The true victims of "Rovian style" politics seem to not be considered much

[Levgreee]

It's said, "politics is hard, politics is a fight". The candidates should just toughen up and take the mud-slinging.

But, consider a woman who was undecided between Obama and Clinton (sorry Edwards people, shout out). She is not incredibly educated about the candidates, but knows some. She supported Obama more though, mostly because of his stance on the war.

Then, she gets a flier saying Obama does not take a stance on Abortion. What? He might not stand up for abortion rights?? He might even go the other way, and pass some anti-abortion legislature?? She just had a 17 year old cousin who got pregnant, so the fear hits home.


She goes to the poll to vote for Clinton, her indecision of who to vote for cleared by what she just heard. She is grateful of Clinton for informing her about Obama's position, she feels like she just dodged a bullet of sorts, almost voting for someone who does not support abortion rights. Thank god the flier came THE DAY BEFORE voting, so she was able to change her vote.


Then, 4 weeks later, she learns that Obama does have a strong pro-choice stance, and does take a stand. That the "present" votes cited to show his indecision were meaningless. She realizes that she was played, her fear was exploited... that her right to voice her true opinion was stripped away from her, because her vote was empty, it was based on a falsehood.

How should she think? Should see think, "oh well, it's politics! I understand why you deceived me, Hillary. Politics is hard, I should put up with it, or not participate and vote."


Now, there is always some deception in politics, admittedly. But this was 99-100% deception. Abortion is one issue that strikes at peoples fears, and could easily be the only thing someone takes into account when they go to vote. And the timing, right before the vote, made it harder for someone to have time to educate themselves, and check the facts.


So what do you think? What should a women, who based her decision on this flier, feel and think?

[Levgreee]

1. Here is the flyer, for reference

[Politicub]

24. The voting present is pretty stupid on Obama's part

If you don't agree with something, vote "no." It's simple, really. Instead, Obama appeals to "technical difficulties" with bills he voted present on. Whatever.

[patrice]

2. Can't tell her what to feel and think. Can suggest what she should do:

Get and Stay more involved in the Isssues (FIRST) and the Process/Candidates (Second).

[dkf]

3. Many of Clinton's supporters are less educated and on the lower end of

the economic scale.

Maybe they don't have access to the internet so they can properly vet all this stuff that is thrown at them.

Deliberately distorting someones record is wrong. End of story.

[patrice]

4. Yes. Deliberately distorting someone's record IS wrong. I support Obama in that.

I wondered what all had happened in the campaign re those Present Votes, when Edwards threw Obama that softball on that topic in the last debate.

I live with an attorney. A question is NEVER simply a question and successful attorneys don't ask questions they don't know the answers to. My Libertarian attorney husband, who does NOT like Edwards, even tipped his hat to him on that question, because that question allowed Edwards to let Obama expose the lie and to do it without Edwards getting "dirty" himself. It made him look very much in control of the situation.

Sorry about the LIES. You have my personal pledge to always try to move this discourse to the higher road. But, I've got to say that Obama needs to watch his back more. I think there are trolls around who are either too ignorant to recognize when they are doing harm - OR - they're stirring shit on purpose, with Obama plastered all over their posts.

[Levgreee]

6. I do agree with that

I do not consider this a troll post, and I ignore the Clinton and Obama trolls.

I don't think there's anything Obama can do to "watch his back" with what is going on around here though. I don't think the troll supporters should influence your opinion on a candidate.

I don't let the Clinton trolls influence my opinion. I actually AM still considering voting for Hillary, even though it is unlikely. I have until Feb. 5 to finally decide.

[patrice]

9. Oh no! I don't mean you. There's legitimate criticism and then there's BS personal attacks.

I don't let the trolls influence me either. But a bunch of people aren't thinking through what's going on, so they go after the trolls and make matters worse.

[patrice]

5. P.S. re those supporters on the lower end of the economic scale.

I probably don't need to tell you that face-to-face is WAY more powerful than anything else we do.

[dkf]

7. /Face to face with the Candidates? Wouldn't know. No candidates come round my way.

[patrice]

10. Face-to-face with one another, in their own neighborhoods.

That's been pretty much Dr. Dean's plan since 2004.

To face-to-face with one another in their own neighborhoods, I add: organizing around the ISSUES, because becoming concretely informed about what's actually going on in our communities on our own Issues is the only thing that will ultimately free us from Machine Politics that take advantage of all kinds of people (with the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq being a prime example of what Machine Politics results in).

[dkf]

15. Never had one of those either.

My state never makes any difference anyway. Way out west after everyone has voted and itty bitty in population.

[patrice]

20. Being the first could make you very powerful. When there's fewer things being done,

each action is "heavier", more noteworthy, especially if you have developed some expertise on a common Issue. That's what we are doing here. A few people, a plan with simple clear objectives, some commitment over time . . . who knows what you could do. That is, IF you want to.

[Levgreee]

8. However, that might not be so much the case when it is a powerful issue, like abortion

emotions and fears get involved

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. But in the example cited, relegating process/candidate to 2nd

is exactly what led to her being misled. She had already decided about the issue, and was lied to in order to grab her vote. Now, she's supposed to TRUST the person who lied?

[patrice]

17. I get what you're saying, but I was referring to the electoral process and candidates. And

I guess I'm also suggesting that if a person does due diligence on the Issue, they'd know who the real supporters and who they aren't, and in some cases maybe even so far as to be aware of the way that legislation works differently in different states.

You know yourself how everytime you hear so and so voted such and such a way that you have to go and find out what the whole bill said before you can understand the vote. There's a lot of people who don't know that and if they were more involved on their issues they'd find that and other important stuff out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. True enough. Thanks for the clarification.

In essence, we are in agreement.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. "She supported Obama more though, mostly because of his stance on the war."

You mean, of course, his voting with Clinton 100% of the time on every single Iraq War vote since he joined her in the Senate? That's his *true* stance on the War.
As far as the flier is concerned, it's true he had the chance seven times to vote yes or no, and picked "present" as an option. You've been convinced that those "present" votes were "meaningless"?
I Hope you're not that easy to fool.

[karynnj]

19. That's a simplistic way of looking at it

The set of votes do not show the breath of either Clinton's or Obama's position. Each bill or amendment is designed by others and there latitude is to vote "yes" or "no". With the exception of Kerry/Feingold, I suspect Kennedy voted the same way on all of them.

What I do know is that Obama was against going to war in Iraq. Also, Obama in 2004 was NOT close to Bush, other than in wanting to leave a stable Iraq. Clinton ignored the rest of the paragraph. With HRC, I am less sure - she was not a cheerleader, but when it was clear that Bush was going to go to war, she was silent. What I would hope debates might address is something like the question Kerry got in 2004 where he spoke of a global test. It would get at what their philosophy was with regards to war.

What disturbed me was that part of the reason the Clintons did not want Kerry and Feingold to push for a policy change was because they thought it could be bad politically.

[Levgreee]

23. Watch this video, and tell me what you think

the present votes were to help out a different pro-abortion group, present doesn't always mean indecision, or unwillingness to take a stand

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dePG7C0Rrlk

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Your link isn't to a video, just that stock pic of the envelope.

[Levgreee]

26. oops, fixed

[CK_John]

13. First off abortion is a state issue and the candidates have nothing to do with it. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Obama is running on his record as a STATE legislator

Since he really doesn't have much other political experience.

[patrice]

18. LOL!!

Right, what the Supreme Court does will have no affect on what the states do.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. She should feel happy she made the right choice

And angry at the Obama campaign for trying to make her think she made a mistake.

The pro-Hillary flyer was correct, according to the Illinois chapter of NOW. From their front page:

Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There On Issues That Mattered to Illinois Women

In celebration of Women’s History Month, March 28, 2007, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, NOW PAC, announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President (see article below).

Illinois NOW PAC supported the endorsement of Senator Clinton. “She is, after all, our native sister,” said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW. “We know from her record and in her heart she will be there for us.”

Senator Clinton has a long history of support for women's empowerment, and her public record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women in the U.S. and around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for women in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career — as a lawyer, community leader, First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency — to advance the civil and human rights of women and girls.

After looking at his record, Grabenhofer does not feel the same way about Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

During Senator Obama’s 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

http://www.illinoisnow.org/

[Cyrano]

21. There's the possiblity that the flier was put out by Republicans. They are

dying to see Hillary as our candidate as they believe she'll be the easiest to beat.

Of course, I have no way of knowing who put out the flier. But we know that Republicans will stop at absolutely nothing, legal, illegal, to swing the race to the candidate they want to run against.

Perhaps Hillary's campaign did put it out. If so, it was a really stupid thing to do. My guess is that it served to alienate people as opposed to getting them to change their votes.

[Levgreee]

22. Hilary's campaign did put it out. Here's the other side of the flier

[Cyrano]

27. Are you saying that Republicans wouldn't lie? As I said previously

perhaps it was put out by Hillary. But remember that the Republicans are masters of "divide and conquer" and they'll do whatever it takes.

The bottom line is that there's no way of knowing who really circulated it.

[Levgreee]

28. No, it is 99.9% for sure put out by the Hillary campaign

on the flier it says "paid by Hillary", the Hillary campaign has not denied it, Hillary was basically saying the exact same thing as the flier at rallies/speeches.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/10/a-choice-last-minute-mailing-from-clinton/

"The Clinton campaign didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment on the mailing."

[Cyrano]

29. If she has said the same thing in speeches, then she deserves to lose.

I thought she was smarter than to put out such an obvious smear. I despise these tactics whether practiced by Rove, or any of our candidates.

[gulliver]

30. She should think, "Next time I'll check my facts on the Internet."

Anyone who bases their vote on a flier is too naive. You don't even need Rovian politics to victimize them. True Rovian politics is not mere lying.

Rovian politics would take off in this case if the woman got on the Internet to fact check the false Obama story. There she would find that Obama denies what the brochure said, according to the MSM. But the MSM would take care to note that the group who produced the brochure stands behind it and that they also say that Obama doesn't clean his aquarium enough.

So now the hapless woman has "two sides of the abortion story" but now suspects that Obama is mean to his fish. And if he is mean to his fish, might he not lie about his abortion position?

"Obama will say anything or do anything to win," says the group. "He is frustrated, because his fish negligence has finally surfaced."

Then the Association for Salt Water Fish Companion Animals contacts Obama for a comment. He talks down to them and chides them for believing what he calls "utter nonsense." So now the ASWFCA takes out an ad about Obama's arrogance. "We only wanted to ask him why he treats his pets so poorly, and all he would do is roll his eyes and act like we were idiots. This fish abuser and closet anti-abortion absolutist cannot be trusted with the presidency..."