He was against those laws before he was for them!  (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Actually, I think we can be pretty sure that Clinton's surrogates are now going to attack Michelle Obama for denigrating President Clinton. It won't be true, but nobody is supporting Hillary because they think she's honest, anyway, so there's no downside.

Yes, it bothers me how often he dodges the vote..."present?"  What's that, the courage of clever people avoiding a commitment?

We were told to vote for Bush on the trust of "who he is" not on his thin record of accomplishments.  Well, Mr. Obama's record is very thin and he wants us to trust him on him being him.  Been there already with the last President, haven't we?  The uniter became the great divider.  Not again.  That kind of trust has to be shown, not just pronounced.  I have a hard time trusting words in a person of thin accomplishment politically.

The "present" vote thing is truly bullshit.  Present votes, not available in Congress, are commonly used in Springfield as a tactic to build bipartisan coalitions.  Say it's an abortion bill you're against.  Say there are many Republicans who are pretty much against the bill, but worried about how it will look to vote no on an anti-abortion measure.  Say further that there are larger, high-minded issues -- say, constitutional issues -- Republicans could use to justify their reluctance to support the bill.  You gather a bi-partisan "present" coalition, where you agree to vote present, the functional equivalent of a no, in exchange for the Republicans voting present.  This defeats the bill, which is the point, but it gives political cover to the Republican side of the coalition who can plead their high-minded objections to their constituencies without having to defend an outright no on the substance.  Meanwhile, the Democrats don't have to worry about how it will look, because their constituencies are solidly behind them.  The present votes actually show the *opposite* of what people are saying.  Obama led present-coalitions in just these circumstances -- where the purpose and effect was to take the lead in defeating the bill in question.  Anybody who knows about how things work in Springfield knows that this charge is bogus, and yet it's hard to explain.  Perfect fodder for unfair attacks.

Re the Clinton lies about the nature of Obama's "present" votes, it's all of a piece with a candidate who claims that her vote to give the president unlimited authority to start a war was intended to prevent the president from starting a war.

Hillary isn't stupid. She just thinks all the rest of us are.

jhildner,

That's a good explanation of the "present" vote. The only thing I'd add is the vote also is used because the legislature is part-time; these people have other jobs. Sometimes votes come up that impact those jobs. The "present" vote allows them to vote, but avoid possible conflicts of interest.

For example, say you also work in a law firm that represents unions. When labor bills come to a vote, you can vote "present" so it doesn't look like you are using your position to benefit your client.  

Also, and I don't know if this applies to the Illinois legislature, but I have experienced other rules of order in which a "present" vote preserves the procedural ability to move to reconsider. Otherwise, you have to vote "no" in order to move to reconsider later (i.e. to bring the same measure back for a re-vote and change your own vote to an affirmative).

come on adam, rhubarbs, and jhildner, how dare you provide facts to refute a good piece of misinformation? Don't you know all is fair in politics, butchery, buggery, and mayhem?

"That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times." My God, how can we trust a person who makes a mistake .0015% of the time?

I am starting to truly loathe the Clintons.