I agree. I hate this kind of diary. Not recommended.
Furthermore, clearly this diarist doesn't realize that this dog won't hunt:
"...the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights."
Barack Obama was a Senator representing a Democratic bastion. He certainly wasn't threatened by voting his principles.
He wasn't threatened. Which is why he voted present. To give dems in purple districts cover.
Btw, lets apply that same test to HRC with regards to the AUMF.
Hillary Clinton was a Sen representing a Dem bastion. She wasn't threatened by her voting principles...yet she voted for the war.
his vote gave no one cover except himself and his desire for higher office.
I don't mean to let my facts interfere with your opinion, but if the claim is that his votes help downticket dems in purple and red areas, and then Travis Childers wins a Mississippi district that's been republican for a generation when the entire GOP strategy revolved around tying him to Obama (and the boogeyman Wright) and Childers wins...Isn't it pretty justified to say Obama's done well for dowticket dems?
Hillary's gas tax is pandering for a higher office.
Hillary's lies about sniper fire were lies to justify her "experience"
Who's the sanctimonious one now?
How woud that vote give him cover for higher office? It was part of a pro-choice strategy.
I'm confused on how you think this was a sign of weakness.
True, but the idea was to get a big block of legislators, to give the ones that were at risk cover.
