So who devised the strategy to vote present on anti-abortion bills in the IL legislature?

"Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

"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.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/679446,CST-NWS-obama04.article

OK so the this was IL Planned Parenthood's strategy and Obama went along with it. I can buy that.

"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."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"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."

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it’s also not a 'yes' vote."

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

Now wait a minute...I thought the was PP's strategy? Why the change?

building Cluster munitions.

Sadly, HRC, is seemingly much more beholden to the MI Complex Corporations voted for (Yea!)these horrific devices to continue to be maufactured and sold to foreign goverments (whom we like). :shrug:

So there we have it! Clear as mud?!? :crazy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgUpOchF23Y

You can bet the Repukes will make hay with this one. In our "sound bite" society no one will ever hear his rather lame explanation. It seems like a great politician would look ahead to see that this was going to bite him when he ran for president.

understand the Illinois system of voting present. Partisan dumbshit politics at its worst. No, you can't blame it on the Republicans.

The whole point of voting present is to avoid the stigma of voting no since a present vote counts as a no instead of not being part of the tally. Time and again it is defended so that the GOP can't say "well he voted no on that". Its bullshit.

That Obama was far and away the biggest user of this option says quite a bit about him.

Check out the votes where this strategy was employed.

Of those voting for it, a single seat was the only one remotely contested.

Everyone else voting present had won their previous election handily or ran unopposed.

That was his "leadership" vote.

.....and yet his supporters try to convince me he would have taken a principled stance on the IWR.
Yeah, right!