NOW is totally off the wall.

They recently refused to support the school teacher in Sudan over the teddy bear incident.

A few years ago they supported punishing a boy who stole a kiss from a girl for sexual harassment.  The boy was 6 years old.

This is feminism going crazy.

Chicago Tribune:

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.

She pointed to the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2001, a bill requiring that an adult family member be notified 48 hours in advance when a minor seeks an abortion.

Obama's "present" vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies.

Sutherland just laughs. "We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present' on that one," she said. "It was all done to pull `present' votes off the fence."

Obama confirmed Sutherland's account of the legislative strategy and said, "No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was."

"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.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.ht ml

Sutherland is Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield.

Obama - not different.

Just another smooth talking, fast walking poll trying to fool people into voting for him.

I would expect that we see NOW get involved with this in the early states, particularly since Obama's rationale for the 'present' votes isn't particularly believable.

In Nevada, the state chapter as well as Southern Nevada local chapter are neutral and all their officers have stated they will remain neutral.

NOW is a 501(c)3 and should not be making political endorsements. NOW PAC is a federal PAC and endorsed Clinton. Some state chapters, such as apparently Illinois, have a PAC as well. But in those states where the NOW chapter does not have a PAC, such as Nevada, if you expect to see them "get involved," you're asking them to violate their tax-exempt status.

Why are you surprised to see the National Organization of Woman actively supporting Hillary?

As a Woman for Obama this might help explain his side:

The campaign is heating up, and Hillary Clinton is resorting to old-school political attacks in a last-ditch effort to slow Barack Obama's growing momentum.

Now they're trying to attack Barack Obama's 100% pro-choice record.

Today's attack was delivered by Ellen Malcolm, President of EMILY's List - which has endorsed Senator Clinton and is spending millions on an Independent Expenditure campaign to try to get her elected. Malcolm called into question Barack's commitment to protect women's rights by pointing to old votes on a few politically motivated bills in the Illinois Senate. What Malcolm failed to point out was that Barack cast these votes as part of a strategy employed by pro-choice leaders in Illinois.  That's why so many top pro-choice leaders were outraged by the attack and immediately defended Barack's record of leadership on this important issue.

Not only is Senator Clinton's claim another baseless, desperate attempt on her campaign's part to distort Barack's record, but this tactic does nothing more than divide the pro-choice community at a time when we need to work together to elect a pro-choice candidate for president.

But don't take our word for it.  Read what leaders in the pro-choice community - who have worked side by side with Senator Obama - had to say about the latest Clinton attacks:

"I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY's List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable.  While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman¹s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues.  What¹s important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November." Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW

"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care.  I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control.  Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career."  Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action

"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain.  We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills.  In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season.  It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it."  Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council

"Senator Obama is one of America's strongest and most loyal defenders of women's rights on issues of reproductive health care. I've contributed to EMILY's List in the past ­ but I never will again, because I¹m so disappointed in their decision to launch these unfair, false attacks on behalf of Senator Clinton¹s campaign."  Libby Slappey, a former 13-year board member of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa.

Even Ellen Malcolm has praised Barack as recently as last year, after Barack gave the keynote speech at the annual Emily's List Luncheon.  In a letter to Barack, Malcolm writes:

Senator Obama,

Thank you so much for helping to make the 2006 EMILY's List Majority Council Conference such a great success. Our Majority Council members told me again and again how energized they were to hear directly from you and how much they appreciated your spending time with us.

You truly inspired our members and reminded them why they support our work to elect dynamic pro-choice Democratic women ­ especially after hearing you speak about how you're fighting to make change happen.

I appreciate your commitment to EMILY's List. Here's to victory in November!

Warmest regards, Ellen R. Malcolm, President

Handwritten: "You were terrific and really lit a fire with our members!

Thanks so much!!"

These attacks are not going away any time soon. Let's be sure to remind ourselves and our friends about what a fighter Senator Obama has been for the pro-choice community.

Barack has a 100% pro-choice vote rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

He was the ONLY U.S. Senator who helped raise funds in 2006 to successfully repeal a South Dakota law that banned abortions.  Senator Clinton refused to help in the effort. In fact, even EMILY'S List refused to help repeal the ban in South Dakota.

Senator Obama is the only candidate for President who rose in support of Illinois Planned Parenthood when their new Aurora clinic faced a threatened shut-down.

When Congress failed to pass a law to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, Obama supported a successful law to provide that requirement in Illinois.

He recently co-sponsored a bill with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to make birth control more affordable for low-income and college age women after changes in federal law led to a skyrocketing new costs.

Please share this information with your friends and colleagues. Let's make sure that these kinds of divisive, baseless attacks don't go unanswered.

Jerome,

Chicago NOW's director Lorna Brett, who has endorsed CLINTON, has confirmed that the "present" votes were part of a strategy devised by pro-choice groups.  I think it is hugely irresponsible to not even mention that in your post.  Here's a link to an article that contains her statement.

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12 04/emilys-list-goes-after-obamas-leader ship-on-choice

Also, I would note that nobody seems to be alleging that Obama has ever been anything but proudly pro-choice.  If this was him hedging on the issue, please explain to me what the benefit to these votes is if you consistely trumpet the fact that you're pro-choice.  

Very important observation, Jerome. The important gain Obama has made in the last month has been his improved performance among older women voters. Potentially, this issue and the "Obama is weak on abortion" line-of-attack plays directly into Clinton's great strength as a feminist icon. And it mitigates some of the momentum coming from the Oprah visit.

You can't even provide context? Read the Obama response...........

It would have taken you 10 minutes to debunk your post. Ten lousy minutes to determine that Obama is not only pro-choice but he is an active advocate for a woman's right to choose.

Obama was the keynote speaker at an Emily's list dinner in May 2006.

http://www.emilyslist.org/gallery/dclunc heon06

I don't think Emily's List think would even think about inviting someone who is not a strong supporter of theirs to headline such an important event.

This latest missive is so far from factual. We all know politics is behind these latest attempts to discredit Obama. Ask yourself, why wasn't Obama attacked earlier this year by Emily's List or NOW when he entered the race? In fact, Obama's speech to Emily's List earlier this year was judged the most well-received by its members.

Maybe this should clue you in why the last minute attacks on Obama are now descending: http://www.blogher.com/node/14528

Leave it to Jerome to baselessly attack Obama without the full context.

This is a weekly feature here, isn't it? Jerome's two minutes of hate against Obama?

one month to go it's hit Obama time, why do you even make a pretext of being a nuetral observer Jerome?

The "Present" strategy was a pretty well known fact in Illinois politics. In fact, I heard of it before I even heard of Barack Obama (though admittedly, I was a little late to that party).

Thus, even though you may personally find Obama's explanation lacking, it wouldn't have taken you too long to discover that it's true.

(It would have taken a little longer to find out that Obama killed later versions of these bils when he was a committee chair, but that is true, as well.)

I hate getting into personal attacks here, but that post was just a little Klein-esque in its willful misunderstanding of legislative realities.

Keep in mind that the Illinois National Organization for Women PAC refused to endorse Obama over Alan Keys.

That's a pretty ringing non-endorsement.

Describing it as a press conference gone awry would be putting it mildly. Before the start of the NPR debate yesterday afternoon, the Clinton campaign arranged for Ellen Malcolm, the head of Emily's List, to hold a press conference with reporters.

Malcolm took the podium and argued that Clinton was the only candidate in this race who had stood up when it was tough, especially on women's issues. She said that Clinton -- standing up to the Bush Administration -- had led the fight to get the FDA to approve the Plan B contraceptive. She also cited the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts as a time when Clinton had been the strongest voice against his nomination, taking the floor and giving a passionate speech on why his nomination threatened Roe vs. Wade.

But the minute Malcolm stopped speaking, she was hit by questions from reporters armed with info sent out by the Obama campaign. Malcolm hadn't mentioned Obama by name, but she said that those who vote "present" at tough times don't show a true commitment to leadership -- referring to Obama's "present" votes on some anti-abortion measures while serving in the Illinois state Senate. But reporters asked Malcolm why the head of the Illinois Planned Parenthood had said in the Los Angeles Times that Obama was getting in trouble for a "present"-vote strategy that the pro-choice group had devised. Malcolm repeated the quote from the Chicago Tribune, which said that Obama's seat had not been in jeopardy unlike other vulnerable Democrats.

But she didn't have an answer for what came next.

Referencing the battle Planned Parenthood had waged in South Dakota to repeal a law that had banned all abortions in the state, Malcolm was asked why Clinton had done nothing to help support that effort. Obama had sent money and written a letter in support of the group. The head of the South Dakota Planned Parenthood had called Clinton's silence on the issue "mystifying."

Malcolm sidestepped the question, raised Clinton's speech on the Senate floor again, and said that her example then had shown true leadership. Obama only had one sentence on Roe in his floor statement in comparison on Roberts' nomination, Malcolm said. Both senators voted against confirming the chief justice.
 

emily's list lost credibility with me when they supported the now out of office republican nancy johnson, credited with doing more than anybody for maintaining the status quo on healthcare.

bill curry on democracy now :...and Christopher Murphy challenging Nancy Johnson, the architect of our modern healthcare system, in the Fifth Congressional District, these are exciting races. They're all in a dead heat. And frankly--

BILL CURRY: Well, in a very real way, Nancy Johnson has been the single most influential member of her party in Washington on healthcare for the quarter century that she sat in Congress. She chairs the Subcommittee on Healthcare at Ways and Means. And it would actually--if you were to simply say, "Who is the living American who has most given us this debacle of a health system?" it's hard to imagine who, other than Nancy Johnson, you would suggest for that honor. Again, it's like the experience argument, you know: how do you feel that's working?

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/24/t he_battle_for_congress_can_lamont

what the hell was emily's list doing empowering congresspeople responsible for preventing healthcare reform?

the clintons didn't help the matter, either, when they characterized abortion as something that should be legal and "rare" - which framed it as negative from the onset, setting it up as something to be opposed.

hillary, herself, has some explaining to do:

With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs--say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/ 2007/09/hillarys-prayer-3.html

That's the whole point, there is no substance to these attacks.  And that's why they haven't and won't get anywhere.

And that "slush fund" (to help fellow Democrats) seems to bother you a lot more than the FEC.

I find this post to be fox news-esque in its ability to state selected facts in such a way as to communicate the opposite of their actual implications.  Generally, I expect much better from this site, but maybe i shouldn't any more.

For the record, I'm undecided and don't support any particular candidate (yet).

I've seen both sides of the arguments about the "present" votes. But this whole story sounds eerily familiar. There is the missing of votes on Iran and MoveOn resolutions.

If Obama was that concerned about the Iran resolution, wouldn't he have voted against it? He sits on the committee and as far as I know I haven't heard anything about Obama speaking out against it in committee as the bill was being written or on the floor before it came for a vote. Does anyone have more info on this?

And as for the portion of the resolution branding the Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organization," didn't Obama sign on to a similar legislation that never made it to the floor?

Either this avoidance of votes is masterful or it is simply another politician and politics as usual.