Obama and the "present" strategy in regards to choice votes.

[rinsd]

Hillary has made this charge

As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted 'present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. HB382, Passed 49-3-4, 5/13/1997; SB230, Passed, 44-7-5, 3/18/1997; HB1900, Passed 38-10-9, 5/16/2001; SB562, Passed 39-7-11, 4/6/2001; SB1093, Passed 34-6-12, 3/30/2001; SB1094, Passed 33-6-13, 3/30/2001; SB1095, Passed 34-5-13, 3/30/2001

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4497

Obama has countered that this was strategy.

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

"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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

Those bills in the spring in 2001 appears to be when this strategy took shape. 10 or more voted present and around 10 with some differences were fairly consistent(some voted no on one or two of the 5 bills that spring). Those part of the strategy would appear to be.

Bowles
Clayborne
del valle
Hendon
Jacobs
Jones, E.
Link
Madigan
Molaro
Myers
Shadid
Viverito
Welch

So in terms of it being strategy that would seem to be at least coordinated. Now let's take a look at their vulnerability.

Info taken from IL Election Board website - http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/VoteTotalSearch.aspx?id=13

Checking out who ran for office in 2002 it appears that Bowles , Madigan, Myers did not run for relection (I think Madigan ran for AG instead)

Of the rest Del Valle, Hendon, Jacobs, Jones, Obama, Shadid & Viverito seemingly ran unopposed (no votes shown for GOP)

Clayborne won 2 to 1.

Link won by 6K out of about 38K total votes.

Welch won by 11K out of about 71K total votes

So it looks like 2 of the Senators voting present were the ones needing protecting.

In a state where Democrats have a veto proof majority.

Seems like a strange strategy to not take a stand in these circumstances.

[sandnsea]

1. Slimeball, yes it fits

Uses pro-choice strategy against fellow Democrat.

What's feminist about that?

[aquart]

6. Tell me again what is pro-choice about voting "present"?

The strategy was not to protect those who were "pro-choice." The strategy was to protect the ambitious and those who preferred to put their careers before women's rights.

And I'm fascinated to find out that only two of the "present" voters were in any need of that job protection strategy. But that's Illinois' problem.

What I see is an ambitious and calculating man pretending not to be ambitious and calculating.

Yet, a president MUST be ambitious and calculating. So embrace it, Obama fans. Your man has the right qualities for the job. They just happen to be the same qualities as the woman who is running.

[sandnsea]

It was for Illinois Democratic Politics

To prevent the right from having a hammer to destroy the party within the state. You know it. Why pretend otherwise.

[TheWraith]

22. It was the strategy endorsed by the IL Planned Parenthood Council.

Please get your facts right.

[Cameron27]

2. K&R

"Seems like a strange strategy to not take a stand in these circumstances."

[gateley]

3. Seriously -- what does that mean? When a senator responds with "present"

what is s/he trying to say by that? I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

[rinsd]

4. Apparently the strategy is voters are dumb and won't understand a present vote vs yes or no

"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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

[gateley]

10. Thanks again!

:hi:

[Pirate Smile]

11. You could read this thread and some of the links in it for more of an explanation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3795976

[Adelante]

5. He was requested by pro-Choice groups to vote "present"

It was their strategy he was supporting to pressure Senators who were vulnerable and might weaken and vote Yes.

“The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were ‘no’ votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn’t let them get away with it.” Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

[rinsd]

7. What was the point of the strategy if only a member or 2 was in danger?

In a blue state with a veto proof majority.

[geek tragedy]

8. Every seat counts. n/t

[Adelante]

14. The groups didn't want Yes/No votes

It's not about the members in danger as much as how they would have voted under pressure. To offer them a way out of voting with the "present" vote so it could appear they were voting the side of pro-Choice members in that they were not voting differently. Obama didn't need the "present" votes - he has 100% pro-Choice ratings and any brochure anyone could write about him would already reflect he is 100% pro-Choice. The pro-Choice groups needed Obama.

[Nailzberg]

19. If you think it's solidly blue, you've never been to Illinois.

Outside of Cook County, it's anyone's game.

I've been boo'ed at county party pancake breakfasts because I had a pro-choice candidate. And those are Dems.


It's not that long ago that we took the state. And G-Rod in the Governor's Mansion (or actually, never in the mansion, but that's another story) doesn't make it any easier to hang on to power.

Downstate isn't the political powerhouse it once was, but we'd still like to keep the seats we have there.

[rinsd]

31. What is the ratio of Dems to GOPers in the Senate & House?

Currently, Dems have 15 seats majority in the Senate (out of 59 total seats) and slighter majority in the House with a 16 seat majority (118 total seats)

I would call that a blue state. It may have red areas but it is still largely a blue state.

[Nailzberg]

35. Thanks to George Ryan it seems bluer than it is.

The IL GOP is in shambles thanks to him. Dems have taken advantage and picked up seats in red zones. They only got the power because the GOP abused the power. We have it, and we're gonna fight like hell to keep it. That means protecting every seat.

[sandnsea]

9. They all know that, they aren't stupid

They just don't care about truth.

[frazzled]

12. Okay, you want the Illinois story? Here's the Illinois story

So we can stop this right-wing smear on the "present" votes on abortion legislation. Yes--right-wing. Because it is the ultra-right-wing that started this attack about the votes. And it was pro-choice groups in Illinois who have supported him. From The Hill:

Abortion foes in Illinois, following the lead of registered nurse Jill Stanek, are targeting Obama (D-Ill.) for a number of “present” and “no” votes he cast on anti-abortion legislation during his time in the Illinois state Senate.

It is hardly unusual that a Democratic candidate would receive unfavorable attention from anti-abortion groups. But Stanek and other anti-abortion crusaders in Illinois are targeting Obama because he voted on a package of legislation collectively known as the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

The legislation came about after Stanek, then a nurse at Christ Hospital in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn, witnessed late-term abortions “where babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room” of the hospital, in her words.

Stanek, who said she held one of those infants until it died after about 45 minutes, began reaching out to public officials, testifying before both state and national lawmakers.

From 2001 to 2002, Obama voted either “present” or “no” on the legislation. In his floor speeches at the time, he cited in particular his concerns about the constitutionality of the definition of a “born alive infant” and the inclusion of potential civil and criminal penalties for doctors in these situations. He also warned that the bill might compromise the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

The measure failed in the Illinois statehouse in both 2001 and 2002.

In one speech in the spring of 2001, Obama said he agreed in principle with the need to protect infants, but argued that the measure went too far in its definitions of fetal viability.

“This is an area where potentially we might have compromised and … arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how … a pre-viable fetus or child was treated by a hospital,” Obama said at the time.

At the same time, similar legislation made its way through the federal process and was eventually signed into law by President Bush in August 2002 in Pittsburgh. Stanek, now a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com, attended the signing and was mentioned by Bush.

Separately, a Senate amendment to protect infants born alive during abortion was offered by then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in 2001. It passed the Senate 98-0 with all current Democratic presidential hopefuls who were in the Senate at the time voting in favor, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and then-Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) spoke on the measure on the Senate floor, saying, “I, as being a pro-choice senator on this side, representing my colleagues here, have no problem whatsoever with this amendment.

“I feel good about that,” Boxer said. “I feel good that we can, in fact, vote for this together. It is very rare that we can.”

Obama’s campaign did not return calls for comment, but Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the Illinois legislation was misleading and a far cry from the Senate’s legislation. Obama was aware of this difference, she added.

Sutherland noted that every medical group in the state was opposed to the state legislation, which would have opened the door to “civil suits and criminal charges” for doctors and led directly to an overall ban on abortions.

“The legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple,” she said. “Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was.”

On the narrower issue of “born alive” infants, Sutherland said, Planned Parenthood of Illinois worked last year with the anti-abortion group, the Illinois Federation of Right to Life, to pass legislation that protects infants that survive abortion procedures.

But Stanek said Obama was the only state senator to speak out on the legislation, and his actions there are “just one demonstration of how liberal he is.”

http://hill6.thehill.com/campaign-2008/abortion-foes-target-obama-because-of-his-vote-record-on-illinois-legislation-2007-02-15.html

So, you see, Obama was one of the heroes of the pro-choice community on this specific bill that is the source of all this mishegas about "present" votes. And he was the villain of the anti-abortion community, because as the winger says, he "was the only state senator to speak out on the legislation, and his action there are 'just one demonstration of how liberal he is.'"

Aren't you embarrassed now?

[Adelante]

16. Thanks, I hadn't read that before nt

[frazzled]

20. Thanks for reading it: so few every really want the facts

It's apprently more important to pass along the "smear-ju-jour."

This seems a lot like the current scandal about the Clinton Iowa county chair who was caught passing along a really shockingly scurrilous (right-wing) email about Obama's "Muslim" background and loyalty. This is another right-wing generated smear, being passed on by Clinton supporters.

The fact remains: Obama was the ONLY senator to speak out against this legislation ... fearing its broad definition of fetal viability could ultimately undermine a woman's right to choose. He credentials on choice are impeccable.

Until recently, I was fairly neutral between Clinton and Obama. These recent attacks have helped me to make up my mind. I will vote for Obama in the primary. I just don't like this kind of ugly fear and rumor-mongering. It has to stop.

[Cameron27]

23. Ok, that makes sense,

thanks for the info.

[rinsd]

32. Why would I be embarrased?

I researched the issue and put it on display.

Only one seat was remotely in danger. Most ran unopposed.

It looks like an effort by some who were running for statewide office to cover their own asses not those of their colleagues.

[Nailzberg]

13. Every strategy is strange in Springfield.

Yes, a few of those people ran unopposed. And a few ran opposed but won reelection fairly easily.

But in rural Illinois, there are a lot of democratic voters that won't show up on election day for a pro-choice democrat. I've phone banked them. Dick Durbin can tell you, he ran pro-life when he was in the house. He didn't go pro-choice until he ran statewide and Cook County could make up for the votes he lost by switching sides.

It seems like a pretty blue state, but thing is, it's not. The Dems have been lucky the last couple cycles. If the IL GOP found a candidate that wasn't wrapped up in some kinda scandal (or batshit insane like Oberwiess), they'd could play in 101 of 102 counties, (except against Jesse White, but how do you beat a guy with Tumblers?)

Not all those present votes are ducking. It's smokescreen. So that others can duck. You say only two seats had contested reelections, but it could have been more if not for present voting, cause opposition would have something to hit them on.

And even if it only saved two seats, you do that for your Democratic colleague. You do that to keep another Dem downstate.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Nailzberg, you had a similarly authoritative post on this the other night

Thanks.

[Nailzberg]

25. Ooo, thank you. Just when I was thinking of taking a break from DU

Too much venom around here lately. But maybe I'll won't take that hiatus afterall.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Not with an Illini running and the nomination on the line!

We need all the inside baseball we can get.

[Nailzberg]

27. Okay, but I'm at least gonna break for the Rose Bowl n/t

[rinsd]

28. Thank you for your insights to IL politics.

[Yukari Yakumo]

15. Obama: Cowardice under fire. {nt}

uguu

[undercoverduer]

17. Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of

-snip-
Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process," said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

Or you are willing to pretend you don't to score cheap political points.

There's dirt here all right. It's all over the hands of those pointing the finger.
-snip-

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html

[rinsd]

30. Obama ran unopposed. He didn't need political cover.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. Another toothless attack on Obama...

its starting to get pretty funny around here.

[rinsd]

29. Beats your sexist bullshit any day of the week.

[Joe the Revelator]

33. You see sexist boogymen everywhere. It's absurd. Anyone can look at this thread though....

and see how desperately pathetic these attacks are getting.

[rinsd]

34. I don't see sexist bogeyman. I see one Duer with a penchant for sexist posts.

[Joe the Revelator]

36. I can't even begin to explain to you how stupid this line of attack is.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

21. why do you hate Planned Parenthood? -nt