South Carolina Repeat: Clinton Falsely Attacks Obama's Pro-Choice Stance Based On "Present" Votes


cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics

This is a big deal.

A very short note from one of our correspondents on the ground in South Carolina. This one is an Obama volunteer and writes about the effect of Hillary hammering Obama on his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature:
it's becoming clear why clinton was hitting obama so hard on those 100 out of 4000 "present" votes -- tonight's HRC phone bank push is targeting pro-choice women in SC claiming that he voted "present" on abortion issues in IL.

For the record, Obama fully supports a woman's right to choose. He has a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. As our wiki points out, this attack (#30) was used in New Hampshire, possibly to great affect.

The founder of NH NARAL was manipulated into signing an anti-Obama mailing by the Clinton campaign and is upset with the campaign for abusing her, as reported in this Washington Post article:
Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama's record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over.

"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice. I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

This is the type of nonsense that makes me wanna go oops upside a Clinton head a few times. This is the type of nonsense that divides a party unneccessarily. Of all the things to attack a Democrat on, why oh why would you choose his pro-choice bona fides?