Its clearly a garbage issues, but does seem to have some potency as a political attack.

How about including the line "Repeating a tactic that has repeatedly been debunked" in the main post?

Presidential candidates can look desperate...but in the general election they'll get their ass handed to them.

How many times is the desperate Clinton camp gonna drag this one out?

See if Hillary had any legislative experience beyond voting the way the polls bounce (see Iraq and Iran) over the last seven years, she would realize that some states, like IL, have nuanced ways of voting, where a rep needs to use their brain to make the right call at the right time in order to express displeasure at certain parts of a bill. But Hillary doesn't care about the facts. They just get in the way of the Clinton's reclaiming the White House on behalf of the DLC.
Come on WI! Smell the fraud!

Wow, multiple negative attacks all at once just a day or two before the election.

Typical Republican tactics.

If they work, Hillary was right about Obama not being ready for the REpublicans.

If they fail, Obama is fully vetted.

Watch what happens tonight in Wisconsin, the entire nomination process comes down to the results in this state.

She better hope that this stuff works, because she needs to win WI at this point. Go over to Pollster.com and look at Obama's TX and OH trendlines and you will see that she is in real trouble in those states with two more weeks to go before that vote. A surprise WI win could, perhaps, turn things around for her, but if those trendlines keep moving in their current direction, she is done on Mar 5.

Isn't it illegal to campaign or approach a voter on voting day - when they are about to vote?

He might want to start mentioning these last minute mailers in his stump speeches, in order to inoculate himself. He can preempt these attacks.

Excellent. Do you folks see the picture of Obama that is over time forming? Two character issues, one old and one new, loom to doom Obama's campaign: First, he can't or won't make decisions and, second, he is a self-admitted plagierizer. These are both self-inflicted. Obama and his supporters can nuance and detail this all they want but at the end of the day one is left with his present votes and his plagierism.

Hillary Clinton's fatal flaw, one of them anyway, seems to have been this whole ethnicity thing, i.e., going after voters by race, gender, etc. These are all considerations, for sure, but the "science" to which the Clintons seem to attach their methodology, in my way of thinking, goes beyond Eugenics. What about the actual issues? Talk about sexism ... I remember reading the slogan on a Starbucks cup: There is a special place in hell for women who refuse to help other women. The quote was from Madam Albright. Had the quote been for purposes other than electing Hillary, and from some source other than that gorgon, Albright, well perhaps. But I know where Hillary stands, and saying no to her is a civic duty. I’ll be happy when I see this link attached to every Starbucks cup: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Isn't it illegal to campaign or approach a voter on voting day - when they are about to vote?
Posted by coonsey

Absolutely not. What is GOTV, if not approaching a voter? What you might be thinking about is approaching a voter when they are within a certain physical proxmity to a polling place-- that most definitely is not allowed.

I seem to recall the area within 100 feet or so of the polling place is considered a neutral area where no campaigning is allowed, but not sure on the exact distance and with primaries that could even vary from state to state.

The president can't vote "apple sauce" either. I fail to see the point here. He isn't running for Illinois Legislator either... Oh to hell with it.

Apple sauce doesn't matter!

Unless you eat it on the night shift.

Then, I feel your pain.

Here is what's so insidious, and revolting, with this "plagerism" bullshit. It plays directly into the deep-seated suspicions of white people who don't know anything about him other than that he's black and successful that he must be some sort of affirmative action case (how else could he be successful) who doesn't have any actual substance or content. And, frankly, I'm picking up more than a little of that from some of the the journos too. Jake Tapper at ABC seems to have some particular issue about Obama that's more destructive that Chris Matthews' issues with Hillary because its better concealed. He has made herculean efforts to keep this nontroversey alive for the last two days.

Now I realize that under the Reverse Clinton Rules that apply on left of center blogs and publications, no one is allowed to attribute any sinister or nefarious motive to anything Hillary or Bill ever do, but anyone who thinks for a minute this isn't part of their calculation, carefully focus grouped and polled by Mr. Penn, is being, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, I know: naive.

I am hoping Greg is right. I'm also not sure Wisconsin is the best place to try the negative ad ambush. However, the Clintons may simply have had no choice - the campaign shakeup came too late. Perhaps this is their version of the Hail Mary pass.

That said, I've seen enough football to know that these passes are completed once in awhile. Especially after NH, I'm not counting on squat until the results are in.

I'm so glad Obama doesn't do this.

OH wait, what's this from Super Tuesday?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php

Get a grip Obama supporters. They both do it. Get over yourselves and your "outrage". Aren't you sick of acting so foolish at every piece of news?

this is EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!

!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!

(also known as a slow motion train wreck)

FEEL IT!!!

Actually, a president can leave a bill on his/her desk without signing or vetoing it for ten days, and depending on whether congress has adjourned, the bill either becomes law or does not. So Hillary isn't even correct in saying that the president always has to take a stand.

This is not an "attack". It is merely pointing out the person's record. Can you not see the difference?

Why did Obama vote "present" all those times?

I don't see the benefit of a mailer arriving at your doorstep on election day (nobody got mail yesterday because of President's Day). In my typical day, I don't get the mail until the end of the day and I imagine this the case for every other working American that works outside the home. And by the time I get home, I've done everything that I needed to do outside the home which would include voting. Seems dumb to me.

I guess Obama is operating on the assumption that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but, man, his refusal to directly confront these attacks is driving this supporter nuts.

Hillary says "But a president has to make the toughest `yes' or `no' decisions in the world.""

And again, I've been asking this question the whole primary: when, when, WHEN, for God's sake, has this woman ever made a tough decision, or led on anything that required political risk-taking? Neither her nor her rabid supporters on the internet have even tried to answer this question - it's simply assumed that she is "tough and experienced" and "ready to lead on day one" because she's been around (in a non-policy role for the most part) for what seems like forever.

Well, Hillary, to repeat a phrase I found myself resorting to all to often during the Bush presidency, you're saying it doesn't make it so.

And, yes, I believe you can make the same claim about Obama in many ways. But his supporters will generally agree (I think) that what we are voting on is his rhetorical and political skills, and his potential to be a transformative president. And to his credit, he's not running solely on his resume.

But Hillary is running on hers. And I believe that, if it ever gets closely examined, you will quickly find there's nothing there to support her claims. I just wish Obama had done that. If he had, we might not be worrying about whether WI needs to be a blowout tonight or not.

As this article points out, Hillary has forgotten her Illiniois constitutional law classes. The "present vote" issue is complete claptrap.

I was once their biggest fans, but the Clinton's have burned their bridges with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html

Celeste, the reason it's dishonest is "present" is a strategic move in the Il legislature. There was a bill Obama sponsored that he voted present on, there was one NARAL asked him to vote present on that the abortion-rights people are attacking him on, and Clinton knows it. (See the NY Times article linked above) But, politics is war, and Obama needs to be able to explain this in the general. It's a little gross because the campaign knows it doesn't really have any merit, but politics is gross, and Republicans are grosser so he's got to deal with this.

There's a difference between making a substantive argument and implying that someone is indecisive because they voted present 129 times while failing to mention that it was 129 times out of 4000+ votes.

For those interested, that means that Obama voted present less than 5% of the time.

Looks like her campaign has backed away from the "present" vote on abortion. Was it the gal who stepped away from NOW and supported Obama, along with a YouTube presentation?

It seems to me that this is a fair representation of the facts. Obama did vote "present".

Good point from previous is getting this stuff on the day of the vote--after you get home from work and from voting. Too late.

Also, Obama has been hit with this before.

His response will be informative and, if the past is any guide, will defuse the charges.

But his supporters will generally agree (I think) that what we are voting on is his rhetorical and political skills, and his potential to be a transformative president. And to his credit, he's not running solely on his resume.

That's sadly funny. So...you're voting for the blank slate onto which you've scribbled your dreams?

Like everyone else here I don't know if Obama will win tonight, but if Hillary loses, I think it is because in the past week, maybe two, her line of attack has been too much negative against Obama, and not enough positive about herself.

At the end of the day voters are going to say, "Alright, you told me 346 reasons why I should not vote for your opponent, now tell me why I should vote for you."

Hillary has been brilliant at explicating her various "solutions" to what is wrong with America, but she has not told the American people where she wants to take them. She just wants to "solve" this or that problem.

This kind of piecemeal approach is not good enough because America is broken and to put it together again we cannot have piecemeal solutions. Obama is right, we need a transformative leader.

Is Obama that transformative leader? I sure as hell do not know. But if Hillary cannot convince me that she is capable of even evoking that vision, much less implement it I am not going to vote for her. (I actually I already voted for Obama in the NY primary.)

That leaves Obama. Let me the first to say that Obama is a flawed candidate. But then so is Hillary, and I am not going to catalog her flaws, and not even Obama's. That is not the point of this post. Suffice to say they are both flawed, and there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

But for the first time in a long time, we have a candidate who is willing to step forward and present himself a harbinger of a possible future for America. All this stuff about cult of personality? Hell, yes, there is an element of that. There is with every great leader. But some people call it charisma -- that undefinable thing that says that this person is a politician but that one is a leader.

I see Obama as a leader. And yes, if he becomes president he is going to make mistakes, maybe some big ones. But when we look at what we have today, I am willing to take that risk.

Bill Clinton is right. Obama is a roll of the dice. But he is the best we have right now. So, roll them bones.

Obama is afraid to vote for fear he will upset someone. Voting "present" all the time is a politician's dream vote. It is totally fair to attack him about this because McCain will use it big time and will beat him in the general election in part because of this fear Obama has to vote yes or no.