130 "present votes" of which 50 such votes were sanctioned by the Democratic party as a strategic political maneuver. This leaves 80 "present" votes out of more than 4,000 votes that he did cast. That's approximately 2%. Is the MSM serious here? Obama’s voting record here appears to be exemplary and certainly undeserving of this much fanfare and, again, negative attacks from the Clinton camp. Rather than doing Clinton’s dirty work, the MSM should engage in actual journalism, i.e., put the facts into the context of other state senators in Illinois. Was this above or below the norm? Then do a comparison of Senator Clinton’s record in the senate? Obama sponsored and passed significant legislation in Illinois with respect to the death penalty, healthcare reform, welfare reform, ethics reform, and campaign financing, to just name a few. What significant pieces of legislation has Senator Clinton sponsored in her six years in the senate? How many votes have she missed? How many times have she been on the wrong side of critical issues, e.g., Iraq and Iran? The Clinton campaign is in serious trouble - the more she seeks to sling mud at Obama to more she ends up drawing attention to her massive shortcomings and deficiencies. No way she wins the nomination. No way. She’s done.

You go girl!

Whiner Weiner and Tubb-Jones? That's the best the Clinton smear machine could do out of Congress. Check their records and you will see what a pair of winners (or is it whiners?) they are.

When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted “present,” rather than “yes” or “no” on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

“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.”

“What it did,” she continued, “was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so” because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. “A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means.”

Unlike Senator Clinton who could care less about fellow Democrats, or “down ticket” candidates (and for those that don’t know what “down ticket” means, it is candidates for office that are running for state legislative positions, or Governor, or Senator, not for President, thereby being “down ticket”) Senator Obama was seeking to protect other Democratic state legislators from being boxed into corners the Republicans wanted to force them. The “Present” votes were just that.

Both Obama and Hillary were not present for the FISA vote this week. How much time in '07 have either of them spent in DC while earning the senatorial salary?

I see what the media (I don't know if Clinton is really behind this) is going for with this argument, but I disagree.

He voted "present" 130 of 4000 times. Only 13 of those are even remotely questionable, and he has a reasonable answer to all of them. In fact, all of the cases mentioned in the NY Times article seem like reasonable situations under which to vote "present."

The media (or Clinton) need a sharp example to drive home there point. I challenge them to present one solid case in which Obama waffled. If they can, then Obama should be accountable otherwise STOP the political posturing.

Well OK, 130 votes out of about 4000 (3.25%) were "present" - I'm comfortable with that. How many votes did Clinton cast in the same period? I think the issue merely helps to highlight how much real legislative experience Obama has, considering and voting on issues affecting the lives of ordinary people, compared to swanning around the world as a virtual tourist as First Lady, as if that makes someone better qualified to lead the country.

I think Hillary has a winner here. Boy Wonder should explain these non-votes.

Present, accepted action taken on a bill that may be unconstitutional, a bill that needs to be redrafted, more thought out...135 times out of 4000. Hillary has no depth that she can't continue to sink further. Pathetic. And how ironic that she would point a finger accusing someone to lack courage. I hope people will wake up and see through her.

I don't think his voting record in the U.S. Senate was particularly couraegous either. He voted "present" on the Moveon. org vote and didn't show up on the Iran vote. Not good.

Hillary should pick her hatchet men (and women) with a bit more care. Credibility is not one of the strong suits of Whiner Weiner or Tubb-Jones. The other guy, Crowley, is only heard from when he shows up to collect his pay check.

Cocaine: The Slave Drug

Barak knows the inner city and the academic. The drug decision created an opportunity for all.

Dec 20, 2007

In the drug war Bill fights pot over coke. Coke tastes good and the bubbles make you laugh. Pot can be used to fill you up with delicious food. Other people more nefarious use coke to sniff and get themselves in a mood of euphoria. Pot users also have a weedy side, they tend to forget things and not become aggressive in their revolution plans. Many pot smokers feel oppressed but never acted on the talk that the life they saw provided less then the hope for others.

Cocaine grows from the coca plant in South America. The South Americans use the drug to make slaves to pick coffee. Many of the plantation owners try it themselves remembering to use the gun on the front porch to defend the coffee empire.

To repeat, laborers work for nothing but Cocaine in Colombia. The Colombians grow Marijuana as well as Cocaine and supply the United States with most of the slave drugs that get pushed onto the street.

The results on cocaine use came out years ago. One week of free cocaine used daily will produce an arrogant person with no regard for a past life. The person believes others will take care of everything that once worked in society. One week of prostitution for woman works the same way when placed next to the coked up individual.

Cocaine stimulates the neurotransmitters in the brain a way no human emotion and thought can. Those that used cocaine finished with reading years ago. Ideas ended with the brave new world completion.

Mind expanding drugs were used to create an illusion that the person would not be used as an entity to further the ultimate cocaine slaving life you were to become

Here are the facts:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

Hillary Rove Clinton has sunk to new depths of sleaze.

I once liked her.

The results on cocaine use came out years ago. One week of free cocaine used daily will produce an arrogant person with no regard for a past life. The person believes others will take care of everything that once worked in society. One week of prostitution for woman works the same way when placed next to the coked up individual.

Cocaine stimulates the neurotransmitters in the brain a way no human emotion and thought can. Those that used cocaine finished with reading years ago. Ideas ended with the brave new world completion.

Mind expanding drugs were used to create an illusion that the person would not be used as an entity to further the ultimate cocaine slaving life you were to become

Posted by: William Mostovoy | December 20, 2007 9:05 PM

Hey Billy,
You should have thought of that before you voted for the current Republican Drydrunk in Chief....twice.., nice try.

George W Bush - COCAINE:
According to a new book, three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward. (In another new book, reporter Bill Minutaglio, writes that the year of community service was arranged by the Governor's father, ex-president Bush, after he caught Bush Jr. driving drunk.)
That year certainly is out of character with the rest of Bush Jr.'s life. Before and after 1972, he was a rich, hard drinking playboy. Suddenly, and only that one time in his life, he worked for a liberal charity in an inner city ghetto. As soon as the year was over, he resumed his previous pattern and has done no charity work since.

Full story here:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine

The Rothenberg Report wrote about Obama's present votes back in February. Here's the link:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/02/ever-present-obama.html

Legislation is tricky and I can easily imagine someone NOT weighing in on certain votes. If he votes against putting Kool-aid in every drinking fountain, he gets pigeonholed as "anti-education". And so on. I probably wouldn't vote on half of the beaurocratic messes they create either.

Obama did not show up for the Iran vote because it was announce within the hour it was held. He had left Washington because the Senate had been told the vote would not be held in the 'near future', and he could not get back in time to vote. This is all part of Senate records. But then, if you post here, you know that. You are just trying to create fodder.

The brilliance of the internet is that with a few clicks, a bit of patience, and some spare time, we too can do investigative journalism. Amazingly, Hillary's folks are running their campaign as if that's not going to happen. It seems they figure we're just out here, fresh from tumbling off a turnip truck, waiting to hear the "official" word from the lapdog pundits and pollsters who have rigged this affair to favor Hillary from the beginning.

Sadly, the team of "experts" pushing Hillary is extensive, ranging from many on CNN, writers on Salon, the NY Times' Krugman, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, David Gergin, the New School's Kerry, and on and on. What do these otherwise intelligent people see in her? It's the enigma of our era.

The road to Penn. Ave. was paved for her. Hillary was coasting, that is until her meltdown in Philly over the illegal immigrant DLs. Until then she never planned to differentiate herself so clearly from her running mates. She was simply going to scapegoat W for everything that was wrong, despite the fact she supported him on many issues, especially the "War on Terror" with her votes for preemptive action against Sadam and for Kyl-Lieberman, which termed the Iranian Guards terrorists.

In one debate, in fact, she claimed to be "winning," which is why she said the others were attacking her. But then, suddenly, America awoke to her snake oil and she's been under the gun, so to speak, ever since.

Now her desperate team is attacking Obama's record. On Washington Monthly's website, for instance, Drum was comparing her attendance record at the committee she chairs, where she oversees the Superfund, to Obama's record of not calling a meeting of the Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, which he chairs.

Notice, when you see these types of attacks, the Hillary true believers aren't delineating what was and what was not accomplished, but whether or not she was there and voted. OK, let's consider for a moment what she does when she attends her Subcommittee meetings and votes.

See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Statement&Statement_ID=c39bb796-9bbb-4927-96b3-6a4257a761a0 - a sample of the benign speeches she gives on virtually every topic. The template always includes bountiful platitudes, e.g., Healthcare for everyone, Better education for every child, Bring the troops home, with very few specifics. They're the political equivalent of cotton candy -- fluffy with no substance.

So she's extolling the virtues of the Superfund in that speech yet it has been plagued by inefficiency, ineptitude and corruption, especially in the recent past. One might call it the No Waste Left Uncovered Plan that worked as well as No Child Left Behind. For example, in 2006 there were still 1,244 sites that required cleanup. See:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/06/b1777527.html . A year later there are 1,246 sites requiring cleanup: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/10/b1102571.html , including 3 sites that were ruined by Katrina that still haven't been addressed.

Hillary's apparently too busy to address these microcosmic issues since she's busy crafting her image for the Big Seat.

Is it a case of neglect, like her minions are saying about Obama? Or is it an indication she doesn't care, at least in the liberal sort of way she claims to care, about the unfortunate who have been severely hurt by corporate waste and greed?
I'm betting on the latter, knowing how easy it was to cultivate her Republican Free Market concepts early in her life. See: http://internationalnews.over-blog.com/article-13832621.html .

Unfortunately, every one of her opponents are more qualified than she is to be President. But because many believe she's the only one with the ability to beat the Republicans, she's accrued a vast amount of support despite overwhelmingly negative ratings.

If you care about America's future, if you'd like to see us avoid WWIII, if you believe in what Hillary says but not in what she does, if you think change isn't just a campaign slogan, if you believe Hillary has inflated two terms as a Senator, a few years as a semi-active attorney and 8 years as a First Lady into "35 years" of experience, then please, by all means, vote for any other candidate than Hillary.

Aren't any women for Hillary, better yet women for choice, just a little miffed she used Obama's perfect choice record to attack him with no basis in fact? I am so sickened by Hillary's tactics at this point there are no words, just a vote for Barack. Oh, and a real effort to unseat the Democratic Party sellouts for Hillary that join in these baseless attacks. I look forward to looking into their earmarks and funders! This is beyond Democrats and Republicans. I've honestly met quite a few Republicans who view Obama very favorably, even though of course they don't agree with everything he wants to do. They certainly don't all attack him like Hillary has; some I know have changed their registration to vote for him. Honestly, those re-registered Republicans have been much nicer people than some of the virulent Clintonistas I've been reading/meeting.

The only strategy Obama was thinking about when casting thee present votes was so they could not be used against him when he ran for higer office. You Obama supporters know this is the 100% truth but you are just trying to spin it to make him look better. You guys are hypocrites and really just look pathetic. Admit it voting present is a cowards way out of controversial bills and you know it 100%.

Obama supporters are shrugging off his "Present" votes as only 3%/2% of the time and claiming it as part of the typical IL political system to make strategic "Present" votes. The stickiness for Senator Obama lies in his running a campaign on hope and change in Washington. His record proves that at least 3% of the time, he will fall in line with his party's typical and conventional ways when need-be. There is no proof he can deliver the kind of sweeping change he is guaranteeing. He has no extraordinary experience with reform as others' have experience reaching across party lines. He has no record reflecting ability to be the change-agent he claims as his IL Senate record shows following a typical and conventional voting patter. I'm hedging my bets on a record of high level experience for today with hope for tomorrow, rather than just hope for tomorrow.

Rep. Anthony Weiner has voted present in the US Congress before so he's got some nerve criticizing Obama for doing the same.

Other Clinton supporters who have voted "present" in the US Congress include Clinton national co-chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as recently as two weeks ago (a resolution praising Christians and Christmas in the House) and Rep. Jane Harman to protest a partisan markup procedure in the Intelligence committee.

Contrary to most press reports and the Clinton spin, votes of "present" aren't some telling sign of indecision in the Illinois State Senate, they are everyday occurences in the US Congress.

Sen. Clinton is either ignorant of the precedents of the legislative body she serves in or happy to misrepresent the meaning of a "present" vote for political gain. Or both.

See much more on this topic in a diary I wrote at MyDD called 'A history of 'present'.

I'll repeat Rep. Weiner is being a skeezy pol for criticizing "present" votes while choosing to vote "present" himself when it suits him(see H Con. Res 180, condemning Bill Clinton for offering clemency to 17 FALN members). That's pretty shallow by Weiner.

Mrs clinton mother was a jew and thats makes her jewish the jewish people run the the 5th estate Media so of course they would attack a man like President Obama who had a Muslim father plzzzz

The MSM has already zeroed in on at least one vote where Obama was the lone person who voted "Present" and so far he has dodged the issue and not answered. Obama's "present" votes are a legitimate issue considering that he claims to be the "change" candidate. That he has proven himself to be unreliable at least 3% of the time is troubling, considering that he doesn't have the experience that the other candidates have and that he has offered no reasons for those specific "present" votes that have been asked him. He's been dodging this issue and the MSM has been giving him latitude.

In the remote possibility that he gets the nomination, there is no way for the MSM ignore it - not with Fox attempting to energize the Republican base. This will be a deal-breaker especially for someone who promises to be an agent of change. He cannot change anything when he cannot even explain his wimpy voting record.

So..missing 150 votes this year, more than any other senator except Tim Johnson is OK. And if you go back and look the votes he missed...did not vote either way...are the hard votes. They ones he would have to explain why he did or didn't. But two stand out. He did not vote to redeploy the military with more rest time between service. He did not vote to increase health benefits for the military. What does that tell you about his priories....he is too busy jumping up and down on a stage with Oprah.

Wow you Obama supporters are really weird. Now is our chance to vote for someone who really can make things work in Wahington rather than just talk about it. But you support Obama who does not do his job. If Obama really thinks the politics of Washington need a change. Why is Obama part of the established Democratic party. You think someone who really wanted changed would not be owned by a large party. Also no working Union supports Obama. The Unions did their research rather than listen to Obama's big plans for change that he can never do.

I want to know how many votes did Obama get? The replubicans showed there total number of votes each person got . Obama got 39 Percent. how many votes is that wally Biegaj thank you.

FACT: Since becoming Senator, Obama has missed 37.6% of votes! If you missed 1/3 of your work, you would be fired. Not Voting is execusable!

Not voting means not doing your job!

Obama has a "present" vote on the Moveon.org Betrayus ad and he was there.

I am really concerned about that one. I am concerned he talked a good game on timelines for withdrawal and then voted against one and gave Bush all he wanted with no strings attached.

While his present votes may have worked "for" him back in the Illinois Senate, they do not demonstrate any leadership during this presidential candidacy. If he had stuck to his views strongly and had his record reflect his convictions, I would be impressed. But I am left quite the opposite that he would expect these acts to show us any kind of strength or leadership as he vies for our votes during the primary process.

In my personal view, his lack of leadership is sorely showing in his record in Illinois. Present is not an option for a president. And the GOP will tear him apart for it. I do not fault him personally for his present votes, but I think it was the wrong path to follow for someone looking to be our next president. He needed to be a man of conviction. Unwilling to bend or falter when his convictions were being tested.

I'm sorry, but he didn't.

Wynter,
Loudon, NH

The issue isn't the 2% he missed, it is what those 2% represent. Look closely at his voting record and you will see almost a sympathetic tone toward Iran and against protecting ourselves either at our borders or in Iraq. That 2% becomes supstantial when they represent a "I don't want to show my opinion on the matter" vote.

You like Obama. OK. But be honest with yourself about it. Being present for a Senate vote and deliberatly refusing to take a political stand by NOT voting yes or no IS PLAYING POLITICS. And it IS playing the old Washington games. And that is hypocritical for a guy that says he is about "CHANGE" in Washington. How can you truly be about change when you choose to straddle the fence on important issues and not take a stand. Being president is about courage and taking a stand. It's obvious Barack didn't want to anger people he would want to curry future favors from and therefore voted present. His only other excuse would be that he was not sufficiently informed enough about the issues to make a decisive decision. You can deny this in order to make his voting record more palatable to you, so that you can vote for him. But why lie to yourself? Just admit it, you like the guy and you will vote for him eventhough his voting record, his experience and the fact checks about his own life story Prove that he is not telling the truth like he keeps claiming to the world he is.