SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted "present" on many issues.So begins 'Present' Perfect, an op ed in today's New York Time by a man who should know. Abner Mikva has been an Illinois State Legislator, A Congressman, A Federal Judge, and now directs the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Oh, and he gave up the lifetime position as a Federal Judge to serve as White House Counsel - in 1994 and 1995, for William Jefferson Clinton.
Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a "constitutional majority" to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a "present" vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote "present," it fails.He describes his own use of such votes, including voting present when he opposed a particular highway appropriations bill because he thought some of the money should go to public transportation, but
did not want to stand against the basic principle of maintaining our public roads.
He states clearly that neither he nor his colleagues thought voting present was failing to accept responsibility, and describes "Mr. Obama" as someone known as an outspoken member of the state senate
not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women's choice or any other hot-button issue.
Isn't interesting how many people who were once close to the Clintons, who served in their administration in one capacity or another, find themselves supporting Obama rather than HRC? Mikva is but one of many.
But it is more than that. It is the style of campaign, the willingness to be Rovian in distorting the record of one's opponent for political advantage that clearly bothers some people.
Abner Mikva has never been known as someone who engages in partisan sniping. That he would write this op ed is a clear sign of his displeasure towards what he has seen the Clintons do in this campaign. And given his temperament, he is expressing himself quite forcefully in this op ed. While the Clintons would be well advised to pay attention, I fear that in their zeal to win at any cost, and with the unmitigated gall being demonstrated in considering the kind of attacks upon which they have been relying the "fun" part of politics, the subtlety of Mikva's language might go right past them.
But they are too intelligent to ignore the force of his final paragraph. Let is serve as an understated but significant warning of how far outside the lines they have taken this campaign.
Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar - Barack Obama - would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.
Peace.
Besides, anyone who doesn't know about Abner Mikva really should.
Peace.
Come on, if candidates can't talk about each other's voting records, what can they talk about? It's almost a prerequisite that they talk about each other's voting records. If Mikva ran for President, people would have to talk about when he voted "present."
On TV I saw someone ask Obama about campaign tactics, and he just smiled and said he came up in Chicago and can handle it. You should believe him. The Clinton campaign has been documenting the bruising they have taken from him:
http://www.attacktimeline.com/