Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present’
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and CHRISTOPHER DREW
NYTimes.com
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.
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.
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.â€
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.
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.
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.
“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,†said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.†(more…)
Yes, the Obama camp already responded to this accusation-
Obama’s campaign shot back at the New York senator, touting his support of abortion rights and a Springfield record that included helping reform the death penalty.
“Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.
One of Obama’s “present” votes was on 1999 legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. He was among five African-American senators voting present.
“I’m for getting guns off the streets, but I’m not for treating these juveniles as adults,” said state Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago), who voted “present” with Obama.
On the abortion bills, legislators who supported women’s rights to the procedure were encouraged to vote “present” on bills that would have required parental notice before minors could obtain abortions and that would have barred what abortion foes call “partial-birth” abortions, a leading abortion-rights advocate said. The goal was to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.
“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. (source)
Two points that should be made here–
#1 – Clinton calling Obama out on this is the pot calling the kettle black. Click here to see the amount of votes she missed (about this link: I don’t quite understand why they are going back to 1991 when she was not even in office. Someone can perhaps shed some light on this). Click here to see her entire voting record. (NV simply means “Not Voting”).
#2 – This is exactly why I feel this upcoming presidential election has little (if any) to do with the actual issues and more to do with perception–more so than past elections. Obama is being billed as our chance to start a new chapter in American politics and apparently it has been working so far with likely voters. However, when one really takes an honest look at his voting record and special interest ratings, he is still a politician that does not know how to say NO to his party or special interest groups. Schwarzenegger ran almost on the same platform as Obama here in California on the ‘new day in politics’ ticket. One of his biggest campaign promises was to repeal the car tax proposed by then-governor Gray Davis. Now apparently the car tax may be back on the table as our state budget has grown out of control. The only difference with Schwarzenegger is that he has just about abandoned the same base that got him in office. This is why I find it funny that Obama would consider Schwarzenegger as part of his cabinet.
The Clinton ticket on the other hand supposedly represents maturity and experience. However when you get right down to it, much of that is based on her husband’s experience. Subtract that from her PR machine and you are left with a candidate whose record differs little with Obama’s.
May the best PR machine win cause folks to go beyond the headlines and racial/gender symbolic noise.
Sphere: Related Content
