Obama's "Present" Votes: Leadership Means Taking a Stand

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:42:03 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times yesterday featured an article about Barack Obama's voting record as an Illinois Senator -- and his penchant for voting "present" instead of yes or no on controversial bills.

Why does someone vote "present" instead of yes or no?

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.

When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

I think he voted present to dodge the political bullet a "no" vote would have caused with some constituents or organizations. If he believed a bill was bad, like the bill banning partial birth abortion, why not take a stand and vote it down?

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....

....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."

This leads to the question, will he have the courage of his convictions as President? Unlike in Illinois, his options if elected to the Oval Office will be "yes" or "no." Can we count on Obama to take a stand?

More...

Taylor Marsh criticizes Obama's "present votes", particularly on a bill that would have outlawed sex shops within 1,000 feet of a church or school. Taylor thinks it's a slam dunk that he should have voted in favor of that bill.

I have the exact opposite view. There's a school or a church within 1,000 feet of almost everything in a big city and I think it's an unfair restriction on sex shops. I would have wanted Obama to vote "no" on it. (I also oppose laws that say sex offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of a school or bus stop.) And why should any business be prohibited by law from locating near a church? Why do churches have protected status?

But he voted "present." So, whose side was he on, Taylor's or mine? Hard to say.

Maybe he made some comments at the time evidencing his views. But no citizen should have to search through a state's legislative history or hearing transcripts to find a legislator's position. That's what a voting record is supposed to show.
Unfortunately, too many times, Obama's doesn't.

< MTV's "Don Vito" Gets 10 Years Probation in Groping Case | Contrasting Personalities: Obama and Hillary >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's "Present" Votes: Leadership Means Taking a Stand | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ugh, Jeralyn, the explanation for the abortion (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Geekesque on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:11:26 AM EST

votes is right there in the article.

Long story short--it was part of a strategy worked out by Planned Parenthood, and he went along with it.

Now, if people want to criticize him for working with Planned Parenthood on preserving abortion rights, well then silly season is upon us.

More detail here.

shocking... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by mindfulmission on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:26:11 AM EST

A negative post about Obama from Jeralyn? Who would have thought?

And bad legislative records?

Lets start with Hillary's votes authorizing the war in Iraq. Or her vote to ban flag burning. Or the Patriot Act.

I am not really sure you want to compare voting records on the two.

Hell... as of last year Hillary Clinton has a less progressive voting record than Lieberman.

I wish Hillary had voted (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by DA in LA on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:21:17 AM EST

present on the Iran resolution.

Options (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Pete Guither on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:28:36 AM EST

You say:

Unlike in Illinois, his options if elected to the Oval Office will be "yes" or "no."

Are you sure of that?

My understanding is that all a President has to do is sign the bill and then add a signing statement to change it to anything they want...

Additionally, Presidents can retract past statements by simply having their spokesperson deny they ever said it.

... or have I been missing something?

Fake (none / 0) (#1)
by koshembos on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:16:39 PM EST

I commented way too many times about Obama shortcomings, so I'll just say that Obama is a genuine fake. I am seriously worried because I see way too many similarities between Obama and Bush and Obama and Carter.

Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#2)
by diogenes on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:20:59 PM EST

All this is true, but in 1993-2000 Hillary had no recorded votes on anything and detailed records of the Bill Clinton presidency will not be released (as per a recent Iowa debate) until 2012. Yet her time as a first lady, with no voting records at all, somehow counts as "experience".
These are Republican issues designed to be a minefield for Democrats; you really do have to pick your battles sometimes, especially since things like partial birth abortion bills end up being decided by courts anyway.
If you want someone with long legislative experience and real votes on many issues, pick Biden or McCain. I don't think that's the agenda here, though.

A Bad Legislative Record (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:31:18 PM EST

is worse than no legislative record, particularly if one's position on issues is okay. Biden's voting record on crime issues is far too law and order.


: How (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:28:32 AM EST

can that be if you are running on experience? I would in general agree with you accept that the crux of the Hillary Campaign is experience, so its terrible if there is no record of that experience for people to judge!

This article sums up (none / 0) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:40:44 PM EST

HRC's experience . I am only passing it on. Make of it what you will.


This comment should unleash (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:58:55 PM EST

a firestorm on a relatively quiet Friday.


No one (none / 0) (#19)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:32:15 PM EST

is disputing that she played a part, but no one knows what that part was. What was her involvement in the failures and what was it in the successes. WE DON'T KNOW because she won't release the records. If she wants to run on that, she should release the records so we can evaluate them.


technically you are right (none / 0) (#21)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:36:18 PM EST

but you know perfectly well with a press that are fools for scandal, there are more potential negatives in releasing the records no matter how much they support her contention (assuming they do).


vetted (none / 0) (#23)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:39:04 PM EST

Thats true but doesn't that prove that her argument about being vetted, is complete bull.


Assuming for the sake of argument (none / 0) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:44:18 PM EST

That the records prove her contention AND that the press being fools for scandal and will make something out of nothing (see Whitewater and all the so called scandals other than Monica)- No.

Vetted means she has no actual scandals, not that the press and the GOP won't make one up. Obama will find out soon enough, even if he is as clean as a hound's tooth.


So then (none / 0) (#26)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:47:39 PM EST

then you are saying the past scandals were legitimate?


: I don't know how you got that from what I wrote (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:56:02 PM EST

I believe I was quite clear in saying the press and the GOP will make something out of nothing. And that they will do it to Obama too, sooner or later.

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#7)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:45:27 AM EST

I know the response to this probably is not included in the Clinton press release you wrote this from, but there is a response. Maybe next time Obama will tell Planned Parenthood and the other experts who devote their entire life to this, that he knows better than them, so they can take their advice and, you know, shove it.

By golly his entire state senate career was designed to keep from allowing an increasing desperate Hillary Campaign from having "issues " to attack him with, you know since he has been planning to run against her since kindergarten

Per carpet bagger:

This post, from Kate Sheppard, summarized the broader dynamic nicely.

This isn't really new; it's a recycled Republican talking point. In the state senate, Obama voted "present" on several abortion bills, a bill regarding firearms in a school zone, and one on concealed weapons. Obama says that on the abortion-related votes, he worked out an arrangement with abortion-rights advocates to get Democrats to vote "present" on bills if they feared a "no" would endanger their re-election. It seems like a cop-out, to be sure, but even the presidents of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence backed his decisions to vote present. But those points are pretty much moot, since in Illinois voting "present" is essentially the same as voting "no" -- without having to go on the record as voting "no." The Obama campaign has already fired back on their "Fact Check" site. [...]
Going after Obama on the "present" votes, especially in places where his vote was advised by progressive advocates, is stooping pretty low for the Clinton campaign.
I probably wouldn't go quite that far -- the "present" votes are a legitimate point of interest -- but I think Kate's right that there's just not much here in the way of controversy. Particularly on the votes regarding abortion rights, Obama's position in the legislature was backed by the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and Chicago NOW. If he was trying to take a cowardly "middle" path, that wouldn't be the case.

TalkHillary, (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:46:27 AM EST

I mean TalkLeft endorses no candidate. If you choose to believe that the fact negative posts posts about Obama are prevalent while posts rationalizing Clinton's "questionables" are turned out like burgers at McDonald's is anything but an objective exposition of their relative strengths and weaknesses go ahead and be cyniucal. How many times do you have to be told there is no agenda here?

so we should (none / 0) (#10)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:11:52 AM EST

just ignore Obama's lack of a spine on these issues because it was politically safer to say present?

Again, I am currently planning on voting for Obama but these votes for me demonstrate a politician operating from fear of losing an election and not one having the courage to lead.

: It was (none / 0) (#12)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:57:50 AM EST

politically safer for a democratic majority and groups like planned parenthood and naral advised him to do it. It would have been irresponsible for him to ignore PP and Naral on votes concerning choice

'Penchant'? (none / 0) (#13)
by along on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:43:27 PM EST

I know you oppose him, but you're far better than this:
and his penchant for voting "present"

Obama voted 'present' about 130 times, in 4000 votes over 8 years. That's 3.25% of the time.

TPM used the word 'repeatedly'.

The Times used the word 'often' in it's online headline (but not in the printed paper).

But the Times didn't finish their research and provide the necessary context for what it means to vote 'present.' As I wrote to one of the reporters of the story: "How does this measure up to the numbers of his colleagues in that same time period? Is it high, average, or low?"

Without knowing that, there is no way that 'penchant', 'repeatedly', or 'often' can be accurate descriptions of his record.

Back in 1997-1998 (none / 0) (#16)
by diogenes on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:11:29 PM EST

When Bill Clinton decided to stonewall and lie about Monica until the blue dress appeared, did Hillary vote yes, no, or "present" on his handling of the scandal.
What does this portend for a Hillary presidency, whatever her other merits? Nixon was smart and qualified but tragically flawed too.

See article above (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:19:19 PM EST

Clearly she did more than vote present.

Let us see if I got this straight

Nixon's tragic flaw was that he was a paranoid machiavellian who violated the constitution with 3rd rate burglaries (yes plural) of his enemies
President Clinton's tragic flaw is he was promiscuous
HRC's is she supported her husband, not withstanding his flaw?

Which is worse for the nation? Tell me do you equate Monica with the 16 words too? Its cliched, but its true, When President Clinton lied, nobody died, when Bush lied, people died.


The major (none / 0) (#20)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:35:09 PM EST

documented incidences of Hillary in the Clinton admin. were health care, which she screwed up. Covering up for Monica, and running a war room, to intimidate women he slept with. How is this presidential experience. As for the rest of it. I'm sure she had some involvement, but we don't know because she won't release the records for us to evaluate.


did she? Exactly how? What should have been done (none / 0) (#22)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:37:49 PM EST

differently?


You know (none / 0) (#24)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:40:19 PM EST

included people like Dr.s and maybe even jeez the congress who was going to have to vote on it.


And this would have changed what? (none / 0) (#27)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:54:12 PM EST

Its pure speculation on your part. Doctors have opposed NHC since HST brought it up.

The GOP, on the advice of Bill Kristol, was determined to oppose it from the start out of fear that if the Democrats succeeded it would, as social security and the new deal did, give the Democratic party and insurmountable lock on governing the country for 20 years. That is a matter public record. You could look it up.

The problem you have its almost impossible to prove that HRC single-handily lost the NHC battles of the 90's. Arguably it was their in-experience in Washington and with a stagnant Democratic congress that cost NHC together with GOP intransigence.

You should consider this point of view in considering Obama. The party isn't much better today than it was in the 90's. You want NHC, pray for a Democratic party landslide. Otherwise we will get half a loaf that the GOP will proceed to try and sabotage as they try to sabotage any government program. Because any successful government program conflicts with their story line that government doesn't work.


Well (none / 0) (#29)
by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:34:45 PM EST

if she had brought congress in there, she may have you know. HAD THE VOTES for it. That is how legislation work, you have to get votes for it.


I don't mean to be condescending (none / 0) (#30)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:27:45 PM EST

but I gather you are too young too remember how fractured the Democratic majority in congress was in 1992. They were also trying to keep the opposition from learning of the plan details and lobbyiests from going to work on individual legislators to kill some or all of it.

Again the mistakes you point out are the mistakes on an inexperienced outsider. Think Obama today.

The real question is are you interested in an honest appraisal of what happened or do you want to demonize HRC as a Obama partisan. I have own opinion on that, but you could surprise me. In any event, I hope all of the contenders have analysized what went wrong and why or they will make the same mistakes or worse yet make the mistakes HRC was trying to avoid the first time around. Simplistically using HRC as the anti-playbook will not do.

What we lacked then and lack today is a cohesive majority. The Democratic majority is a little better today, but not much. What we need is a bigger progressive majority. I've reached the point that I am not sure it makes a difference which of the top 3 become president. All have good and bad points. None are the devil incarnate from a Democratic point of view. I will probably vote Edwards in the primary, but its not locked in yet for a variety of reasons, including my vote probably won't count since my primary has been disenfranchised.


a consistent argument (none / 0) (#31)
by Jgarza on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:08:58 AM EST

I will probably vote Edwards in the primary,

If you are talking about being able to work with a legislative body, Edwards has the least experience. He is a one term Senator. No other experience in elected office. If you buy the inexperienced line on Obama then it applies to Edwards too, especially as far as foreign policy goes.


: Obama' campaign hasn't sold me on him. (none / 0) (#32)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 09:58:51 AM EST

He has never run nationwide before. I've seen a willingness to compromise, not a willingness to take a stand. I'v not seen him vote on a tough bill either "correctly" or "incorrectly". Instead he seems to vote present and then he and his supporters accuse his opponents of blowing with the wind. Politics of audacity I suppose.
His one tough stand- the Iraq war, was an easy one to take in a heavily Democratic state in a race where his opponents self destructed. His state senate district would not hold it against him.
None of the Democratic candidates are perfect. I could vote for any of them in the general election and will. My support for Edwards is soft. There came a point in the 1992 campaign where Bill Clinton sold me on his campaign. He wasn't my first choice. I didn't vote for him in the primary. I knew if he was the candidate in the general I would vote for him. But as I listened and watched I became convinced he was the better choice and I was ultimately pleased he had won.
Who knows, it may turn out that way for Obama. I was never enthusiastic about Dukkakis, but I was convinced no one could lose to GHWB. The difference is Reagan had a measure of popularity. Dubya does not. Most of us want to win bad enough to knock on doors, make phone calls, etc.

Hmmmm. Nixon distracted from (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:13:57 PM EST

the duties of the President by Watergate cover up. Where could this logic lead us re a Hillary Clinton presidency? Be afraid, be very afraid.
