Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:34 AM
Original message
Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes

Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes

Thu Jan 24

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Barack Obama's rivals in the Democratic presidential race contend he sometimes voted "present" on tough issues rather than take a firm stand.

"In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present.' That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe," Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a debate Monday.

Obama responds that Clinton is cherry-picking a handful of votes from a long legislative career and then distorting them.

THE SPIN: Obama portrays himself as someone voters can trust to tell the truth and skip the usual political games. Clinton and John Edwards are using his "present" votes to offer a different picture — one of Obama ducking tough issues or refusing to support common-sense legislation.

THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position.

more



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. "present" votes in Illinois are a standard tool, used by
many on both sides of the aisle.

It is the height of ignorance by the Clinton campaign to rush into a critique, like a bill in a China shop and bitch about something they do not understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes it is. Unfortunately, you won't see any responses from HRC supporters to this.
the facts get in the way of their spin.

Sad that we face this in a democratic primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. They understand it. It's not very hard to. They are revealing themselves in their
bushlike disdain for their own supporters. They believe they are really that stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. I thought John Edwards's question about this in the last debate was helpful.
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 09:42 AM by patrice
Does anyone REALLY think a trial lawyer would ask a question like that without some idea of what the answer was going to be?

Q. What kind of attorney doesn't do enough oppo research to know how the Illinois Senate uses the "present vote" to allow senators to express their technical objections to a bill without being forced to either support it or kill it (just as Obama said)? A. A poor attorney - and - that - ain't - John Edwards.

He asked that question to let Obama respond to the Clinton Machine while at the same time counting coup on him (and I do mean counting coup in the same manner as some Native American tribes used to do - a kind of pro forma striking, just to show that you can and that you can do more if you wish). It was a polite way to use what was going on between the other two, not only to his own advantage and without getting dirty doing it, but also to Obama's advantage against HC, but I don't expect to see any Obama supporters recognizing what JE did for him with that question.

P.S. I'm married to an attorney. Questions are never just questions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. You are correct. Edwards is clearly sick of the lies and smears.
He put that lie on the tee for Obama to smack away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. That's exactly what he did.
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 10:29 AM by patrice
Even my Libertarian attorney husband, who does not like Edwards, tipped his hat to that one.

Solidarity, izzybeans!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I do hope that whatever the outcome that those two are standing together
during the party convention.

Solidarity indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. That WOULD be a Change. nt
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 11:06 AM by patrice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Nice spin - it's when I woke up and listened - I was kinda dozing up to that point
Edwards was the one who effectively exposed Obama on the 130 equivocations. You may chose to direct your frustrations to whatever target you prefer, but to us listening, it's how it went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. dupe
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 10:30 AM by izzybeans

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. So you admit to not really watching that debate then.
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 10:31 AM by izzybeans
Interesting.

Do you live in Illinois? Do you understand what a present vote is there? Do you realize he was asked to do so by president of Illinois Planned Parenthood and that he voted present some 1/1000th of a percent of the time?

I'm not frustrated. Just realistic. No spin needed.

Edwards and Obama laid that lie out on the table for all to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. are you dense?
NO offense, but the "present" vote is a well used tool in our legislature's system. It is used to further negotiations on the floor. It is NOT like the US congress or senate, where all drafting is done behind the stage and often in secret.

If you haven't a clue of how our legislature operates, I can't blame you - it is unusual. But, when people start casting stones like Hillary, when she is wrong on the facts, wrong on the impact, and wrong on how it operates here, excuse me, that is too clintonian for my tastes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Helpful - but to whom? Obama or Edwards? Edwards helped himself by embarrassing
Obama there. He cross-examined him, and Obama babbled.
The intention clearly wasn't to help him. If it were, then he failed miserably.
But I think he went for blood - and drew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. I think it caught Obama a little outside of his game, so his response could have been
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 10:58 AM by patrice
more constructive (as in framing-wise).

But that definitely was not blood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. well put. And accurate.
the thing is, the Clintons may know the truth, but they will never allow it to get in the way of a good knife in the back when they choose to apply it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Barack "I was not aware that I had voted no" Obama - there's a reason the Present button is Yellow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KennedyGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. yeah that and the "I pushed the wrong button" excuse
another PRO fessional editing job..
another Non-sene post..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Ah, it was only 129! How rude of Hillary to say "130". A regular karl Rove, she!
"
THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
17. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC