Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Today, the toothless, useless sense of the senate resolution introduced by Republicans condemning the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" ad passed 72-25. This is depressing for so many reasons. From TPM:

Roughly half the Democrats in the Senate supported it.

A couple of the more interesting votes: Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this.

First Read has some of the text of the resolution:

"...strongly condemns any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the member of the United States Armed Forces; and to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org."

In the meantime, an alternate resolution introduced by Barbara Boxer that would have condemned MoveOn but also the GOP for attacking war heroes Max Cleland in 2002 and John Kerry in 2004 failed (and by failed, I mean got a majority of votes) 51-46.

Looks like it was initially going to be a close vote but as it became clear that it would pass, some weak-kneed Democrats flipped to opposing it. Makes you wonder who exactly is running the show here.

Roll call is HERE. Democrats voting Yea:

Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Cardin (MD)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Feinstein (CA)
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar (MN)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Leahy (VT)
Lincoln (AR)
McCaskill (MO)
Mikulski (MD)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Salazar (CO)
Tester (MT)
Webb (VA)

Update [2007-9-20 14:22:17 by Todd Beeton]: The No votes:

Akaka (HI)
Bingaman (NM)
Boxer (CA)
Brown (OH)
Byrd (WV)
Clinton (NY)
Dodd (CT)
Durbin (IL)
Feingold (WI)
Harkin (IA)
Inouye (HI)
Kennedy (MA)
Kerry (MA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Levin (MI)
Menendez (NJ)
Murray (WA)
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Rockefeller (WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)
Whitehouse (RI)
Wyden (OR)

Those not voting:

Biden (DE)
Cantwell (WA)
Obama (IL)

As truthteller2007 notes in the comments, from Bowers:
Consdering that Obama voted on the Boxer amendment to the "we hate political speech from our allies" resolution, it seems quite telling that he didn't vote on this, only one hour later.

Would love to hear an explanation of that one, Senator Obama.

Tags: Iraq, moveon.org, Senate (all tags)

Comments

86 Comments

Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

You forgot to include Obama on that list, who voted for the Boxer amendment but ran and hid in some corner when it came time to vote for the freedom of speech and for Move On by voting against the Cornyn amendment.

Update your diary to note that both Biden and Obama were to busy to defend the freedom of speech and the Democratic base.  Thanks.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 09:53AM | 0 recs
Obama ducked the vote?

That is surprising and unwise on his part.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-20 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama ducked the vote?

It's not surprising.  It's typical.  Obama is very middle of the road.

by bookgrl 2007-09-20 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama ducked the vote?

It's not surprising.  It's typical.  Obama is very middle of the road politically timid.

(Hope I don't draw a Senate resolution for saying this...)

by greenvtster 2007-09-20 12:07PM | 0 recs
Senate should pass resolution condemn Blackwater

the actions of Blackwater in recent days has put Americans and diplomats under great peril.  These actions must be condemned by a resolution of the Senate immediately, otherwise American prestige and credibility will be undermined by renegade, lawless entities like Blackwater

by gasperc 2007-09-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate should condemn Blackwater

I can think of a huge list of resolutions that should be brought up immediately, including one for every treasonous statement made by FoxNews.

by greenvtster 2007-09-20 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Is Harry Reid brain dead? Time after time after time, he allows amendments to come to the floor that put Democrats -- especially his own party's Presidential candidates -- in a lose/lose situation.

What is he thinking? Why would he put Clinton in a position to either vote against moveon.org and get attacked by the left or vote for moveon.org and get attacked by the Republicans?

It's the same brain dead thinking that he used in force the candidates to vote on that emergency supplemental Iraq bill.

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:06AM | 0 recs
Harry Reid is a smart guy

but I agree with you, it was extremely dumb to let this amendment come to a full vote.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-20 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Harry Reid is a smart guy

I don't think he can stop it.

It was brought to the floor as an amendment to another piece of legislation.

He can block legislation from going to the floor, but once legislation is introduced on the floor, anyone can offer an amendment, even a totally unrelated amendment.

Not much he could do to prevent this.

Now what to do about the "democrats" who stabbed us in the back on this one?

I recommend donating to moveon here:https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donat e.html

then printing out the receipt, and mailing it (yeah, snail mail) along with a brief letter letting these spineless oafs know how you feel.

I intend to inform them that my donation is in their "honor".

by JJCPA 2007-09-20 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Harry Reid is a smart guy

I will concede that Reid is a smart man. But he isn't very wise and he has to borrow a spine any time he stands up for anything. He could do lots of things to thwart the republicans if he wanted to. LOTS of things. But he doesn't because despite being a former boxer he doesn't throw very good punches. And he ropa a dopas WAY too much. We need a Democratic leader that stands up to republicans and actually LEADS.

by DoIT 2007-09-20 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? JUST A BIG SNARK?

OK, please someone put a </snark> at the end of this.

by Bob Miller 2007-09-20 11:42AM | 0 recs
I'm surprised by Leahy, Mikulski

and Klobuchar. Why would they vote for this?

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-20 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm surprised by Leahy, Mikulski

They voted for it because voting against it hands a club to the Republicans to beat them over the head with. That was the whole point of the amendment.

The Democrats really need to get their [stuff] together from a political strategy standpoint.

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:16AM | 0 recs
Pat Leahy?

Are you kidding me? Was he confused?

I though the ad was dumb, but this isn't about the ad.

I've always opposed resolutions condemning speech. They violate the spirit of the first amendment. Plus a liberal group is being targeted for political gain.

by david mizner 2007-09-20 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?
Why the Hell did the Democrats not Filibuster it?
The Rethuglicans do that all the time.
Let THEM complain that the Democrats refuse to let soemthing come up for a vote!
by Dougyg 2007-09-20 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

25 Dem votes means not enough to sustain a filibuster. The whole thing is strategically idiotic  regardless, but that is why they did not try that particular tactic.

by souvarine 2007-09-20 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

and by not voting, obama essentially voted for it, for forty one votes are needed for a filibuster.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

That's actually not true.  A filibuster does not require 40 votes.  60 votes are needed for cloture.  If there are 59 yes votes, 1 no vote and 39 abstentions, the cloture vote fails.

by Fran for Dean 2007-09-20 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I can do math.  1 no vote and 40 abstentions

by Fran for Dean 2007-09-20 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Harry Reid is brain dead. Obama ducked the vote. Geez. Can these guys get a clue?

by areyouready 2007-09-20 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

The ad had good intentions but was poorly poorly done.  Obama said it best in a recent interview.  If MoveOn wanted to hit the war, they should have attacked Bush, not Petraeus.  Petraeus has enough credibility to make the ad go hay-wire and screw over Democrats.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-09-20 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Credibility to the un-educated maybe.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-09-20 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

What credibility does Petreus have? He only has credibility because Democrats were not united. Repubs got away with trashing several Democratic military guys.

by Pravin 2007-09-20 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Obama's audacity of hope. Yeah...

by areyouready 2007-09-20 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I think I know what why he ducked the vote. As his latest ad says, he is banking on the belief that the American people can close their eyes, hope really hard, and defeat amendments by mental telepathy without relying on politicians and the tired old ways of Washington (like actually casting votes on the floor of the Senate).

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

His political judgement is extremely poor and cautious.

I mean Reid is brain dead, but Boxer's amendment has given Clinton, Dodd a cover to vote against the 'moveon' ad. In general election, whenever Clinton's GOP contender brings this up, she can just shrug this vote off as double standards and political game by republicans.

I don't believe it will damage her politically in general election since Boxer's amendment did include condemnation of moveon ad and other 'swiftboat' stuff.

But still, Harry Reid is just ludicrous. What the hell is he doing? Unbelievable.

by areyouready 2007-09-20 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

That's right.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 10:31AM | 0 recs
Obama didn't vote? Unreal.

I can't believe that he wouldn't vote.  He is against the war.  He is probably the most popular candidate on the web.   Yet he ducked the vote.

Interesting.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-20 10:34AM | 0 recs
Obama has a rally in Atlanta

this afternoon (several thousand folks, I'm sure) that's been scheduled for several months.  It's not too surprising that he'd need to leave around noon EDT to be there.

I suppose he could have cancelled to vote on a series of meaningless resolutions...

by rashomon 2007-09-20 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

Hmmm. The AARP seniors forum he is ducking in Iowa tonight has been scheduled for several months, too.

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/12 4770.html

Obama cancelled a Rock hill, s.c. forum last night in order to "cast key votes on Iraq."

He lied to the people of SC, as he ducked one of those votes.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

Do you know what other votes on Iraq were and are scheduled for today?

Because I seriously doubt anyone would refer to the vote on this symbolic resolution as an "important vote on Iraq."

by Steve M 2007-09-20 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

Feingold amendment, which is the last vote of the day.  it just occurred.

that would require the us government to pull troops in 90 days.

clinton voted for it.

obama was hiding again.  and he used this vote too as an excuse to cancel an event last minute in sc.

Obama told the people of York County, SC, 10:30pm last night that he had to cancel an event to be held today in order to cast votes in Washington, DC, on Iraq.  But he missed those votes.

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/12 4770.html

The Feingold amendment was the last vote of the day.  Why was Obama unable to cast this vote as well as the vote he missed on the Cornyn Move On.org amendment?

I am sure the people of York County, SC, who lobbied for Obama for months, would love to know?  Why did Obama lie to the people of South Carolina?

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 11:32AM | 0 recs
Amen to that

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-20 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

Note that Clinton voted for the Feingold amendment before jetting off to Iowa for the nationally televised AARP debate tonight begining at 8:00 pm Eastern on PBS.

Democratic primary voters need to be paying attention to which candidates have the spine to stand up for progressive issues.

by hwc 2007-09-20 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

I don't know why, but I have the funny feeling you're not giving the whole story.

You do seem awfully quick to start going on and on about how Obama lied to the wonderful, trusting, God-fearing people of South Carolina.

I guess you can call Obama whatever names you want but I hope you've gotten over your rash of calling other posters liars.  We don't need that kind of stuff.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 11:39AM | 0 recs
not giving the whole story..

Amen to that, I love how people take snippets of web stories and spin wild tales.

It looks like Obama did stay in Washington to cast the Iraq votes. Feingold measure fails
He did not lie to anyone.

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-20 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: not giving the whole story..

Amazing!  And truthteller said Obama hid from the Feingold vote.  I assumed he had some basis for saying so, but I guess I should assume things.  The official Senate page also says Obama voted yes.

Of course, the jury is still out on why Obama made the Boxer vote, missed the Cornyn vote, but then made the Feingold vote.  Maybe he was ducking that vote, maybe he was abstaining for reasons of deep principle, maybe he spilled some mayo on his tie and went to clean up.  I know I can't wait to find out what really happened.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 12:28PM | 0 recs
Apparently not.

Obama:


The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.
All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.

Clearly an intentional non-vote.

by rashomon 2007-09-20 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a rally in Atlanta

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has canceled his scheduled visit to Rock Hill today, the senator's campaign announced late Wednesday.
The cancellation was announced after 10:30 p.m. in a short news release, which stated that Obama would remain in Washington for "important votes on the future of America's presence in Iraq."

this is the first paragraph of the article i have been citing on the sc cancellation, and it corroborates all the local television news reports.  i am in the media market, and he cancelled the event in order to cast votes.  but he missed the cornyn amendment.  that is the story, and it will be a problem for obama, as he lied to the people of sc.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

"Makes you wonder who exactly is running the    show here." - Todd Beeton

It certainly not the Dems.

by joliepoint 2007-09-20 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Interesting how everyone agrees that the ad controversy is much ado about nothing, yet somehow the vote on the symbolic resolution regarding the ad is the BIGGEST THING EVER.

If I had a vote, I doubt I would have condemned the ad.  So what?  It's the same way with flag burning and all the other crappy wedge issues, people agree they're stupid issues yet they get all upset when Democrats vote the "wrong" way.

Get upset that the Democrats aren't doing enough to end the war, don't get upset about this crap.  It makes no difference to anyone either way.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

It's still a big deal that Reid would let this come to a vote because the news will probably play this up tonight .. that is why .. it's another case of Reid shooting the Dems in the foot.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-09-20 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Well, maybe it's a big deal to you, but it's certainly not a big deal to me.

There are a million things I would prefer Harry Reid block than some stupid symbolic amendment about an ad.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

It's not a big deal to me that it was allowed to come up.

It was a HUGE deal to me that some Dems actually VOTED FOR IT!!!!!  

Unbelievable.

by greenvtster 2007-09-20 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I don't see why it would be a huge deal to anyone.  Even General Petraeus probably didn't care.

I think you're letting yourself be distracted by a shiny object here.  The Feingold amendment that would have mandated defunding and withdrawal by July 2008 failed, with 22 Dems voting against, but what's got people up in arms is the fact that some Dems voted to condemn MoveOn.org.  I'm suggesting that priorities might be a bit misplaced in this instance.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I don't think Obama will be able to call himself progressive after ducking this vote. The same might be said about Webb that voted for it. This goes back to the discussion we were having a few days ago concerning whether it was important to elect just plain old Democrats or Democrats with progressive values. The plain old Democrats let us down once again. And Reid is a complete fucking idiot for allowing this to come to a vote.

by DoIT 2007-09-20 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

It's important for progressives to take careful note of which Democratic Presidential candidates are standing up for them when it comes time to actually cast votes.

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

You really think this vote was an important progressive issue?

When you issue your scorecard at the end of the year, gosh, I hope you rank it right up there with ending the war.

It's a symbolic vote.  Good for Hillary for resisting the usual GOP crap.  But it's hardly a big deal.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) was not present for any of the votes, while Obama voted earlier in the day but left for an event in Atlanta.

Thank you.  You can quit asking why Obama missed the vote.  

Link HERE:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sena te-repudiates-moveon-ad-obama-misses-vot e-2007-09-20.html

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-09-20 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

that still does not explain why he cancelled the SC event.  he told them he had votes to cast, but he failed to cast at least one vote.  and i imagine he is ducking the feingold amendment too.  he lied to the people of york county, south carolina.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I don't have time to look through information and give you your answer.  You never aknowledged you were wrong by the way.  You just cut and run from the arguement, change subjects, nice.  You going to be a politician in the future?  You're good at avoiding criticism.  Keep hitting unrelated points to the debate.  

Again.  I am talking about Georgia, today, and the MoveOn votes, today.  You aren't.    

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-09-20 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I am discussing votes not cast today and the event he cancelled that was to be held today in SC.  that votes were used as an excuse to cancel the SC event today is significant.

READ THE ARTICLE:

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/12 4770.html

READ IT!

you are changing the subject, and now you are whining, as i found a contradiction in obama's rhetoric and actions.

by the way, he also missed the feingold amendment.  CLINTON WAS THERE.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

"Would love to hear an explanation of that one, Senator Obama."

Todd you already answered your own question...

"Today, the toothless, useless sense of the senate resolution..."

It was a useless vote on a useless measure. I don't care how anyone voted on it. It means nothing.

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-20 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

no, for the cornyn amendment is blatantly republican.  it is an attempt to trap democrats by demonizing move on.  obama failed to stand up to such partisan politics.  and even worse, he has created conflicting excuses for not casting that vote.

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/12 4770.html

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: even worse

Obama does not owe Moveon anything. Moveon wanted to get attention with the ad and they got it.

Obama did stay in Washington to cast the Iraq votes so I would say the Hill story about why he miss the the Moveon vote is wrong.  
Feingold measure fails

You can stop with the false accusations now. Grownup's take news articles with a grain of salt.

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-20 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about the definition of a lose-lose vote

It is nothing more than an issue for Republicans to run attack ads with come election time.  You vote for it: you avoid a negative spot but vote against free speech; you vote against it: you get hit with attacking the armed forces in the election but support free speech.  Why was this allowed to come to a vote in a Democratic Senate?  It seems like the 3 that didnt vote are the only 3 in the Senate with any political sense.

by WellstoneDem 2007-09-20 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about the definition of a lose-lose vote

actually, the three who did not vote did not stand up to partisan politics.  obama is one of those three.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-20 11:05AM | 0 recs
list of Dems who voted nay on the Boxer one

Can someone list the Democrats who voted Yes on the anti Move on Ad resolution but voted Nay on the Boxer resolution condemning the attacks on Cleland?

by Pravin 2007-09-20 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Obama's position is my own.

I find the add rather disgusting even though it's true. But I don't care about it either way, it's a non-issue and would be if the Dems didn't care about it.

On balance I think the best thing to do WOULD be to note vote on this one. So kudos to Obama.

by MNPundit 2007-09-20 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I would have done the same thing.  This kind of crap is a total waste of the Senate's time when there are so many important things going on.  I would have expressed my disgust by not even giving the issue the dignity of a vote.

by fwiffo 2007-09-20 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I agree with you guys that it's just plain silly.

I think many, if not most, of the people expressing outrage that Obama missed this vote are simply supporters of another candidate who want to trash Obama.

It gets old after a while, people acting like if Obama sneezes, it's the worst thing ever and proves no one should vote for him.  I mean, can we really afford to put a man with hay fever in charge of the nuclear button?

by Steve M 2007-09-20 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I'm an Edwards learner (reluctantly, as I feel his policy positions are too good to oppose) but Obama has stuck little knives into my activist partisan beliefs and I find it difficult to find solid Democratic Party substance in his speeches so I'm not very well disposed to him.

But I think he's right on this one. Not out of any kind of moral high road but as waste of senate time.

by MNPundit 2007-09-20 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Ah, old friend - the difference is the first was an attempted "actual" diagnosis, the second was rhetorical.

by Michael Bersin 2007-09-20 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

WASTE OF TIME TO VOTE ON.... AN EVEN BIGGER WASTE OF TIME TO COMMENT ON!  Let it go, blowing this issue up only shows that you'll yell about ANYTHING that the Dems do.

by JBaker 2007-09-20 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Both of my Senators in Maryland?  What a disappointment.  This is no legitimate business of the Senate.  These Democratic Senators should call their mothers, spouses or next door neighbors and ask them to give them a good hard slap across the mouth for letting Mitch McConnell pwn them.

"DemZ suxxors weRR in ur Party bEyottch-slaPng yo Mamazz.  pHear R mAdd GOP sqillzors"

by Bruce Godfrey 2007-09-20 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

It is good to know we don't have real problems to deal with and we can focus on an ad.  This reminds me of the great moral outrage people felt after Janet Jackson's nipple was exposed during the Super Bowl.  

by ditka 2007-09-20 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Obama voted on the Feingold amemdment after he ducked the vote on the Cornyn amendment. He was in the Senate and hiding when the Cornyn amendment came up.

by hwc 2007-09-20 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Wow.  You really think Obama stuck his neck out by voting to withdraw from Iraq by July 2008, but didn't vote on the meaningless Cornyn amendment because he had to "hide" from it?

It's obvious that voting for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is far riskier in a political sense than voting on the stupid MoveOn resolution.  You're coming across as a bit of a desperado at this point.

by Steve M 2007-09-20 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

I was answered those who said Obama missed the Cornyn vote because he had to leave for a fundraiser. He voted an hour later on the Feingold bill. Obviously, he was available to vote on the Cornryn bill if he had chosen to.

by hwc 2007-09-20 10:38PM | 0 recs
Obama voted for ..

the Democratic alternative(Boxer's). That was his statement on the matter. He disapproved of the Moveon ad (and other personal attach ads)

What's not clear?

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-20 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GET CABLE OR GET YOUR FACTS STRAIT.

This is hilarious.

Pathetic and hilarious. I was watching the whole thing for the last three hours.

Obama Was In Washington D.C. The whole Time

1. He voted Yes on Boxer

2. He refused to come to the floor on the Republican version - which I don't think he should dignify them with a response. He made his point with Boxers Amendment.

3. He voted YES on Feingold-Reid

Instead of talking about this vote, why aren't we talking about the 20 COWARDS who joined Republicans in voting against the Feingold-Reid?

Hmm?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/st ory/0,,-6936980,00.html

by BlueDiamond 2007-09-20 12:14PM | 0 recs
ducking the vote

Here's how we should deal with the "ducking the vote" issue:

Dems NOT voting against the resolution:

Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Cardin (MD)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Feinstein (CA)
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar (MN)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Leahy (VT)
Lincoln (AR)
McCaskill (MO)
Mikulski (MD)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Salazar (CO)
Tester (MT)
Webb (VA)
Biden (DE) absent
Cantwell (WA) absent
Obama (IL) absent

Hugely disappointed in Leahy. I could see how he may not quite "get" the netroots as a generational thing, but then I remember how he used to jam with the Dead...

Yeay for Bernie, as usual.

Obama really sealed the deal for me. What a telling move this was (unless he was off pulling a baby from a burning building or something). I may even have to move Hillary up to my personal #2 spot behind Edwards.

by greenvtster 2007-09-20 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: ducking the vote

He did not duck the vote. He voted for the Democratic alternative (Boxer's). The was a vote of disapproval for those types of ads.

I think all the democrats voted for that one.  

I think all the Democrats should have boycotted the republican version. Now they kind of voted against the ad before they voted for it.

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-20 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: ducking the vote

go read Obama's statement on this, he didn't miss the vote, he was there. He thought this wasn't worthy of even voting on anmd made the point sthat the senate should not be debating whether a newspaper ad was worthy of such ridicule. The dems as a caucus shouldn't have split on this, they simply should have ignored it like Obama did.

by nevadadem 2007-09-20 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?
Great, yet another rampage thread by the Obama-tackers on this site. I can't wait for the thread protesting Obama's choice of necktie worn on the cover of GQ. Seriously, if you're fickle enough to dismiss a Prsidential candidate over missing an ad condemnation vote to catch a plan, he or she is way better off without your support. If this were a vote to effect any kind of real change in Iraq or domestic policy or whatever, I'd understand the disappointment. But in this case, how about redirecting your outrage toward those who really are responsible for the world's calamities? Oh noooo, we can't have that on here, since you'd rather pounce on any opportunity to trash someone else's candidate based on petty and insignificant BS. On the maturity level, MyDD has officially gone from college freshman to fourth grade. Shame.
by PD1769 2007-09-20 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Livid. I am livid. On so many levels.

THIS is the crap the Senate wastes its time on? It can't worry about stopping the war or giving people health insurance or ending global warming, it has to condemn free speech (meanwhile where were all these holier-than-thou assholes when Kerry was being Swiftboated and Max Cleland's patriotism was being attcked?)

And Diane Feinstein? Goddammit, what the f@#$ is her problem? She represents Cali-frickin-fornia, fer goddsake. Why is she always carrying water for the other side? What can be done about her?

by Oregonian 2007-09-20 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Obama released a statement basically saying this garbadge wasn't even worth voting on......perfect.

by nevadadem 2007-09-20 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Somehow, I'm guessing it won't cause Matt Stoller to retract his comments about how Obama deserves a special spot in hell for this.

Methinks Matt Stoller is a little emotionally unbalanced.

by mopper8 2007-09-20 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

by nevadadem 2007-09-20 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Lots of spinning by Obama supporters in here.  To be clear Obama ducked this vote, most likely so as to not be on record as for or against the Moveon ad.  That's very DLC of him.

by Justify My Vote 2007-09-20 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

All I can say is I'm really disappointed with the Democrats in the Senate that voted yes or failed to vote.  While in one sense this was a "meaningless" resolution, in another sense, its a very real demonstration of how Democrats have and intend to continue let the Republicans control the debate on Iraq.  The war is not going to end for a really long time.

I've gotten to the point where I hardly care who wins or loses in the 2008.  It hardly seems to make much of a difference since far too many Democrats in Congress side with Republicans.  Retro-active immunity for telecoms spying is another example.  I just can't get my motivated to care about 2008, either the presidential race or congressional races.

by Monkey In Chief 2007-09-20 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Obama: The Audacity of "NOPE."

by randron 2007-09-20 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?
Yes, but to what end?

Political.
by Michael Bersin 2007-09-21 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?

Calling Harry Reid or Democrats in general braindead achieves what political end?

Not very much, but it is political. Not that I agree with the sentiments.

Comparing a notorious attempted long distance medical diagnosis by an M.D. and Senator with an anonymous someone's rhetorical flourish at an out of the way blog accomplished what?

by Michael Bersin 2007-09-21 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Votes To...Condemn An Ad?
...Interesting that this is an out of the way blog now.

Not a reflection on the frontpagers, just an observation on the long list of our old friends who no longer show up.
by Michael Bersin 2007-09-22 03:43AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads