Furthermore, Illinois NOW endorsed Lisa Madigan even though she voted the same way. Gay Bruhn couldn’t answer the question above because she was told it was only Obama and was simply wrong. Get your shit straight before posting talking points.

on the youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

at 1:01 she says
“Hillary Clinton was telling people at pro-choice rallies… that Barack Obama was weak on choice as a state senator, which is patently false because
I was president of chicago NOW at the time, and I worked closely with him and he had a 100% voting record.”

statement from Bonnie Grabenhofer, IL NOW State President: 
  
Much has been printed in both the mainstream and alternative media and many have watched videos of Lorna Brett’s comments on important votes that occurred while Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate.  Ms. Brett continues to present herself as the President of Chicago when IL State Senator Barack Obama was making decisions on votes that were critical for women and girls in Illinois.  As the current Illinois NOW State President, it is essential that I clarify for the record that Ms. Brett’s assertions are not correct.  Lorna Brett was president of Chicago NOW from 1996-1998.  She was not, as she represents, the president of Chicago NOW at the time IL NOW activists were meeting and talking with legislators about the abortion bills in the early 2000s. 
  
Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001.  Our records indicate that Ms. Brett has not been a member of NOW since 1999.  Ms. Brett with not involved with either Chicago NOW or IL NOW when we were fighting to stop these bills.  Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton. 
  
To be clear, voting “present” on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support.  At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy.  We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. 
Voting “present” does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman’s right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama’s record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has. 

 Ms. Brett and the Planned Parenthood lobbyist Pam Sutherland assert that the strategy to vote “present” was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts.  State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted “no” with little negative consequence in his district. 
 
*** end 
———
from the current president of NOW, Kim Gandy,

 It adds insult to injury that the “messenger” Lorna Brett wasn’t even active in NOW at that time, which they told me, but which I also happen to know PERSONALLY….

it was a strategy, yes — but a strategy of looking for cover on abortion votes. It was one thing to look for cover for his moderate friends, but another to take the cover himself.  Were the Illinois NOW people really upset and angry about those votes? Yes, they were, and it was long before there was a presidential race (witness the 2004 senate endorsement).   Is he anti-choice? Of course not.   Is his record as good as Hillary Clinton’s? No it isn’t.  
———

Wait until the Repubs out Ms. Brett in August if Obama is our candidate…

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

April 6, 2001, Friday, BC cycle

BYLINE: By The Associated Press

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 269 words

The Illinois Senate voted 39-7 Friday for SB562, a measure requiring parental notification before minors obtain abortions. Voting “yes” were 30 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Voting “no” were 7 Democrats. Voting “present” were 1 Republican and 10 Democrats.
REPUBLICANS VOTING YES

Bomke (Springfield); Burzynski (Sycamore); Cronin (Elmhurst); Dillard (Hinsdale); Donahue (Quincy); Dudycz (Chicago); Geo-Karis (Zion); Hawkinson (Galesburg); Wendell Jones (Palatine); Karpiel (Carol Stream); Klemm (Crystal Lake); Lauzen (Aurora); Luechtefeld (Okawville); Robert Madigan (Lincoln); Mahar (Orland Park); Noland (Blue Mound); O’Malley (Palos Park); Parker (Northbrook); Peterson (Long Grove); Petka (Plainfield); Philip (Wood Dale); Radogno (LaGrange); Rauschenberger (Elgin); Roskam (Glen Ellyn); Sieben (Geneseo); Sullivan (Park Ridge); Syverson (Rockford); Thomas Walsh (LaGrange Park); Watson (Greenville); Weaver (Urbana)

DEMOCRATS VOTING YES

Clayborne (East St. Louis); DeLeo (Chicago); Demuzio (Carlinville); Munoz (Chicago); O’Daniel (Mount Vernon); Shadid (Edwards); Viverito (Burbank); Lawrence Walsh (Elwood); Woolard (Carterville)

DEMOCRATS VOTING NO

Cullerton (Chicago); Halvorson (Crete); Lightford (Chicago); Ronen (Chicago); Shaw (Chicago); Silverstein (Chicago); Trotter (Chicago)

REPUBLICANS VOTING PRESENT

Myers (Danville)

DEMOCRATS VOTING PRESENT

Bowles (Edwardsville); del Valle (Chicago); Hendon (Chicago); Jacobs (East Moline); Emil Jones (Chicago); Link (Highwood); Lisa Madigan (Chicago); Molaro (Chicago); Obama (Chicago); Welch (Peru)

PERSON: LAWRENCE E WALSH (54%);

COUNTRY: UNITED STATES (92%);

STATE: ILLINOIS, USA (92%);

CITY: CHICAGO, IL, USA (91%);

SUBJECT: VOTERS & VOTING (90%); ABORTION (78%); Abortion Notification-Senate Roll

LOAD-DATE: April 7, 2001

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

The New York Times

December 20, 2007 Thursday
Correction Appended
Late Edition – Final

It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo

For the above quote

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

”It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. ”In fact, it was the exact opposite.”

So why did you endorse Lisa Madigan?