Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO.
I read this Noam Scheiber item on The Plank with interest, as Noam's been on a bit of a roll lately with his campaign analysis, and earlier got the diagnosis of the problems with the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaign exactly right. But one thing that seriously undermines Obama's case for his judgment in the present debate over Hillary Clinton's yes vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution is that Obama himself failed to cast a vote on it. Nonetheless, here's the message the Obama campaign sent out to supporters today, urging them to march against the war in Iraq:
Many Republicans and even a few Democrats refuse to admit the mistake they made five years ago. And now we're seeing history repeat itself as the drumbeat builds for a war with Iran.(Italics added.)Once again, some politicians are more afraid of appearing weak than they are of being dragged into another war.
It's going to take your personal involvement to stop the march to the next war...
It seems to me that if Obama thought the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution vote was as important a line in the sand on a march to war with Iran as he is now making it out to be, he could have taken the time to come back to Washington, give a speech on the issue, and urge all his Democratic Senate colleagues to vote no, too. And then he could have cast a vote himself.
A speech of that sort would probably have been enough to get Clinton to alter her vote, because the evidence suggests that pressure from less high-profile presidential competitor Chris Dodd has already helped move her (as well as Obama) toward a more decisive position on withdrawing from Iraq. Obama could have tried to unite the Democratic caucus of the U.S. Senate on this issue, and urged them to present a united front on this foreign policy question. Instead, he managed to be out of town on the day of the vote, and then did not issue a statement on it until 10 p.m. that evening. So much for "personal involvement" in stopping the U.S. from "being dragged into another war"!
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.
A third example: Just a few weeks ago, Obama managed to be absent from the floor of the Senate when it came time to vote on a controversial resolution to condemn MoveOn's advertisement about Gen. Petraeus. Clinton and Dodd voted against the measure; Obama issued a statement condemning the entire exercise as distracting theatrics.
All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest, but his own campaign is now arguing that "we're seeing history repeat itself" when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing. U.S. Senators have a rare power -- there are but 100 of them for a nation of 300 million -- and when they chose to use their voices but not their votes, they are abdicating their duties as elected officials. If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn't be bothered to say no.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (22)
The most revealing part of your commentary, other than its pitch-perfect frame of the counterpunch for Clinton, is the apparent confidence that Clinton would have changed her vote had Obama said beforehand he was voting "no".
It's probably fortuitous that Obama missed the vote, or otherwise there wouldn't be a campaign issue.
Posted by: rashomon | October 11, 2007 6:19 PM
Eh, I think that's overreaching a bit. It's clear where Garance's loyalties lie, but this is one of the better, more substantive entries in the Clinton-over-Obama series.
Posted by: Senescent | October 11, 2007 6:44 PM
Interesting post and raises some very valid points. Especially given Obama's comments that he really isn't sure how he would have voted if he was in the Senate and privy to all the information.
And of course also keep in mind that Obama, while castigating Hillary for her vote, supported the same language in another bill.
See Tayor Marsh on this:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26361
Seems like a pretty big miscalculation.
Posted by: Josh Medeiros | October 11, 2007 7:43 PM
Obama always did have his finger in the air better than Clinton. No egregious cooking baking comments on his record. But, I bet she can be relied upon to put her finger in the air a little more. That record is clear, too.
Ah, democracy.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 9:41 PM
Pfeh.
That's not how the Senate works. Maybe how it should work, perhaps, but hardly how it does.
Still, it would be nice to see some actual leadership from Obama.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | October 12, 2007 1:10 AM
Josh:
Senate Bill 970 differs from the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment in that it does not attempt to link our presence in Iraq with countering the influence of Iran, nor does it contain the unsubtantiated allegations that IRG is, directly or indirectly, attacking our troops in Iraq.
And Obama is not objecting to designating the IRG a terrorist group.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Sen.+Barack+Obama%3a+Five+years+after+Iraq+war+vote%2c+we%27re+still+foolishly+rattling+our+sabers&articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236
Hopefully this will clear up any ambiguity on Senator Obama's position, or the difference between him and Senator Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.
Posted by: Keith | October 12, 2007 2:56 AM
He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote on September 25th, saying it wouldn't be considered for the near future. The next day Obama goes to NH to campaign. Reid brings the measure back to the floor at or around noon on that day. The vote is held at 12:44 ET. He didn't miss the vote because he was ducking the issue. He (along with Senator McCain) missed it because of the scheduling. It happens.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position
I'm not sure how his missing the vote invalidates his criticism, especially in the light of the circumstances under which it was missed.
Posted by: Keith | October 12, 2007 3:05 AM
Better to be absent than to vote for /Lieberman's causus belli for war against Iran. Her yes vote is important as a signal as to how Hillary sees the strategic situation. And she--once again--did the bidding of the Washington Post establishment neocons. She has learned nothing at all since voting to go to war against Iraq.
Posted by: Frances | October 12, 2007 6:32 AM
"He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote on September 25th, saying it wouldn't be considered for the near future. The next day Obama goes to NH to campaign. Reid brings the measure back to the floor at or around noon on that day. The vote is held at 12:44 ET. He didn't miss the vote because he was ducking the issue. He (along with Senator McCain) missed it because of the scheduling."
And, apparently, Garance is the only blogger in ameirca unaware of these circumstances. It might be "harsh to suggest this," but Garance's support for Hillary! is so strong that she can't even acknowledge the objective facts surrounding this issue.
Posted by: brewmn | October 12, 2007 10:40 AM
This is pathetic. I just can't decide what's worse: the way Franke-Ruta makes Obama responsible for Clinton's bad vote, or the way she uses the worst possible interpretation of Obama's actions and the power of Imagination! to create a counterfactual wherein Obama fails to vote with his public position.
Why does Garance shill for Clinton so shamelessly?
Why does the Prospect pay her for the privilege of publishing this nonsense?
Posted by: Mike Meginnis | October 12, 2007 11:26 AM
Yeah. Shill. You can tell that it's Clinton's talking points doing the work when the same message is sent around the net at the same time, including the contents of this post. Reminds me of the WH's work during the past six years. She's got quite a machine running, now.
Posted by: DC | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM
He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote? And yet Clinton, Dodd and Biden were all able to get there. Biden and Dodd sure could have used the time on the stump for name recognition but instead chose to do their elected job. Obama did not but still wants to use the issue to attack a candidate who did. Please.
His explnation for not voting is bogus and he doesn't have a leg to stand on with this issue.
Posted by: Destini | October 12, 2007 2:39 PM
Atleast in the state of Delaware he has a higher approval rating than Senator Biden...
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/bidentime/
Posted by: Poplicola | October 12, 2007 3:56 PM
don't know if this has been said yet, but doesn't Harry Reid's son work for Sen. Clinton? shananigans on the Senate floor. unfortunately, i think the stars are aligned against Obama this election. if i were him, i wouldn't accept a VP nod, let Clinton fall on her sword without him being behind her....
Posted by: Eric Richardson | October 12, 2007 4:11 PM
I cannot say for certain that Obama would have been as courageous in opposing the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate, but I can say that Hillary Clinton voted to kill 3,500 brave American servicemembers. And that's reason enough to deny her the Preisdency.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | October 12, 2007 4:48 PM
So Obama deserves our vote because he was too lazy to make a senate vote? And as further evidence that we should support him, he launches a hostile and aggressive ad campaign against Clinton as evidence he is "above politics as usual." What a hypocrite.
Go Edwards!!
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2007 5:01 PM
Many of the Senators who voted against the Iraq bill in 2002 voted for Kyl-Lieberman. The bills are very different.
Attack, attack, attack! That is all Obama can do.
Posted by: Helena | October 12, 2007 5:10 PM
HORRIBLE REPORTING.. MAY BE GOOD FOR HILLARY -- do you work for Hillary?
He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote on September 25th, saying it wouldn't be considered for the near future. The next day Obama goes to NH to campaign. Reid brings the measure back to the floor at or around noon on that day. The vote is held at 12:44 ET. He didn't miss the vote because he was ducking the issue. He (along with Senator McCain) missed it because of the scheduling. It happens.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position
I'm not sure how his missing the vote invalidates his criticism, especially in the light of the circumstances under which it was missed.
Posted by: keven151 | October 12, 2007 5:38 PM
Many of the Senators who voted against the Iraq bill in 2002 voted for Kyl-Lieberman. The bills are very different.
Attack, attack, attack! That is all Obama can do.
Obama wants to attack Hillary. Hillary wants to attack Iran. I prefer Obama.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | October 12, 2007 7:45 PM
This is a nothing story!!! Obama's positions are clear!!! And he has good judgment.
Posted by: W.D. | October 13, 2007 3:39 AM
It's second-trimester, not second-term.
Posted by: Jason C. | October 15, 2007 11:56 PM
FACT:
Since the first oof June OBAMA HAS "DECLINED TO VOTE (read absent) ON 68 of 173 RESOLUTIONS BROUGHT TO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SENATE FLOOR..THAT AMOUNT TO 40% of ALL VOTES
Hilary was absent for 30 of the 173 votes that is 18%
Posted by: prithi | October 19, 2007 3:23 PM