Political Punch

98 senators were there to vote. Repeating the conspiracy theory is for cult members only. here's a little something on the propensity for Obama to miss important votes, in the Illinois and US senate.

NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO.

"Indeed, Obama's track record on controversial votes is something I've been thinking a lot about over the past few days, ever since he appeared to call for new regulations on abortion in response to a question from an anti-choice listener in Iowa on Saturday. According The New York Times Obama said:

there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation.

As there is no such movement toward a new late-term abortion regulation among any pro-choice group I am aware of, I asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton for elaboration on this over the weekend. He said:

Obama did not suggest that new regulations were needed or appropriate. He simply stated the fact that there is agreement that late-term abortions should be limited to the rare instances where the life or health of a woman is at stake. And he has consistently made clear that abortion regulations, such as the Federal Abortion Ban, that lack exceptions for the life and health of women are unconstitutional and endanger women's health.

Both those statement suggest some comfort with banning second-term abortions, however, as most states already ban early third-trimester ones, as Roe permits them to do. And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama's statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois -- voting present rather than yes or no -- muddying the actual record about his beliefs. Clinton in 2000 said that she would be open to a ban on late-term abortions, as well, but when push came to shove in the U.S. Senate, she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban which Bush signed into law in 2003 and which the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year. So her record is clear."

Senator NO-Show.

No sale, here, either. It seems tenuous and awfully Byzantine to make such a fine distinction. Moreover, Sen. Obama would have had a lot more moral authority in his condemnation of Sen. Clinton if he had voted on the bill and then criticized her. To discuss Sen. Clinton's vote or perceived position on the issue without having voted himself makes Sen. Obama look, quite simply, petty.

RuthieM - How can someone be so right about Hillary but yet so Wrong about Obama. He has a history of not being at votes of consequence. And please tell how marking the Revolutionary Guard as Terrorists a blank check for War?

Since first of all the President does not need it, since Iran is already at war with us!

There is a clear distinction. Obama is extremely credible on this issue, his sponsorship cited labeling Revolutionary Guards as terrorists and Lieberman's sponsorship does give the president a blank check(again)to attack Iran, which is what Hillary voted for, because she is looking to the general election for the Jewish vote. The measure that Obama backed certainly did not give the president authorization for war with Iran. I don't care what the spinsters want to say, but the reading is there to read the differences, and should not be twisted any other way. As far as Obama not being there for the Lieberman vote, there was going to be no vote, then there was going to be a vote, wishywashy, so what's a person to do? And the Obama campaign is not flagging nor is he sinking in the polls, it's just that Obama doesn't have poll-inflaters in his campaign, nor does he have a former president Clinton calling the newsrooms telling them to print this good story and that good story about him. And I sure hope Obama doesn't fall for their -- 'Whatever happened to the politics of hope'? line as Hillary is rightfully attacked for her lies, fence-straddling, manueverings, hushes, and deceits towards the American people. So they think she and they can do and say anything they want, and she can't/shouldn't be attacked? HA!!! Goes to show you what would be occupying the white house again if she's elected.

Ben J. - No one thought NK had the bomb! the difference here is Iran will use it if they get it.

Anybody that think Iran is not dangerous well I have a bridge to sell you. This is showing Obama's naiveness beyond belief.

Chuck - Obama skipped alot of important votes he does that so he can see which way the wind is blowing and then say he was going that way, he learned from Hilary.

Hilary right now believes (as I) that she has the primary wrapped up so she is going to the center, even we all know she is further left then Stalin himself.

Iran should of been put on the terrorist group since 1979. They are responsible for more terrorist attacks against US interests then anyone else.

ehhhh...not buying it. And this is extremely disappointing. How is this not an extension of the two-dimensional axis of evil paradigm? What exactly do we accomplish by designating the Iranian guard a terrorist organization? This isn't leadership. This is the democrats buying into the foreign policy leadership of the administration.

What's Obama's suggestion: that it may be okay to authorize force against Iran independently, but not okay to permit the use of force against Iran if it involves the conflict in Iraq. In principle, this doesn't make sense.

It does sound like a bad bar fight on the verge of spilling about aimlessly. And building on the metaphor, it's time to kick the testosterone-fueled frat boys out of the establishment.

This is a terribly disappointing development for both candidates. Clinton is empty. Obama is being too technical. Awful on both their parts.

I had no idea Obama had sponsored that bill in April, and I've been following him pretty closely. The language specifically linking Iran to Iraq is significant though, as this is obviously what Bush/Cheney will use to justify attacking Iran. And no matter what Hillary Clinton tries to tell her supporters and the rest of us, it is all the cover they need and then some to do it. She supported that other bill demanding Congressional authorization for an attack, but it didn't pass. And that happened long before this vote. Trying to justify this vote by restating support for a failed bill is, in a word, bullshit.

Obama on the other hand has bought too fully into the "Iran is soooo dangerous" narrative. They are a two-bit, third rate military power, and there has been no, absolutely zero credible evidence presented by any source that they are actually in pursuit of a weapon. Their reactors have the capacity to produce enough material for bomb making, and yet they demonstrably have not done so. Obama should be up on these facts and espouse them rather than cowering and trying to outflank the Republican mindless war machine. He was right about the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but is trying too hard here.

Of the two, Obama is still in a much more tenable position, but he should calm down about Iran. Mimicking the Republicans, in any way (and Clinton is far, far more guilty) is very unbecoming.

Clinton voted for the ammendment because she is trying to win the White House--not trying to prevent war with Iran. She tried to cover her vote by signing on to Sen. Webb's bill to forbid military action against Iran without consent of Congress. It's pretty thin. She even crossed Move-On. She tried to out-shout an Iowa caucus voter who called her on it. He has better pipes than she does---or she would have gotten away with calling criticism of that vote a plot. Her arrogance is frightening. That vote was a tremendous opportunity for Obama. He missed it, because he counts Sen Lieberman as a mentor, not because Harry only told 98 out of 100 Senators about the daily schedule. He gave up his rhetorical right to jump on Hillary by missing the vote---and that is frightening, too. It's like he's campaigning for Vice President. Sigh.

Oh the previous comments were not showing so I didn't see Chuck had already posted about this. Come on Ify... This was a week after Obama missed the vote on MoveOn... You're just inventing stuff here.

Another reason Obama is not credible on this is that he did not even take part to this vote!! (Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/dartmouth-debate-can-edwards-become-un.html)

My understanding is that Mr. Reid told him that the vote will not been taken and he went to a campaign event in NH. Mr. Reid then decided the last minute to put the bill up. Mr. Reid as we know, his son works for the Hillary campaign. I think that Mr. Obama should inform the american people about this.

My question is if Obama opposes this
admendment, why didhe skip the vote. That is the same thing he did in Illinois. He skipped a lot of important votes. Why won't he go on record on what he believes? Is it because he can not be held accountable. Why not expore this further?