Tuesday’s campaign round-up

January 29, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Today is the day for the Republicans’ closely-watched Florida primary, and with the polls tight, McCain and Romney didn’t hold back yesterday: “Mitt Romney branded John McCain a closet liberal Monday, an attack the Arizona senator said reeked of “desperation” as the Florida primary, and the battle for front-runner status, headed toward a photo finish. McCain quickly joined in the dustup over who was the truer conservative. ‘As the liberal governor of Massachusetts, he raised taxes $750 million,’ McCain said of Romney. The bitter exchanges on the eve of the Florida vote underlined the tightness of the race – and the stakes involved.”

* And speaking of Florida, Rudy Giuliani hinted yesterday that he may drop out of the presidential race as early as tomorrow. After noting that he believes the winner of the Florida primary will be the winner of the GOP nomination, Giuliani was asked to reflect on his chances if he comes up short today. “When it’s Wednesday morning, we will make a decision. The reality is that voting hasn’t even started yet. I believe we are going to win.”

* Former U.S. Attorney General and Florida gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno endorsed Hillary Clinton’s campaign yesterday.

* Hoping to counter the excitement surrounding Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday, three other Kennedys had an LAT op-ed today expressing their support for Hillary Clinton. “We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals,” wrote former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Kerry Kennedy (who I’m not at all familiar with).

* Yet another item has scrutinized Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois legislature and found that the criticisms are unfounded: “Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.”

* I suspect no one seriously expected a McCain-Romney ticket this year, but just in case, Romney made it clear yesterday that he’s not interested. “[The economy is] not really something [McCain] understands that well. He’s said it a number of times and indicated that he’d have to choose a vice president who really understood the economy. Well, I do understand the economy.” Catching himself, he added, “I’m not going to be any vice president to John McCain either, that’s not going to happen.”

* Clinton and McCain both appear to have comfortable, double-digit leads in California, but there’s still a week to go.

* The Obama and Clinton campaigns are apparently hoping anxiously to get Bill Richardson’s endorsement, and the New Mexico governor has said he may make an announcement by the end of the week. “If I do endorse, it’s going to be a gut feeling. It’s not going to be about statistics, about past ties,” Richardson said. “I’ve been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them.” (I guess that ruled out Edwards?)

* Speaking of Richardson, he shared an interesting anecdote yesterday, reflecting on an incident from one of the debates: “I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.'”

* Former Rep. Anne Northup (R) is poised for a rematch against Rep. John Yarmuth (D) in Kentucky.

* In Missouri, Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson will not run for governor, but Republican Rep. Kenny Hulshof will. (The latter offers Dems another key pick-up opportunity.)

Regarding Obama’s present votes in Illinois legislature, they are deliberately distorting his record. The Clinton Campaign knows full well that those votes are procedural/technical in nature…a means to say that you would support a bill if certain portions had not been added or removed. But they also know that many people who aren’t familiar with the Illinois legislature will not investigate it for themselves. On the surface a present votes sound fishy and many people will never get beyond that.

  • Yet another item has scrutinized Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois legislature and found that the criticisms are unfounded: “Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.”

    This comment, entirely correct, underscores the hypocrisy of the Edwards campaign.

    Lately, John Edwards has complained the loudest about bickering over non-issues when we should be talking about issues that matter to voters. But John Edwards was the one who brought up the non-issue of Obama’s “present” votes during the last debate—when Edwards either knew or should have known that the criticisms of these votes were, as CB wrote, “unfounded”.

    I respect John Edwards and would be thrilled if he were to become our nominee—but please, don’t insult our intelligence.

  • Ten years ago, I thought Kathleen Kennedy Townsend would be a strong presidential contender in 2008. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Despite advantages of money, name recognition, partisan identification and eight mostly well-regarded years as the Lt. Gov, she somehow managed to lose the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2002, and hasn’t been much heard from since.

    RFK Jr’s endorsement probably helps the Clintons, though. After Gore, I’m not sure there’s any public figure more strongly identified with environmentalism.

    As for Richardson’s comment, it both captures why he was such a terrible candidate, and why I still sort of like the guy…

  • Following up on the comment from “independent thinker”, forgive me for singling Edwards out. When Obama tried to explain his “present” votes to Edwards in the most recent debate, Clinton chimed in with, “You always have an excuse, don’t you Barak?”.

    Of course, the word “excuse” itself, usually reserved for misbehaving children, was a misrepresentation of the truth.

  • Speaking of Richardson, he shared an interesting anecdote yesterday…

    Sounds like the type of anecdote that might influence a ‘gut feeling.’

  • Richardson said, “[My endorsement is] not going to be about statistics, about past ties…”

    Sounds to me like he’s going to endorse Obama.

  • “The reality is that voting hasn’t even started yet.”

    Giuliani can’t make the most simple statement without lying, or else displaying his abysmal ignorance on subjects he’s supposed to know about.

    As James Joyner notes at his OTB blog, about a million absentee ballots have already been cast in Florida.

  • CB, I’m shocked. How can you read Rom-Bot’s statement that he’s not interested in being veep and conclude that he wouldn’t LOVE to be McCainiac’s Number 2?

  • Somewhat off topic, but I was surprised at how many words Bush spoke last night about global climate change and carbon emissions. His policy proposals were wimpy at best, but he seems to have accepted that carbon is a real problem that we actually ought to be thinking about. That’s a big movement for him over the past few years.

    I run into Republicans all the time who are still in Jim Inhofe mode – “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” What will they say now that even their president has bought into the “hoax”?

  • Giuliani’s statement is virtually an endorsement of Romney, and permission for his voters to switch, which I think most would have done anyway. His supporters are the worst kind of pragmatics. They don’t care about “values” or corruption. I doubt many of them are particularly concerned with terrorist attacks, though they approve using fear as a way of winning. What they are most concerned about is stock prices and low taxes. I doubt many will go to McCain, since while “maverick” may sound good to some moderates, it means unpredictable to Giuliani types.

  • Deb – I think you misunderstood the context in which the issue of voting present came up. As I recall, Obama specifically said that “present” votes were an accepted and traditional tactic in Illinois, but Edwards and Clinton were focused on the issue of being accountable for one’s votes, and that voting “present” is not really taking the same kind of position that “yes” or “no” would be. In addition, Edwards took issue with Obama criticizing Clinton for her vote on legislation that he himself had not voted on – I don’t think Kyl-Lieberman was mentioned by name, but I believe that’s the vote Edwards was referring to

  • Anne,

    I didn’t misunderstand anything. You’re correct that Edwards and Clinton were focused on the issue of being accountable for one’s votes. Therein lies the misrepresentation of Obama’s “present” votes.

    I’m not going to educate you on Obama’s non-vote on Kyl-Lieberman. That’s been covered over and over and over again by CB, other posters and everywhere else on the net. If you want to remain ignorant on Obama’s stated position on that issue prior to the vote and why he wasn’t in DC during the vote, then that’s your choice. But please, don’t wallow in your ignorance.

  • Gee thanks, Deb, but I don’t need you to educate me; it’s just amazing, isn’t it, that only 2 Senators missed that Kyl-Lieberman vote, and Obama was one of them.

    Listen, I thought Hillary was wrong on Kyl-Lieberman, but it would seem appropriate for someone who didn’t even vote on it to refrain from criticizing someone who did, but I guess in Obama’s world, that isn’t an option. I wonder what Obama’s position would be if the tables were turned and he had been the one on the record, and she had been the one off campaigning. Or what your position would be.

    Straddling the fence is a position, but one that, over time, is not all that comfortable; people begin to wonder why someone would prefer to be in that position than to pick a side and deal with it. He may think it makes him all things to all people, but I tend to think it makes him just one more person with a fence post up his ass.

  • For those of us who missed it, what is Obama’s official position on why he missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote and whether/how that positions him so that he is able to criticize someone who did vote on it?

    Thanks in advance.

    Orange is still orange.

  • “…but I tend to think it makes him just one more person with a fence post up his ass.”

    ***Anne***LOL. That made my day. Geez Deb, your response was so bitter you act like you were being attacked when you were just being referred to why Edwards made the comment he made…referring to the K-L vote but the statement certainly didn’t deserve this kind of bitterness from you
    “…If you want to remain ignorant on Obama’s stated position on that issue prior to the vote and why he wasn’t in DC during the vote, then that’s your choice. But please, don’t wallow in your ignorance.” What’s up with that? It doesn’t sound like you Deb. You’re usually more poised.

  • Anne: funny response. But the only way for Obama to have gotten slivers on this issue would have been for him to actually straddle the fence: he didn’t. He was against K-L before, during, and after the vote. No straddle there.

  • Obama press release on day of vote.

    Info on the chain of events and previous statements on the issue from Obama.

    I was wrong to accuse Anne of wallowing in her own ignorance. She’s actually informed on the issue, but simply refuses to be persuaded by facts presented to her. (Scroll down to the comments section to watch Anne swim in denial). .

  • I understand that Obama says he is and was and will always be against Kyl-Lieberman – that’s the right position; it would have more weight if it had been registered as a vote and not as, “well, if I had been there, this is how I would have voted,” and it would make his criticism of Clinton valid on the basis of his-vote-v.-her-vote.

    Both Clinton and Obama have more than once waited to vote until it was clear whether something was or was not going to pass, when their votes made no difference to whether it passed or failed. This, to me, is not leading on an issue – it’s making the safe vote.

    Whatever the reason, when someone fails to go on the record, it leaves the person able to take whatever position he or she wants to take – and that was Edwards’ point.

    Imagine – and it’s not too hard – someone bitching and moaning at you because some ballot initiative passed, and when you ask the person how he or she voted, the response is, “Oh, I didn’t vote – I was out of town. But if I’d been there, I would have voted against it.” Same thing.

    And, yes, I know Edwards was on the wrong side of a number of votes from his days in the Senate – I know that because he actually did vote.

  • “Deb, your response was so bitter…you’re usually more poised.”

    A frustration that most progressives share is that conservatives (so-called) frequently tell lies and misrepresentations (i.e. facts that leave out pertinent information) specifically to divert us from the issues. Progressives, as we must, respond with the truth or the pertinent facts as the case may be. What do conservatives do the next day? They repeat the same lies and misrepresentations. Depending on the person, either they don’t want to know the truth or don’t care about the truth.

    I’m a regular visitor to this blog, and Anne continually commits the same crime—either in defense of or in opposition to a particular candidate. Her misleading reference above to Obama and Kyl-Lieberman is just one of many examples. This habit is annoying when it comes from the right, but it’s so much more annoying when it comes from a fellow progressive.

    In my mind, honesty is a progressive value.

  • For what it’s worth, I agree with Deb. I too am a regular visitor to this site, and I have witnessed Anne’s willingness to go to any length to discredit Obama. It is really discouraging.

  • “Whatever the reason, when someone fails to go on the record, it leaves the person able to take whatever position he or she wants to take…”

    Perfect example of what I’m talking about. Obama was in the Senate and ready to cast his vote on the day of the scheduled vote and did go on record on the day of the unschedule vote as indicated in the links above. But that doesn’t stop Anne from saying otherwise.

  • I find it fascinating that other than the libertarian, every ‘real’ conservative has dropped out of the Republican’t race (Thompson, F., Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback), leaving us with only liberally tainted opponents (Guiliani (soon to go), Romney and McCain).

    I think the Democratic slogan for 2008 will be: “If you’re going to vote for a liberal, vote for one supported by his own party. Vote Democrat!”

  • So Anne, in your mind, what makes you think he would have done anything other than what he said he would have done? Do you have any evidence to show that he would have voted for it? Any?

    Both Clinton and Obama have more than once waited to vote until it was clear whether something was or was not going to pass, when their votes made no difference to whether it passed or failed. This, to me, is not leading on an issue – it’s making the safe vote.

    Do you have any proof Obama has done this? I’d like to see it as it would help me make my choice on February 5th.

  • Dan – that was Edwards’ point – that we only have someone’s word for what he or she would have done, as opposed to having a recorded vote.

    No, I have no reason to think Obama would not have voted as he says he would have – but when you don’t vote, you leave the door open a crack. Suppose we were talking about John McCain – who seems to have forgotten that he has a day job, and has missed more votes than anyone. Does he get to gad about the country campaigning and get credit for votes he hasn’t cast? Does he get to just phone in a bunch of non-votes and be taken at his word?

    I will have to do some research on the late-to-vote issue – I know there were a couple of votes like that, on big issues, but it escapes me which ones.

  • “No, I have no reason to think Obama would not have voted as he says he would have – but when you don’t vote, you leave the door open a crack.”

    No crack exists, Anne. One pertinent fact that you left out is that Obama specifically indicated how he would vote on the day of the vote. That leaves no room whatsoever to test the political winds, as you imply he did.

    Another pertinent fact you left out is that Obama has made speeches against the policy that this vote promulgates (visit the links above).

    As previously indicated, you are dishonest. In your defense, however, I think you’re lying to yourself as well.

  • Chris – you don’t read too well, do you? I said that I had no reason not to believe what Obama had said – I guess you’re okay with that part, even if you ignored it. When I said that when you don’t vote, you leave the door open a crack, I guess you were unable to see that in the general sense in which it was intended.

    I heard and read what Obama said, and will take him at his word – how is that dishonest? It still stretches credulity that he and McCain were the only two who didn’t show up.

    We have a difference of opinion on whether, having said what he would have done, he has the right to criticize someone who actually voted on the record. I don’t think he has the right to do that, and you think he does.

    That we do not agree does not make me dishonest, but if it makes you feel better to think so, that’s your right.

  • If I’m reading the Edwards argument correctly, Obama spoke out against K-L before the vote, the day of the actual vote, and after the vote, but that because he didn’t actually vote, that in some way indicates he might have voted for it.

    Now where have I seen that logic before?

  • “It still stretches credulity that he and McCain were the only two who didn’t show up.”

    Anne – You don’t read to well, do you? There are no proverbial “cracks” in your proverbial “door”.

    The pertinent facts that you ignores here again is that the vote was unscheduled, Obama was present on the day that the vote had been scheduled, and both senators that missed the vote were campaigning out-of-state as presidential candidates tend to do (that is, 2 out of 5 senators running for president at the time missed the vote).

    Credulity is stretched only if you ignore the facts (and you do).

  • Anne,hang in there. Those who worship at the alter of St. Barack don’t want to hear anything negative about him, and they are are now attacking you personally.
    I too cringe when I hear him take on the speech and cadences of black Americans that he did not grow up with. How is that any better the GWB pretending to be a down home Texan? No, he is not GWB, but some objectivity is called for at this time. I remember JFK, and Sen. Obama, you are no JFK

  • “I too cringe when I hear him take on the speech and cadences of black Americans that he did not grow up with.”

    Oh my.

  • No, Dan – that is not what Edwards was saying – are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Go back and read the transcript. Better yet – read this excerpt from the debate (with apologies for the length, but I didn’t want someone to accuse me of being too selective):

    CLINTON: Now, let me start with the claim about the bankruptcy bill. I said very clearly I regretted voting for it and I was happy that it didn’t get into law.

    By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. I said very forcefully I opposed that bill.

    There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30 percent interest.

    Senator Obama voted for it. I voted against it. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.

    And I think it’s important. You know, if you look at the recent article about Senator Obama’s work on health care reform in the Illinois legislature, it’s a very interesting piece about how he basically did the bidding of the insurance companies during that effort.

    Now, I’m just saying that if we’re going to…

    OBAMA: That’s…

    CLINTON: … be hurling these charges against one another, I’m used to taking the incoming fire. I’ve taken it for 16 years. But when you get into this arena…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … you can’t expect to have a hands-off attitude about your record. And it is perfectly fair to have comparisons and contrasts. I voted against a 30 — I voted for limiting to 30 percent what credit card companies could charge.

    Senator Obama did not. That’s a fact.

    (CROSSTALK)

    OBAMA: Absolutely. It is a fact, because I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don’t know about a lot of folks here, most folks here, if they’ve got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this provision, that would’ve been fine.

    And we had not created the kind of serious…

    EDWARDS: You voted against it because the limit was too high, is that what you just said?

    OBAMA: That is exactly what I just said, John, because…

    EDWARDS: So there’s no limit at all.

    OBAMA: … there had been no discussions…

    (APPLAUSE)

    Hold on, John. Hold on. Listen to this. There had been no discussion about how we were going to structure this and this was something that had not gone through the committee and we hadn’t talked about.

    It didn’t make sense for us to cap interest rates…

    CLINTON: So you voted with the credit card companies.

    OBAMA: No.

    CLINTON: That’s the bottom line.

    OBAMA: Hillary, I opposed that bill and you know I did.

    (APPLAUSE)

    CLINTON: Well…

    OBAMA: And consistently did and unlike you and John who voted for it previously.

    But here’s the point. What we have to do is we’ve got to have consistency in how we vote. You can’t say one thing during the campaign trail and then apologize afterward and say it was a mistake, and that has repeatedly happened during the course of this campaign…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … and I think that tells you the kind of president that folks are going to be.

    CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

    You, in the — now, wait a minute. In the Illinois state legislature…

    (AUDIENCE BOOING)

    CLINTON: Just a minute. In the Illinois state senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times present. That’s not yes, that’s not no. That’s maybe. And on issue after issue that really were hard to explain or understand, you know, voted present on keeping sex shops away from schools, voted present on limiting the rights of victims of sexual abuse, voted present time and time again.

    And anytime anyone raises that, there’s always some kind of explanation like you just heard about the 30 percent. It’s just very difficult to get a straight answer, and that’s what we are probing for.

    OBAMA: I feel bad for John…

    BLITZER (?): I know.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: … because I know John’s not getting a lot of time here.

    Let me just respond to this.

    BLITZER (?): You can…

    OBAMA: I feel pretty bad, I do. I feel pretty bad. But let’s just respond to the example that was just thrown out.

    The bill with respect to privacy for victims of sexual abuse is a bill I had actually sponsored, Hillary. I actually sponsored the bill. It got through the senate.

    (APPLAUSE)

    That was on the back of 12 other provisions that I was able to pass in the state legislature. Nobody has worked harder than me in the Illinois state legislature to make sure that victims of sexual abuse were dealt with, partly because I’ve had family members who were victims of sexual abuse and I’ve got two daughters who I want to protect.

    What happened on that particular provision was that after I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down.

    But when you comb my 4,000 votes in Illinois, choose one…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … try to present it in the worst possible light, that does have to be answered. That does have to be answered.

    OBAMA: And as I said before, the reason this makes a difference — and I understand that most viewers want to know, how am I going to get helped in terms of paying my health care? How am I going to get help being able to go to college?

    All those things are important. But what’s also important that people are not just willing to say anything to get elected. And…

    (APPLAUSE)

    BLITZER: Senator…

    OBAMA: … that’s what I have tried to do in this campaign, is try to maintain a certain credibility.

    I don’t mind having policy debates with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards. But what I don’t enjoy is spending the week or two weeks or the last month having to answer to these kinds of criticisms that are not factually accurate.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: And the press has looked at them. They are not accurate. And you need to present them as accurate.

    BLITZER: We’re going to be coming back.

    CLINTON: Well, that law is still on the books. It was never struck down. That was there.

    BLITZER: We’re going to be visiting all these subjects, but I just want Senator Edwards to weigh in. Suzanne has got an excellent question coming up.

    Go ahead.

    (LAUGHTER)

    EDWARDS: She’s been wanting to ask it, too.

    Can I just ask, though, before I do — I mean, I hear the back and forth on this one particular vote, but it is — I do think it’s important, and I mentioned this about Senator Clinton earlier, to be fair, about Social Security. I do think it’s important whether you are willing to take hard positions.

    I mean, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are sitting in front of me right know they have to go to the floor of the House every day and vote on hard issues. And they have to vote up or down or not show up to vote — one of those three choices. What I didn’t hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted present instead of yes or no when you had a choice to vote up or down.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: I’ll be happy to answer it. Because in Illinois – in Illinois, oftentimes you vote present in order to indicate that you had problems with a bill that otherwise you might be willing to vote for. And oftentimes you would have a strategy that would help move the thing forward.

    Keep in mind, John, I voted for 4,000 bills. And if you want to know whether or not I worked on tough stuff, I passed the first racial…

    EDWARDS: I don’t question whether you worked on tough stuff.

    OBAMA: No, no, no. Hold on a second.

    EDWARDS: I don’t question whether you worked on tough stuff.

    OBAMA: No, no. But you…

    EDWARDS: The question is, why would you over 100 times vote present? I mean, every one of us — every one — you’ve criticized Hillary. You’ve criticized me for our votes.

    OBAMA: Right.

    EDWARDS: We’ve cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you’re criticizing her for, by the way, you’ve done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we’ve cast.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: No.

    EDWARDS: And what — all I’m saying is, what’s fair is fair. You have every right to defend any vote. You do.

    OBAMA: Right.

    EDWARDS: And I respect your right to do that on any — on any substantive issue. It does not make sense to me — and what if I had just not shown up…

    OBAMA: John — John, Illinois…

    EDWARDS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, let me finish.

    OBAMA: Hold on a second.

    EDWARDS: What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position…

    OBAMA: John, you…

    EDWARDS: … even when it has political consequences for me.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: You asked for the — most of these did not have political consequences. This — most of these were technical problems with a piece of legislation that ended up getting modified.

    But let’s talk about taking on tough votes. I mean, I am somebody who led on reforming a death penalty system that was broken in Illinois, that nobody thought was good politics, but was the right

    thing to do.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: I opposed legislation that now is being used against me politically to make sure that juveniles were not put in the criminal justice system as adults, even though it was not the smart thing to do politically. It was not smart for me to oppose the war at the start of this war, but I did so because it was the right thing to do.

    (APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: So I understand that Illinois has a different system than Congress, and that it is fine to try to use that politically. But don’t question, John, the fact that on issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven’t simply followed, I have lead.

    Edwards has a legitimate point about taking repsonsibility for one’s voting record. Obama has a legitimate explanation for his “present” votes. One is talking in the context of the Senate and the other in the context of the state legislature.

    The Kyl-Lieberman vote took place in the Senate. Obama didn’t vote. He thinks he can take Clinton to task for her vote, and my point is that because he didn’t cast a vote himself, it’s a semi-cheap shot.

    In the big picture, not voting means not taking a recorded stand. There’s no way to spin that.

    Ask yourself if you would be giving anyone else a pass on this – would Hillary be getting away with criticizing Obama for a vote he cast that she didn’t – even if she had issued a statement on what her vote would have been?

    It would never happen.

  • 1) Not voting means not taking a recorded stand.
    2) Ask yourself if you would be giving anyone else a pass on this.

    I’d agree with 1), unless there were comments on the record taking a stance and the vote wasn’t close. In this case there are multiple comments and the vote wasn’t. Case closed.

    Re 2), I’d say that calling everybody who disgrees with you hypocrites is not the best way to get your point across, if there ever was one.

  • Thanks for the lengthy quote Anne.

    I think we get to criticize every vote and stated position on every issue, independent of how anyone else voted, or didn’t vote. From what I have read, Obama’s voting record in Illinois is a record that any Democrat would be proud of, and I accept his explanation for the “present” votes. I also believe Obama gets to criticize HRC on the K-L vote even though he wasn’t present to vote. This is where we differ.

    I’m comfortable with criticizing Obama for missing the K-L vote: it’s a simple fact that he did. The fact that HRC voted for the bill says a lot more about her than missing the vote says about Obama.

    • Comments are closed.