going to bring up stuff from his Chicago days.

fine.

but say he drops out of the race, runs again in 10 years.

He's still going to have that stuff from his Chicago days on his record...AND...he going to have a longer, much more pick-apartable (i like making up words) voting record in the US Senate.

So if you hate his voting record now, you're going to hate it in 10 years - when he's more "experienced."

So what's the point?

The guy is teflon.

What people don't understand is that people LIKE Barak Obama. And when you like someone, smears don't work as well.

People who support him aren't supporting a voting record. They're not supporting experienced Washington leadership.

They're supporting change and hope and optimism.

Its really a simple concept. Bash him all you want, he's still going to win.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. then there is no hope for America

if they vote for pretend illusion while ignoring facts.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. "Please vote for the myth"?

We're doomed.

[ThatPoetGuy]

21. Sadly, I think you're right.

This is still the America that chose Bush over Kerry because they'd rather have a beer with Bush.

Democrats would rather have a beer with Obama than the other candidates. I probably would make that choice.

And so we're going to get a candidate who is to the right of Giuliani and Huckabee on many key issues: gay rights, abortion, corporatism, populism.

[THUNDER HANDS]

43. uh...what?

Obama is to the right of Giuliani and Huckabee on gay rights, abortion, corporatism and populism?

really?

just out of curiousity, how can you be to the right of someone on both corporatism AND populism?

[ThatPoetGuy]

73. Really.

Giuliani on gay rights:

He expressed his desire to preside at New York City's first legal gay marriage.

Obama on gay rights:

Obama refused to condemn virulent anti-gay brainwasher Donnie McClurkin, even after giving McClurkin free airtime and a national platform to recruit new homophobes and spread his message of hatred.

---------

Giuliani on abortion:

He said -- recently -- that the federal government should offer financial assistance to poor women who want an abortion.

Obama on abortion:

He voted "present" repeatedly when abortion rights came up in the Illinois legislature, and he said women should be allowed to have abortions so long as their decision is "prayerful."

----------

On social issues like gay rights and abortion, Giuliani is to the left of Obama.

-----------

Huckabee on corporate power vs. the power of the people:

He taxed the wealthy in Arkansas more heavily than his predecessor, Bill Clinton. He speaks against the power held by Wall Street and CEOs, and he has repeatedly expressed his desire to help the poor. Huckabee and his campaign have condemned conservative icon Rush Limbaugh.

Obama on corporate power vs. the power of the people:

Obama's health care plan denies coverage to the poorest Americans. He has made it clear that he supports the health insurance industry and HMOs over the people. His recent rhetoric has made it clear he thinks that labor unions are no different from corporations -- maybe that's why the workers' unions put all their money into Hillary and Edwards. Obama and his campaign have condemned progressive icon Paul Krugman.

-----------

On economic issues like the unchecked power of the corporations and the voiceless people of the working poor, Huckabee is to the left of Obama.

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

In order to make my point, I'm singling out specific issues. Giuliani is stupidly, blindly pro-war and pro-authority; Huckabee is to the right of Obama regarding gays and abortion rights.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have a candidate who has a liberal view on gays and abortion, AND has a liberal view on economic issues, AND opposes meaningless wars? Obama is one out of three. Edwards and Kucinich are three for three.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Many Democrats have a hard time understanding your point

which is very well stated, so long has it been since they had a candidate who can go over the heads of the MSM and establishment politicians and actually connect with people. We've lost 7 of the last 10 elections (and, yes, I count Gore, who should have won by a wide margin) often because our candidates were unable to establish the type of bond with voters that comes to Obama naturally.

Voting records matter, and all of our candidates have some stinkers, some (IWR, e.g.) much more important than others. But often they were voting on legislation that was either written or amended by Republicans; bills that they would never have conceived and developed themselves. As such, single votes often tell us next to nothing about how they would govern and lead as President. If voters rate the candidate, like Obama, high in terms of trustworthiness and likeability, they are even more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[THUNDER HANDS]

44. yup

people don't get that an agenda is defined by the party, not the president. The president serves the agenda of his party - that's why we have parties, to choose someone to represent their interests.

Obama would be a better spokesperson for our party than anyone else - and a better spokesperson for liberalism, than anyone we've had since JFK.

[Pirate Smile]

15. I'll just throw out his reasoning in case anyone actually cares what his reasoning was:

"HB 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." <91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99>

3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. <91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99>

When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, "News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. 'It's another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,' said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. 'We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,' said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. 'Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'" "

[babylonsister]

16. The nerve of him to actually consider the Constitution!

:sarcasm:

Thanks!

[MNDemNY]

22. Then why not vote NO, NO balls.

[Pirate Smile]

28. Baloney. If you agree with the goal but not the execution then you can vote

Present to make that clear.

He was the only person with the "balls" not to just vote "Yes".

[MNDemNY]

33. That is a crock...if it's in his opinion

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, he should have voted NO. But he chose the easy way out to avoid looking as if he is against the policy, Obviously he takes his constituents for idiots who couldn't comprehend his reasoning. If that was his reason. Coward. gobama..go home.

[Cha]

75. Facts will not persuade hillary's

emissaries. They only want more garbage written by taylor marsh, mark penn, kerrey, et al to feed the machine.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Another weekend hit piece by Taylor "HillaryIs44" Marsh, Mark Penn's loyal stenographer blogger

Lemme see, who's next? The Left Coaster? Hillary Hub? Daily Howler? All those Obama attack websites spawned by the Clinton campaign?

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

18. Taylor Marsh is to Hillary as Hannity is to Chimpy.

Dismiss.

[MNDemNY]

25. Play the fuckin' victim. thats all you BHO heads have.

Bla bla same same, BHO walks on water, BHO is getting attacked! Oh for christ sake get over it . It's a damn campaign, and if your guy cant take the scrutiny, then he should crawl back to IL. and cry about how victimized he has been. What a wad of shit. gobamoa....go home.He will be crushed should he make the GE. The Dem's are going easy on him, if this is too much, he will surly fall flat on his face as the Rep. machine rips him a new one while he runs and cowers behind"I'm getting picked on" "My record is not to be questioned" "If you don't support me, your a racist!" This shit will not fly in the GE. again, gobama,go home.

[ClarkUSA]

31. This, from the worshipper of the candidate who played the "poor widdle me" gender card for weeks?

Your rant is worthy of HillaryIs44. Maybe you should contact them if you need extra income.

[MNDemNY]

35. When did Dennis Kucinich say anything like that?

moran.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Oh, right... you're an alleged Kucinich supporter who happens to defend Hillary most of the time

Obama Haters like to tell Hillaryously transparent falsehoods.

[jefferson_dem]

45. This is the same poster who conveniently argues that Obama can't be elected because...

he's black.

Consider the source.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[MNDemNY]

55. A racist? Wow your an ignorant putz.

[Cha]

77. And you resort to calling DUers

"names" cause you have no discourse.

[MNDemNY]

63. And even more IDIOTS FOR OBAMA.

[MNDemNY]

53. Right, i said that. You are a liar.

[jefferson_dem]

68. Truth hurts, friend. Here's a link - -

Follow the sub-thread - -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3774490&mesg_id=3774819

There's more of a record out there but this one will suffice.

[MNDemNY]

71. That comment was made in the context of

the poll numbers in the OP, and you know it. Again you attack the messenger. You are holding true to form. You continuing, apparently blind defense of BHO on everything shows that your thoughtfulness is in question. Any one who follows and defends as blindly as you seem to do needs to read a little wider.

[ClarkUSA]

40. dupe

self-delete

[Cha]

76. hillary's haters are the fucking

victims.

[alteredstate]

20. Just another ugly thread. This can't be doing Clinton any good.

:puke:

[Onlooker]

23. Obama owes an explanation

I support him, but he's not perfect and those who act like he's done no wrong are being nothing more than hero worshipers. I have yet to read anything to explain his bizarre vote. Perhaps he was daydreaming when the vote came up and he pressed the wrong button. He should say so. It doesn't disqualify him in any way because every candidate has done some things they regret.

[NYCGirl]

24. It's because the bill was unconstitutional, as posted by Pirate Smile above:

"HB 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." <91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99>

3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. <91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99>

When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, "News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. 'It's another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,' said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. 'We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,' said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. 'Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'" "


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3879982&mesg_id=3880046

[MNDemNY]

27. Why would that not warrant a NO vote?

He's only a "little" principled? Fuck that, he is a coward politician who can't take the heat with out crying "VICTIM" here..I'm a VICTIM. If the facts are not in his favor, then it's an ATTACK. gobama..go home.

[NYCGirl]

30. Because that would mean "no" on what the bill is about, not the writing of the bill

itself. "Present" is EXACTLY the right vote in that case.

[MNDemNY]

37. So, he's only "principled" to a point?

Coward, at best. gobama..go home.

[NYCGirl]

38. What part of "unconstitutional" don't you understand? NT

[MNDemNY]

56. Then why not vote NO, or is it unconstitutional to vote No?

[NYCGirl]

61. It was thoroughly explained in a post below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3879982&mesg_id=3880506

[MNDemNY]

62. Sorry, just an EXCUSE not an EXPLANATION.

The obamanation cult bows to the power of personality. Nothing else matters to them. gobama..go home.

[NYCGirl]

66. Obviously, you just understand what you want. NT

[gmudem]

42. It seems you want the conclusion to match up with your facts

Unfortunately for you that is not the case here. It seems Obama actually did show some principle here and didn't vote yes on a bill that is a very politically expedient bill to support.

[MNDemNY]

58. Then why not vote no? BECAUSE HE WANTS TO HIDE ?

Your argument is just silly, as is your blind support for an inexperienced ,naive politician.

[gmudem]

74. I'm not an Obama supporter.

I think that would be pretty obvious from my avatar. I just think people who are trying to smear him with this are ignoring the facts of the situation. It's easy to attack people without knowing what actually happened.

[frazzled]

54. Because that is how "present" votes are used in the IL legislature

To register protest over the form or legal status of a bill without disagreeing entirely with its premises. Had Senator Obama voted "present" with no explanation, you might have a point. But what you and others too filled with venom (or starry-eyed love for the failed saints you support) is that in EVERY case Obama has voted present, he has stood on the floor and made a speech about his reasons. He is on the record entirely as to his views. The present vote is a tactical one ... and an option not available in many other state legislatures but used with frequency here.

But perhaps I am trying to explain this on deaf, or untrained ears. Perhaps that is why all the truly smart people I know support Obama (even my truly brilliant gay friends), while those who go for sturm and drang or corny platitudes don't seem to "get" him. So be it. This is America ... where "American Idol" gets super-sized audiences and a serious documentary gets completely overlooked. You gotta love it.

We get what we deserve.

[Onlooker]

34. That's a right wing argument

There has to be more to it than that. Politicians often vote for unconstitutional measures to either push them into the courts (and get the constitutional issues reviewed) or simply to make a statement.

Plus, it's the conservatives who argue that we have no constitutional right to privacy. That was a central argument for both abortion rights an gay rights: The constitution does not recognize the right to privacy, so those activities should be illegal. Roberts, Bork, and others took that line. Surely, Obama doesn't side with the right wing on this.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Obama sides with the constitution on everything, unlike candidates who voted for The Patriot Act

Obama is the most liberal of all the presidential candidates via National Journal, so you can stop trying to paint him
as a closet conservative now. :eyes:

[Onlooker]

48. I don't think he's a conservative ...

In fact I support him because I think he's the most liberal of the three leaders, but I don't think he's given a good answer to this legitimate question. And the argument that it's a constitutional issue is lame. If he doesn't believe the constitution protects our right to privacy, then he would in fact be conservative on that critical issue. Therefore, I think there's another answer to why he opposed that legislation.

And unlike some I don't give any candidate a free ride, even if I support them.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Well, in that case...

Why don't you call or email his Senate office for an answer? They are known for answering back personally. It may take awhile
because Obama is kinda busy right now, but I have no doubt that Obama has good reason for his vote and he'll be able to
explain it to you if they can get a hold of him.

[Onlooker]

51. I figure it's going to come out ...

... I honestly think his vote is very strange and wonder if he voted present by mistake or because of some spat with the author of the legislation.

[Nailzberg]

65. It wasn't a mistake. Three senators voted present in the judiciary committee

It wasn't that they were against the spirit of the bill, nor was it unconstitutional on it's face, which would be cause for a No vote. There was, however, an argument to be made that the bill could raise a constitutional question, and it would be better to work it out prior to passing. The constitutional problem that they saw was that a court record could be sealed after the trial was held in open court. Add a reporter to the courtroom, and you can see why the Illinois Press Association and the AP agreed with these concerns. Therein lies the constitutional issue that the bill failed to address.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Perhaps because such a bill would be unconstitutional?

For all its good intentions, we don't have secret trials in the US (or at least we shouldn't).

[CyberPieHole]

52. Obama should not get a "pass" for being irresponsible...

he's a poor excuse for a Senator. His presidency would probably be on par with Bush's. And that ain't good.

[MNDemNY]

59. He gets a pass on everything. You are a RACIST if you call him on anything.

Poor widdle obama...just cry VICTIM!! RACISM!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: gobama...go home.

[CyberPieHole]

64. Quit ATTACKING Obama!***SARCASM***

He's a victim in his own mind.

[Tellurian]

70. K&R

[tammywammy]

69. Because he felt the bill, the way it was is unconstitutional

He voted present, to say I like the idea behind it, but not this specific bill. That's the way they use present votes in Illinois.

[hayu_lol]

72. Lessee, Obama voted present according to Illinois law, tradition, or custom...

It gently says no when a NO would have made his vote stand out(for something).

In Illinois Obama votes present; in DC, Obama votes...oops...he fails to show up for votes.

Good strong meaningful stand in both cases. It is his baggage and he will have to live with it.

[Cha]

78. hillary has a whole

baggage car.