Letters to the Editor
-
This is part of a pattern
The issue here is whether Obama is likely to fulfil his campaign promises to stand up to special interests and do the right thing. Whether the "present" votes on the abortion measures represent spinelessness or expert manipulation of the system can be debated.
Here is something that is not quite so debatable. While he was in the Illinois senate, Obama caved to special interests on a bill that would have required disclosure of radioactive leaks.
Here is the article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
If people can get past the aura of "change" and "inspiration" and "new kind of politics" and look at the hard facts, it is clear that Obama is not likely to come through on his promises.
-
reading comprehension?
Interesting to see so many here simply repeating Clinton talking points without addressing the point of the actual post.
Before saying the present votes are evidence of gutlessness or an unwillingness to take a stand, perhaps some of these Clinton shills could address the information in the post that Obama wanted to vote no and worked with choice advocates to develop a winning strategy that entailed voting present instead of no.
Clinton seems to have used this "controversy" to badmouth her opponent without apparent justification. Has Obama been persuing a similar strategy or has he mostly stayed positive?
Clinton likes to claim she has been vetted, but I suspect that the more of this kind of campaigning people see from her, the more her negatives will rise from their already near-fatal levels.
-
Excuse me, who is claiming that Obama is not a politician
I don't know who out there thinks that Obama is the Messiah; I for one have never entertained the notion that Obama is anything other than a politician, and I wouldn't want anyone in the Oval Office who was not a politician. He just happens to be a very, very, very good politician. When he compromises, he seems to compromise wisely and in a way that builds up his political capital for other endeavors. Versus Clinton, whose idea of reaching out to the right is by sponsoring an anti-flag-burning statute. I mean, gees, if you're going to sell out, at least do it well!
Sorry, but I think there's a real generation gap here between the generation of feminists represented by NOW and those of us who are a tad bit younger. Try as I might, I cannot get behind the Gloria Steinem concept of "I'm a woman, she's a woman, therefore I must vote for her so we can have a woman president." I mean, I get that this often happens on a subconscious level in the voting booth, but an actual, conscious, intellectualized decision that this is what we're supposed to do? That is just completely alien to me.
I'll grant you this: when I was putting my 3-year-old daughter to bed the other night, we somehow got on the subject of presidents (they had studied the White House in daycare that day), and I was explaining to her that mommy and I don't like George W. Bush very much, but he can't be President anymore, and we'd really like Mr. Obama to be President next. Then I paused and said, "There's also a really nice lady named Hillary Clinton, and she'd like to be President, too." And in that moment, I did appreciate the fact that, because of HRC's candidacy, I could raise my 3-year-old daughter to just blithely assume that women can be serious Presidential contenders. So, I get the cool factor. But that still doesn't translate into a vote for this particular woman.
Maybe I'm more optimistic than older feminists, that this is not going to be the last time, ever, ever, ever, in my lifetime, that a woman has a serious shot at the Presidency. There are lots of good female governors out there, a woman is already third in line for the Presidency as it is, why should I think HRC is a one-shot deal?
-
HIllary Still playing Dirty
I know several people in different states who got direct mail piece from he Clinton campaign just before Super Tuesday. These direct mail pieces used the same'"present" LIES as she did earlier in the camapaign.
Actually Obam has been more po-active on issues of reproductive choice than Hillary. She pays "lip service" to teh issue.
-
Yes, Neilpaul
Read much, people? The article specifically explained how Obama's 'present' votes were at the behest of Planned Parenthood. That makes him weak on choice, how, exactly? And in the same breath you say he 'caves to special interests' by siding with Planned Parenthood?
-
What commenters here don't seem to understand...
Is that in the ILLINOIS Senate (Not the US Senate, which has different rules) voting "Present" has exactly the same effect as voting "no". You need a certain number of "Yes" votes to get a bill passed, so either a "No" or a "Present" vote counts against you.
The bottom line is that Obama supports abortion rights, and it's extremely dishonest for the Clinton campaign to try to claim otherwise.
-
Portia56
I have seen that same Exelon article printed on these boards by Clinton supporters like yourself about three dozen times int the past four days who never point out the fact that there is another side to the story here
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
and that the gleeful passing of the "dirt" on Obama doesn't compare to the "dirt" that could be spread about the Clintons if Obama supporters wanted to.
Mud slinging isn't really nicer when its from within your own party. And so you know, CNN boils down the differences between the article and his "fact-check" to a claim that implied that a bill had passed when in fact, he is still working on passing it.
Nice try though at another sliming. I guess Clinton supporters are right that this is their area of expertise.
-
Why wasn't this out before Super Tuesday?
Was this information out there anywhere BEFORE Super Tuesday? I have to think that Obama would have gotten a lot more votes if it had been more widely known. Which makes me wonder if either (a) it's not actually true, or (b) he didn't want it widely known so as not to alienate the anti-abortion crowd come November. By voting "Present" at the behest of Planned Parenthood, but not to have disclosed that fact when confronted about those votes, smacks of wanting to have his cake and eat it, too.