Politico.com says otherwise:

"The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.),  voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote.

All three candidates were in the Washington area Tuesday morning for the region's three primaries."

But don't forget:

Obama lives in a bullet-proof glass house where he can throw stones at other houses all he wants, but none penentrate his own.

Ah, yes.  The desperate tone rings loud.  Don't actually explain the facts - just attack Obama.  True Clinton style.

I look forward to Hillary's continued downward spiral.  Not that I'm a huge Obama fan either.

Obama may have problems in the general winning people over, but it is already a fact that Hillary cannot given her high unlikability polling that hasn't changed in years.  America has decided on her, and it isn't for her to be President.

Keep her in the Senate.  If she's such a reliable vote, then she'll be happy voting for the next several years.

I'm a Clinton supporter, detest Obama, and I am hugely disappointed she didn't show for this vote.

Without understanding the necessity of defending the Constitution, she indicates she is accepting of the meme government is corporation, c.1988.
(Obama is even worse, LYING about his pac money,
but this does not excuse Clinton.) If we are  truly to clean the Bush mess, politicians must be free to act and vote for the best interests of the country, not ATandT.

If the even know how to vote, anymore, independent of ATandT...

Whoever told her not to show was wrong, if she's going to lead, she will have to risk, independent of the business PACS, American government as the founding fathers saw.

Hope she comes around on this point...

It's okay.

This vote didn't matter or anything.

It's not like my liberties are slowly being teared away by a Congress too stupid to stop it.

It is not hypocrasy; you cannot defend the actions of your candidate, os you attack anothers.

"Hey! Don't point out my candidates indefensible positions. Your candidate did THIS back in his state senate days!"

It is the mark of a zealot who does not think, but rather simply reacts, no better then those on the right who could only attack John Kerry when pointed out to the many indefensible parts of George W. Bush.

You fail.