Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ALL-OUT WAR OVER CHOICE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Here at the Prospect, we've been covering for some time the controversy over Barack Obama's seven Illinois state senate "present" votes on bills that would have limited women's access to abortion. The Clinton campaign and the National Organization for Women -- which has endorsed Clinton -- have called Obama weak on choice. In December, a Clinton press release quoted Illinois NOW President Bonnie Grabenhofer saying, "When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now." But Planned Parenthood has long disputed the charge, saying it asked Obama to vote "present" as part of a strategy for protecting pro-choice seats in the legislature.
This is an ugly fight among individuals and groups all working for women's reproductive rights. And now in New Hampshire, it has reached epic proportions. Clinton has sent out a mailer that boasts of hew own pro-choice record and states, "A woman's right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it. ... Barack Obama. Unwilling to take a stand on choice." Obama responded with a robocall featuring Wendy Frosh, board chair of Planned Parenthood Northern New England. On the call, Frosh says, "Barack has a 100 percent pro-choice record and has always been a champion for women’s rights. Hillary Clinton’s last minute smears won’t protect the right to choose. But as president, Barack Obama will. Please join me in supporting Barack Obama this Tuesday."
And it gets even dirtier. The Clinton campaign says the call is illegal because it takes 38 seconds for the message, "Paid for by Obama for America," to be heard. The campaign endorsement is supposed to be within the first 30 seconds.
I'll be reporting on the fracas more later today. Stay tuned. Also check out my reports from July on Obama's and Clinton's appearances before the Planned Parenthood executive committee.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (7)
Dana,
Please see this article from Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune in which he explains that Obama's "present" votes were part of a specific strategy thought up by Illinois' Planned Parenthood organization.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html
In fact, the ONLY reason Obama voted "present" on some of these bills (which in practical terms is as good as a "no" vote) was to protect (or provide cover) for legislators in more competitive districts who were also voting "present."
In other words, Obama was ASKED to take part in this strategy by Planned Parenthood in order to protect pro-choice legislators in more conservative districts.
The Clinton campaign is being extremely disingenuous (to the point of being blatantly dishonest) in the manner in which they are attempting to portray this issue.
Posted by: Aaron M | January 7, 2008 12:59 PM
False attack: that disclaimer rule does not apply to presidential primaries.
Posted by: Adam B | January 7, 2008 1:02 PM
Dana: You are kind of reporting this as a he said/she said. Could we at least admit that under a President Obama, pro-choicers would not have any worries? Seriously.
Also, what the last two posters said.
Posted by: David | January 7, 2008 1:11 PM
Sounds like it's important to keep Hillary in the Senate, where choice is at greater risk, and move Obama into the White House, where he won't be able to do much harm?
Posted by: dm_ | January 7, 2008 1:15 PM
I also think it is important for those who report on this particular issue to NOT focus on the he said-she said aspects of the argument, but rather on the substance and best-evidence available.
From the Zorn article to which I linked above:
"'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?'"
-----
"'Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence."
"Or you are willing to pretend you don't to score cheap political points."
"There's dirt here all right. It's all over the hands of those pointing the finger."
(Dana, sorry for the second (long) comment; however it is, I think, important to point out that, unlike many of the issues currently being debated between the candidates, this particular debate is being fueled by dishonest accusations (on the part of the Clinton campaign), rather than a sincere or honest attempt to discuss any political and/or policy differences between the Democratic candidates, of which there are, generally speaking, few.)
Posted by: Aaron M | January 7, 2008 1:41 PM
I'm very surprised that Hillary's campaign is tanking as swiftly as it is. The saddest thing is that she's doing the very thing that the right-wing nutcases said she would, gearing up the slime machine with inaccurate and misleading attacks on her opponent. It's too bad, because I think she'd make a decent president.
Posted by: bucky | January 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Please try to present accurate information. BTW-Lorna Brett Howard, the former president of Chicago's branch of the National Organization for Women who switched her support from Clinton to Obama following the Clinton campaign's misleading mailers
Posted by: Maiysha | February 9, 2008 3:42 PM