One interesting sidelight of the debate Monday night was the argument over the fact that Obama had voted "present" a number of times as an Illinois legislator. Here's why it was interesting.

Legislators have a more difficult time running for executive office. That's because their time in legislative bodies means they have accumulated a record voting for and against various topics. That record can be used against them. Opponents will say things like, "My opponent voted against (whatever) x times."

Such tactics ignore the reality of how legislation gets done. Primary legislation can often have attachments to the legislation as a means of expediting action on the attachment and/or making voting against the primary legislation harder to resist. A legislator may vote against passage of a version of the bill because the bill contains what appears to the legislator as an undesireable rider. In a campaign, that vote is then used to demonstrate the legislators lack of support for whatever the primary legislation involved. In truth, once the rider was stripped off the bill, the legislator may actually have voted for the primary legislation. Hence, you have John Kerry's infamous statement that he voted for the legislation before he voted against it.

That's why Obama's comment was so appealing. He explained that a vote of "present" in effect a statement by a legislator that a bill is not ready for a final vote. That kind of system avoids legislators from having their voting records distorted and lets a bill's sponsors know where they are in gaining support for the bill.

Perhaps other legislative bodies should consider copying Illinois' procedure.

And shouldn't we all be more wary of the use of voting records as a means to discredit candidates for office?