About all those present votes O gave in IL, can someone

explain how they were the right thing to do. Obama seemed to be saying they were the right thing to do last night. My question is, if there were some issues in the bill that where not good why vote present? I would think voting nay would insure the bill didn't pass with the things that were wrong still in it. Did some of his present votes get passed that maybe he could have stopped with a nay vote? What makes nay wrong and present right?? I am really trying to wrap my head around his answer for voting present.

Can someone explain it with out all the snark. I really want to understand how that whole thing makes any sense.

Thanks, LS

and you have a pattern.

There were three possible ways to vote: yes, no, and present. The first thing that we as a society must understand is that politcs is not always the most cut and dry subject. For example, if a bill was proposed that mainly laid out more funding for social security or welfare, or some topic that Obama would obviously support, it would seem like an easy vote for yes. But with legislation the way it is, it is often not hard for other people in the process to add different provisions to the bill, such as the people receiving the welfare must be Christian. This is obviously wrong and Barack Obama would not support that, however if he votes no on a bill that to the public eye is merely a welfare bill, then he will be grilled for it. In such tight scrutiny as a presidential election, something of that nature would get pounced upon, and could have in essence been suicide. Voting present says that the bill is good in theory, but with the provisions as such it will not get my vote.

He's not the Almighty Obama with all of those grounded morals that he holds other people too.

How is it "immoral" to signal that a bill is flawed?

see it's not that hard to understand, really.

ensure that it doesn't pass and stay in office four years later and continue to make sure that it doesn't pass.

The alternative is vote no, have your allies get killed by right-wing groups in rural Illinois and then four years later when they're voted out of office the bill does pass because you didn't have any coalition anymore to pull off the move you made.

You're right, it's not that hard to understand. I know you want to be on some self-righteous high, but the fact is that the process of making legislation is more than just voting yes or no. It is if you want to be successful and help people, anyway.

Do you care about that?

it was not good for him politically speaking?

I read this before the debates yesterday.

_____________________________________________________

The trouble is that in politics, "the facts" alone don't always make things clearer. Take Obama's abortion votes. It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood, tells NEWSWEEK that the ploy was her idea: "Senator Obama was always a no vote in committee, but we had other Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, who were tired of having mailers sent out against them." Sutherland says Obama could have voted no without suffering any negative fallout, since he came from a very liberal Chicago district. But, she says, his participation in the deal helped give cover to his colleagues.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/output/print

people vote present because its the right thing to do, because voting yes says i love a bill just how it is, while voting no says i do not want the bill. It is possible to love the idea behind a bill but not support all the nit pick stuff in the cracks. And to say that Obama is afraid to stand for something is so unbelievably false that is pretty funny..

can't the bill be reintroduced leaving out the bad stuff?

You don't even believe that, do you?

if that's how you want to spin it.

Or... he voted present because he knew it was the same as "no" and other people ASKED HIM TO for his fellow Democrats.

So, he can't win.

Vote no and you aren't afraid to stand for something (your words) BUT he would then be accused of not presenting a solid Democratic Party front (what part of cover for fellow Dems did you not understand?).

Vote present and be accused of being too conservative and "not having fortitude" or whatever the flying monkeys from Camp Clinton say he did.

He chose to stand with his fellow Democrats... and now you DEMOCRATS (and here I use the term loosely) are jumping on him.

Pam Sutherland Confirmed: Planned Parenthood Says Obama's Present Votes On Choice Are "Leadership Votes." "'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...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.

"BUT he would then be accused of not presenting a solid Democratic Party front"

Like the majority of IL Democrats who actually voted no? That solid party front?

Just the facts.

NARAL asked him and other Dems to vote "present" as a block. Planned Parenthood worked with him on crafting the strategy. Everything that I have posted about.

As to whether he went to PP or they came to him... so what?

But it's certainly not the "Obama is weak on abortion rights" that YOU FOLKS are spinning it.

and that's what happened.

NARAL ASKED HIM TO VOTE PRESENT along with all of the other Democrats.

I understand the idea about voting yes and meaning it, blah blah blah. But what I really want to see is a politician making a move that supports my agenda and is able to successfully run again in four years to keep supporting my agenda.

explaining One.

and the only analysis that I am currently able to provide. I'm sure that the more attention this gets on DU the other campaigns will bring it up more information will come out on other topics. I guarantee that Clinton and Edwards strategists are reading these posts and will give us info that the Obama camp will have to mention.

I would rather vote present, still advance our agenda and get some political cover. The other option is vote no, catch hell from right-wing groups in rural illinois, then the people I had the coalition with don't get reelected and the next time we go through this a terrible bill comes to pass.

Taking a stand is great but if you're not in office to take that stand then what good is it? If a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Everyone loves courage in their elected officials, but the goal here is to advance our agenda with legislation, not to wave a flag.

he was one of the ones "providing cover" (his district was safe, whether he voted NO or PRESENT).

He voted PRESENT so that other Democrats, in districts that could swing on this vote, could also vote PRESENT.

He was doing what every loyal Democrat in the legislature should do, stick together.

Something that we need MORE of in DC!

As part of a solidarity move with Democrats in IL who were NOT in safe districts, NARAL asked that ALL supporters vote "Present" as a block, depriving the Repukes from saying that Democrat Joe Blow voted against saving babies that were "born alive" and other such nonsense. Joe Blow got to vote "Present" and the bill went down to defeat. Obama, and every other loyal Democrat, voted Present with Joe Blow... so repukes couldn't single him out.

What is so hard to understand about this issue?

Or is it that you have made up your minds and have bought the Clinton party line that "you can't trust Obama, he doesn't vote his principals!" and are just trying to convince everyone else of your bullshit?

biggest foreign policy disaster in our nation's history the "right thing to do"... and if it wasn't, where is the apology?

As for the "present" votes, I'm reasonably certain he knew that was the same as voting no, and he voted present AT THE REQUEST of the NARAL (at least in one instance).

Here is an interesting take on one of the present votes from the anti-abortion folks...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

Note how they claim that Obama is MORE pro-choice than NARAL!

If he had voted "present" 2000 times out of 4000 votes, that would clearly be too many. Even 1000, which is 25% of the time, is too many. 400 times, which would be 10% of the time, may be too many. What is the acceptable limit?

It is my personal opinion that there is no limit(although mind you, it did not happen anywhere near that much in his situation). Being from MS, were i ever elected to be governer or in any part of the legislature, I would obviously face very much criticism from Republicans. I would stand strong against every abortion, gay marriage, or gun pushing law that would come up; and being from MS it would be a lot. So no limit, however with him its not that serious

There are various reasons one might vote Present rather than Yes or No. Say the Governor of Illinois is of your party. A piece of legislation has some problem, maybe a constitutional issue or something, and needs amending. But you don't have the votes for amending and the other party is blocking the possibility. So a few concerned legislators might vote Present while everyone else votes Yes or No. When the bill reaches the Governor, the Present votes listed on the bill give a signal that the bill needs strengthening possibly before signing. The Governor has the authority to veto bills that need amending or to actually amend them. So he or she discusses the matter with the Present voters and may decide to amend the bill or veto it. Or something. In the case of a governor of the opposition party, it can be a similar signal, possibly a willingness to compromise if certain changes are made.

I hope that helps a little to clarify and I hope I have it straight. It's only one example, but there are many situations that might call for a Present vote over a Yes or No.

It's difficult to explain, because it's very complicated in the way it all works. This is why I believe Obama hasn't come up with a concise response on this, though he will have to. But it's not a matter of laziness or reluctance to take a stand or any of these bullshit charges being flung around. It's a matter of legislative strategy. Clinton and Edwards are both aware it is, but it's in their interest to use this against Obama in the primaries, partly because it is so god awful to get across to voters what goes on here.

I've been studying his votes for a long time. I probably know them better than his people do.

I've been in this conversation all day with different people. Even amongst people on this board who would probably consider themselves political junkies or whatever seemingly fail to understand the nuances of how voting works. These are people who had they been republicans in 2004 would have bought the flip-flopper argument on John Kerry.

So I am glad you're here. I've attempted to address this issue many times on DU, but I'm not all that confident I have the fullest understanding myself, but it's getting clearer to me as I go along.

The IL assembly has the ability to pass a bill and work out the kinks later.

IL's Governor has something called the amendatory veto. The Governor can amend a bill and send it back to the Senate, who can scrap the bill altogether, pass it with changes, or override the changes by supermajority.

These bills that hit the floor with overwhelming support haven't been through the meatgrinder the way a heavily contested bill would. A small inconsistency may make it to the floor for vote. If a senator notices something that may be in conflict with current codes or the constitution, they use that present vote to draw the attention of the Governor's office.

Send off a letter, make a phone call to the Gov's legislative staff, let them know you voted present because such and such section might violate this or that. And then work on a fix for this.

And it prevents the technical changes from killing the bill altogether.

posters who I would like to really extend thanks. I think I get the gist now. Present in IL is just to flag that there are some problems, but the bill is still worth while. Do I have it? Thanks again, LS

That might be a fine strategy as was explained in other posts, but in the Obama votes on "Live Birth" and other anti-abortion bills, NARAL and Planned Parenthood asked Democratic members to vote "present" instead of NO.

Pure and simple. And you can fact check this anywhere you want.

It's just the HILLSHILLS that want to spin this as "won't stand up to the wingnut right to life types" or "to indecisive to take a stand" bullshit.