Presidential Race

Eric Gets the Original Column on Present Votes Up

Actually it was probably up before, it just had a different URL:

Hull, who has seldom bothered to vote at all in his life, sent out a mailing citing such votes to suggest they show Obama is weak on issues that his progressive base holds dear.

Do they?

“Anyone who says that a `present’ vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative strategy,” said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield. “People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?'”

In practical terms, a “present” vote is as good as a “no” vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.

If “present” sounds wimpy, that’s because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University’s School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois’ byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote “present” on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.

Why would he then vote “present” instead of a resounding “no” on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,'” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”

Sutherland said this tactic makes the “present” vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

Actually there were constitutional concerns with all of these bills on top of other issues.

Second, using Blair Hull and Maria Pappas’ oppo is weak.   😉

SSDD

Rich roles out the newest reminder of why the abortion Present votes by Obama are taken way out of context. I seem to remember covering this in 2004 with Rich and Eric Zorn. Obama was voting as Planned Parenthood asked. As Rich said, Present votes are fair game, but in this case, Obama was providing cover for others.

The irony is that pro-life groups in Illinois attacked him for killing later versions of these bills when he was a Committee Chair by not letting them out of committee.

The reporters might check with one of the Trib’s columnists who covered this about three years ago if they have any doubt.

Walking the Walk

Clinton:

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. “There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.” Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.

As Dan Conley said some time ago, the Clinton campaign is easily the oldest and most corporate campaign since Mondale.

And that’s not a good thing.

Just A Reminder

Rich on the black vote and Obama

Next, you “experts” assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.

Wrong again.

In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they ”break late.”

Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama’s own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ”breaking” in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.

This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn’t start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.

Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African-American voters. Obama is far less known. It’s perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.

To recap, because I know you’re all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don’t automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.

I hope this helps.

Iowa and New Hampshire have no significant black population (outside of Waterloo).  South Carolina is the first state with significant black population that holds a primary and it isn’t  until January 26th meaning it’ll be towards the end of December that  you start to get a sense of what the black population will be doing–and that might carry over until the first week of January given the holidays.

I Hear Axelrod Is Quite Entertaining

And he speaks English so it’s understandable even.

Well, guess who is now set to appear on Meet the Press this coming weekend? Hillary supporter James Carville, of course.

The network has just confirmed to me that Carville is one of the guests set to appear this Sunday. The other guests, as of now, are Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin and Mike Murphy — which is to say, no backer of any of the other Dem candidates.

Oh, wait.  Axelrod isn’t one of the villagers.