Barack Obama took potshots at Hillary Clinton for her "yea" vote on the warmongering Kyl-Lieberman bill -- a vote he ducked and said nothing about until it became clear that it was a political liability. Considering he was one of the co-sponsors of the equally bellicose anti-Iranian S.970 bill earlier in the year, his claim that he would have voted against it had he only bothered to show up becomes somewhat less than convincing.
But ducking votes and then engaging in historical revisionism seems to be a pattern with Obama. He likewise didn't show up for the MoveOn condemnation vote, which he later said was an attempt to score "cheap political points" -- even though he showed up and voted "yea" on the Barbara Boxer cheap political points bill that very morning. Now he wants us to think he's pro-choice because he ducked yet again, voting "present" on important abortion legislation in Illinois -- ostensibly to "give cover" to Democrats in vulnerable districts who couldn't afford to vote "yea" themselves.
Oh please. Would this pass muster if Obama had failed to support important civil rights legislation to give cover to Democrats who lived in districts with lots of bigots? Somehow I don't think so.
Obama's rationale for voting 'present', lacking plausibility, is probably more simple:
Obama's friend Link offered another reason for the strategy: to protect those with plans for higher office. A "present" vote helped "if you have aspirations of doing something else in politics," Link said, "and I think [Obama] looked at it in that regard."
It's single-issue politics and not particularly helpful to a big tent strategy, but among democratic primary & caucus voters, particularly women, it seems like a pretty big opening for groups like NOW and Emily's List to go after Obama.
I seriously doubt it. Illinois Planned Parenthood is standing behind this stupid "present" strategy like it was some kind of brilliant tactical maneuver. But then again, Planned Parenthood national told their membership to thank Joe Lieberman for his Alito vote.
This smells a lot like NARAL endorsing the "fetal pain" torpedo that right-to-lifers were trying to launch into the abortion debate in order to give cover to Democrats who didn't want to take a side on a potentially divisive vote. It's a cravenly politically calculating move to give cover to people who don't want to take a stand, and the fact that pro-choice organizations engage in this kind of posterior-covering rather than defending the rights they're given big money by their membership to uphold is largely why people think their opinion on these things is worth little these days.
The institutional pro-choice groups may line up based on who is supporting who, but I don't expect any courageous stands on principle here.
Obama didn't want to do anything to jeopardize his political future. He openly rejects partisanship and wants everyone to join together in a message of hope, but that tactic seems to depend on ducking out on tough issues and letting others take the arrows one inevitably takes when standing on principle -- and then trying to re-write history when it becomes clear which way the wind has blown.
It's a strategy that is just not going to work for all of the people all of the time.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.