Letters to the Editor
-
@doloresflower
You're right, it would have been nice to have a chance to talk about this on Salon earlier. I assure you, though -- speaking at least for myself -- that there's no overarching editorial/conspiratorial reason why I, for one, did not post about it earlier. I saw that it had been thoroughly/intelligently discussed elsewhere; then I noticed this weird new wrinkle with Lorna Brett Howard, which I definitely think deserves (especially in NOW's defense) some record-straightening. Steve Trombley's post about that surfaced last night, after many people had voted. To be sure, it speaks to larger issues of campaign tactics and political styles, but I'm not convinced that this issue, while complex and interesting and worth discussing -- as you all have done here with great insight and conviction on all sides -- is on its own a primary vote-maker or -breaker, or that discussion of it should have ended, say, this morning.
Also, in NOW's defense: Regardless of what one may think of Illinois NOW's handling of this particular issue, I do think that there's a case to be made for the approach of not compromising on fundamental issues, even in the name of enlightened pragmatism. It's the "accept an inch and they'll NEVER give us a yard" theory; it's why some gay rights may advocates oppose civil unions, for example. (Of course, you might say that Illinois NOW lost their no-compromise credibility when they lter endorsed Obama in spite of these votes. But still.) Again, agree with it or not, but it is, in principle, a defensible strategy.
Thanks again for all your comments.
-
A LOVERLY EXAMPLE from old91a10
Here again the rabid hit piece about Obama while IGNORING THE HUGE PROBLEMS from Hillary.
She voted to give Bush the GREEN LIGHT in Iraq. Obama did not.
She voted to give Bush the GREEN LIGHT in Iran. Obama did not.
If you can explain those two, we can talk. But it's the same old shit, time and time again. Hillary is DIRTY, and Obama is not.
-
Huh?
Forgive me dataguyx. I guess my 19 years of education, law degree, political science degree and legislative staff experience have rendered me incapable of understanding the complexities of Illinois politics. So, since we're on the same side here (you got that, right?) perhaps you'll explain to me, in one syllable words, of course, wtf your point is?
-
Present tension
janinedm: This is the type of specifics Senator Obama has on his website but more importantly this is what he says in his debates and in his speeches.
"Coming together to meet this challenge won't be easy… It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washington and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President."
Senator Clinton has given specifics not only about what she'll do about issues (like health insurance) but what she'll do to pay for them. Do we really want to elect another person like George Bush who got awesome press coverage but knew nothing about any of the issues. He was a good talker and so is Senator Obama.
...and, we all know it's easy to talk about something and say how you'll vote on something when you have no facts...an Illinois state senator taking a chance by saying he was against a war. Who knows how this person would have voted had he been shown national security statements building the case for weapons of mass destruction. Would he have erred on the side of caution? We do know that he has voted for funding for this war each and every time it came up. Look he's a very nice person but that's not the major quality for surviving as president of the US.
-
129 "Present" Votes
For the sake of argument, let's say that his "present" vote on the abortion bill was a strategic decision.
If the ONLY voted "Present" 3 or 4 times, then Obama's argument might fly.
But he voted "Present" 129 times. Nope his explanations and alibis don't work.
There is something else also missing and that ls evidence of a single controvestial issue where he stood up to the special interests and fought the good fight.
For Obama to run as the agent of change, He should be able to show an extended track record of fighting the special interests and standing up to them. Unfortunately, there is more of a history of him caving in to the special interests, just as he did with the bill about reporting nuclear accidents.
So far as I have been able to determine, Obama has a zero track record in this area.
He is the spineless, gutless wonder.
Obama is all talk and no substance. As a result, he still comes through as Republican-lite, which is NOT what this country needs.
-
"wtf your point is?"
Well, it's pretty simple. You see, O Seer of the Legislature, you need a MAJORITY to do things. One vote does NOTHING. So, Obama voted PRESENT to give cover to other democrats and moderate Republicans, who did not want to vote against the "Helpless Babies and CHildren Protection act". If they voted PRESENT, the bills would not advance. He did it to help stop the bills, and it apparently was successful.
The strategy was set up by the Planned Parenthood Senate Liason. It was a strategy to stop crap from advancing.
Here's a quote: 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."
Gosh, sometimes things are sorta complex, eh? The woman who headed Chicago NOW, Lorna Brett Howard, was, until 4 weeks ago, a Hillary supporter. After watching this NOW-boating in NH, IA, and other early primary states, she has become an Obama supporter, and she has a YouTube piece about the UNFAIR and FALSE claims in this controversy. Go to YouTube and search for her name.
This stuff is just absolutely despicable and nauseating. It's one reason why Hillary is not at this time acceptable. Why has Hillary and her bunch taken these pointers from Karl Rove?