Letters to the Editor
Majorajam
Published Letters: 275 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@deloresflower
[Read the article: More about race and the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Delores,
The answer to your queries are, I think, largely available in the article you linked to. See for example, both about the 'present' votes, and about Obama's position on choice:
Seven other times, he voted that way as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills.
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.
Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.
“It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.”
So, it's pretty difficult to make the case that Obama is anything but a staunch advocate of reproductive rights, (but don't get Paul Krugman on the subject, as he'll surely find some way to distort the record).
The question of whether Obama's 'present' votes matter or not is more nuanced. Firstly, I think it should be noted that every office has an equivalent: Senators can skip votes and President's don't have to sign bills. All of these things can be abused for political purposes, and it is worthwhile to compare each candidate's record there for perspective (e.g. Edwards missed many votes while he was a Senator, though I don't hold this against him. I don't know how many votes Senator Clinton has missed, but that ought to be made available by the NYT as long as they're digging).
As regards the 'present' votes, the Times article could really only come up with a few where it was possible to interpret them as Obama ducking the issue, but in my view, that judgment comes down to what you're predisposed to believe in the first place. Take their main example- that is where the law would've made 15 year olds eligible to be tried as adults. Obama voted present there preserving the record that he didn't vote no and he isn't 'soft on crime'. However, in doing so, he hardly 'ducked' profile wise- he gave a speech on the floor of the Senate going on record as saying that "there is no proof that trying youths as adults reduces crime"- or some such, it's in the NYT article. Surely if he wanted to escape political scorn a lower profile would have been the way to go, so, what explains that then?
In fact, there is evidence of remarkable leadership in some of these 'present' votes. Take for example the one against sex offender that passed both houses completely unanimously- an event about as routine as the sighting of black swans- but for his present vote. To me, that shows courage, not cowardice. Obama had absolutely nothing to lose by voting with the entirety of the rest of his peers.
So, as I say, in my view this will come down to your predisposition. Mine is to not jump to negative conclusions, especially short of comparing the records of all the candidates on like for like terms. In any case, there is ample room for Obama to defend this record and cast it in a very positive light against any of his opponents, especially against those of the GOP.
-
Aherns
[Read the article: Bob Johnson's "free ride"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tim,
Just fyi, this is the same reporter who wrote so glowingly in defense of Rupert Murdoch's integrity during his bid for Dow Jones. No kidding, he listed and poorly represented a few of the well known criticisms of Murdoch's handling of the Times of London and then defended those by interviewing the current editor of that paper (actually, they may have moved him to the WSJ, I'm not sure) with about as much ferocity as he's interviewed Johnson here. His piece insinuates that that editors statements refute the (partisan?) hullabaloo about Murdoch. It was such a sham I felt compelled to write him an email, which I don't do often of reporters, to say the least.
-
Joke
[Read the article: Bob Johnson's "free ride"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To those of you that want to make Obama's past drug use an issue, I just want to go on record as saying that I agree with you that doesn't necessarily mean you are racist. It merely means you are stupid. We have had two Presidents in succession that admitted drug use, the latter of which probably couldn't have felt his face from high school until he ran for governor. And you know what? Americans don't care.
People with an iota of brains realize that America doesn't care, so they see ulterior motives for alluding to Obama's drug use. Namely that the Clinton campaign is employing its dog whistle to communicate with whites uneasy with the stereotypical black men, to ensure they register Obama's 'blackness' in that sense. When you add to that comments like, "you can't just shuck and jive your way to the nomination", or "it's the greatest myth of all times", well, let's just say it makes it more difficult to rule out the idea that the Clintons are playing the race card.
Hope it helps ease the pain between your ears.