MyDD :: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005

Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005

by NewHampster, Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST

when Hillary was voting against Cheney's Energy Bill?

Barack Obama voted Aye on the committee reports.

Barack Obama voted Aye on the conference report.

Barack Obama voted Aye for the 2005 giveaway to the Oil and Gas Industry.

Where was Barack Obama's judgment in 2005?

Hillary Clinton voted against the giveaway for Cheney's friends. She was among a handful of senators who understood that this bill would take us in the wrong direction.

One of the great selling points was the credits for investment in new refineries. Do you see all that new construction that is helping to lower the price of oil? I didn't think so. This was a scam just like most government programs that supposedly "work with" big oil.

And where was Barack Obama?

He was taking care of the Coal Industry in his home state of Illinois. Now it's all well and good for senators to help their state. That's politics as usual. And maybe he was even trying to preserve some coal mining jobs. That's also Politics as Usual. But give me a break. This is the bill that has lined big oil's pockets with billions and billions of our dollars while doing nothing to help our energy independence.

Matthew Yglesias takes a critical non-partisan look. It's worth a visit for the Obama supporter comments.

Last night, Hillary Clinton called the 2005 energy bill that Barack Obama voted for the "Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill" citing its "enormous giveaways to oil and gas industry." Washington Post fact-checker Michael Dobbs says she's wrong, but in the real world she's right. I assume Obama was more swayed by giveaways to coal interests -- Illinois is a coal-producing state and before his presidential campaign geared up he was trying to grope his way toward a coal-friendly environmentalism before eventually, and rightly, giving up -- than to the oil and gas industry, but it was still a bad bill and a fair tag.

I don't know about you but I'm kind of pissed at people like Barack Obama every time I fill my gas tank.

Poll

Votes: 83
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: energy, president, Hillary Clinton, 2008, Obama, bad judgment (all tags)

Permalink :: 101 Comments :: Post a Comment

If you tip me I'll play nice (2.00 / 28)

thanks

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST

Re: If you tip me I'll play nice (2.00 / 2)

Great diary - thanks!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

I see your 2005 Energy bill, and raise you the 2001 Bankruptcy bill that Hillary voted for. And the 2005 Bankruptcy bill that only one of the two voted for, and guess what, it wasn't Hillary.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

voted for = voted against.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 16)

And who was it that voted to remove the cap on interest rates? Obama.

by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

his team judgement (2.00 / 13)

claims he doesn't need experience cause he's got great judgement on hiring advisors? He's a funny fellow.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

30% is no cap - that's Washington-speak for a ceiling. Obama felt the 30% figure was obscene and was not about to vote for a bill allowing credit card companies to legally charge up to 30% interest. Good for him.

by Piuma on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 10)

There are many people who have to pay interest rates higher than 30%. I'm sure that they would be happy to have their credit card interest rates lowered even marginally. Moreover, a 30% cap sets a precedent for a future, lower cap.

Or would have, had Barack Obama supported it.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

Here is the text of the amendment:

SEC. __. TERMS OF CONSUMER CREDIT.

(a) Cap on Interest Chargeable.--A creditor who extends credit to any consumer shall not impose a rate of interest in excess of an annual rate of 30 percent with respect to the credit extended.

(b) Preemption of State Law.--The provisions governing rates of interest under subsection (a) shall preempt all State usury laws.

(c) Exemption to Preemption.--If a State imposes a limit on the rate of interest chargeable to an extension of credit that is less than the limit imposed under subsection (a), that State law shall not be preempted and shall remain in full force and effect in that State.

So under section (a), no state would be allowed to have interest rates higher than 30%. But under section (c), any state which already capped rates at a lower number than 30% would be unaffected. The amendment clearly would not legalize any interest rates of 30% unless they were already legal under state law.

Here is the statement of the Democratic sponsor of the bill:

So my amendment actually adds a real consumer protection clause to the bill that otherwise does not deserve the name. It would limit the maximum annual interest that could be charged by anyone, any lender, to 30 percent.

Now, that tells us how bad things are in this country, that a 30-percent interest charge would actually be a reduction. Right now inflation has been running less than 2 percent annually. The current rate for a 3-month Treasury bill is 2.75 percent. The prime lending rate is 5 1/2 percent. Thirty percent as a ceiling of what could be charged annually is still consumer abuse, but it is a lot better than 384 percent or 1,095 percent or 1,095 percent. So that is what this amendment would do. It would set a limit of the annual interest rate that could be charged by any lender to 30 percent.

If somebody believes it is not profitable for them to lend money, for whatever reasons, liability, likelihood of repayment, whatever else, that it is not profitable at a 30-percent annual interest, I say it is not a wise loan for the lender and it is not a wise loan for the borrower.

We have too many people in this country who are taking advantage of others and charging these astronomical, shameful, disgraceful, and they ought to be illegal, rates of interest and taking advantage of those people, driving them deeper into debt, many of those that my colleagues have cited as being the culprits in this situation, the nonhealth care borrowers who are running up these credit card debts.

If someone is paying 384-percent interest a year, they are going to run up that debt very fast. If someone is paying 1,095-percent interest on anything they have borrowed, believe me, anybody in this country is going to be needing to file for bankruptcy very fast. This bill does not even mention those abuses.

This amendment would put a real consumer protection clause into this bill and for that reason, as well as basic justice, we should do what this body is supposed to do, which is to stand up and protect Americans. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Here is the complete list of the 24 Senators who supported this so-called "obscene" amendment:

YEAs ---24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

I think you are rather credulous to believe that Sens. Boxer, Corzine, Dorgan, Harkin, Jeffords, and Kennedy (to name just a few) all voted for an "obscene" amendment while every single Republican had the good sense to oppose it. As you can see from the text, this explanation just doesn't wash.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

Maybe Obama pushed the wrong button?

by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems seem to have split down the middle (none / 0)

Interesting that the Dems seem to have split down the middle half voted for, half voted against. There are some pretty progressive names that are not on your list:

Feingold, Kerry, Wyden.

When the Dems split down the middle like that, I assume there must be good arguments on both sides.

What is your explanation Steve?

by upper left on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:07:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

does that logic hold for the Iraq vote n/t (2.00 / 1)

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems seem to have split down the middle (none / 0)

Feingold was not present for the vote. No idea about the others, there wasn't any floor statement in opposition.

I am completely open to the possibility that there were good reasons to oppose this amendment, but the reason advanced by Piuma - which is a more strident version of the reason advanced by Obama at the SC debate - simply doesn't hold water.

It is impossible to square that explanation with the text of the amendment, nor is it plausible to suggest that Ted Kennedy and others wanted to raise the nationwide ceiling on credit card interest to 30%, while every Republican was opposed.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 1)

Yes, because no cap is, of course, better than a 30% cap

by AnnC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

Exactly what John Edwards asked Obama in the SC debate. Also, Obama was thanked by the credit card industry for his vote.

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 1)

Do you pay any attention to the news? Ever heard of payday loans? You should; you can thank Obama for them.

by PlainWords on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment (2.00 / 2)

Yup. Obama also voted for a bill that would close down child welfare offices (while in Ill state senate). He royally pissed off another Black politician named "Rickey Hendon" who wanted Obama to vote against it so that more child welfare offices would stay open. This is back in 2002, btw.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What does your comment have to do with my diary? (2.00 / 8)

I'm asking about the great judgment that seems to have been absent for the Energy Bill of 2005. His judgment is good when convenient I guess.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 7)

Wait, you're actually trying to draw a distinction from the fact that Hillary missed a vote because her husband was in surgery?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

The only reason Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill is because he thought the cap was to high he wanted it lowered so the banks could move in sooner. Honest that was his answer on one of the debates actually I think Edwards went after him for it and he finally admitted it. He was trying to give one of his flower answers.

by bradydundee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

That doesn't wash. There is no cap at all now.

by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 10)

Please stop spreading lies about the 2005 bankruptcy bill. Clinton clearly stated her opposition to the bill. She wasn't present for the vote because Bill Clinton was having heart surgery that day.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

Exactly. Here is a link to her statement on the bankruptcy bill:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a ``fresh start'' and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives....

http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?s c_id=148867&keyword=&phrase=& ;contain=

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's see (2.00 / 6)

Voting against cloture, and then being by your spouse's side while he undergoes a triple bypass.

Or missing votes cause you're campaigning.

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:54:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's see (2.00 / 1)

Very good Edgar 08! I like that one.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's see (none / 0)

Or because you're doing a walk through of your dream mansion with Tony the Fixer.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson

by Bella on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 6)

Right there with you!

by Fleaflicker on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 5)

For some reason I've been seeing a bunch of ads for the coal industry on TV lately. They call it "America's Fuel" or something. Apparently coal is patriotic!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:08:44 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 1)

People on the Left need to start getting real about Coal and not be content to lay back and simply be against it. We cannot allow India and China to build all these Coal power plants under the old technologies. We need an immediate major investment in capture and sequestration technologies if we wish to really get a handle on Global Climate change.

by Piuma on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 6)

I take my cues from Al Gore on this issue.

The most important set of problems by that must be solved in charting solutions for the climate crisis have to do with coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that produces far more CO2 for each unit of energy output than oil or gas. Yet, coal is found in abundance in the United States, China, and many other places. Because the pollution from the burning of coal is currently excluded from the market calculations of what it costs, coal is presently the cheapest source of abundant energy. And its relative role is growing rapidly day by day.

Fortunately, there may be a way to capture the CO2 produced as coal as burned and sequester it safely to prevent it from adding to the climate crisis. It is not easy. This technique, known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is expensive and most users of coal have resisted the investments necessary to use it. However, when the cost of not using it is calculated, it becomes obvious that CCS will play a significant and growing role as one of the major building blocks of a solution to the climate crisis.

Interestingly, the most advanced and environmentally responsible project for capturing and sequestering CO2 is in one of the most forbidding locations for energy production anywhere in the world -- in the Norwegian portions of the North Sea. Norway, as it turns out, has hefty CO2 taxes; and, even though there are many exceptions and exemptions, oil production is not one of them. As a result, the oil producers have found it quite economical and profitable to develop and use advanced CCS technologies in order to avoid the tax they would otherwise pay for the CO2 they would otherwise emit. The use of similar techniques could be required for coal-fired generating plants, and can be used in combination with advanced approaches like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Even with the most advanced techniques, however, the economics of carbon capture and sequestration will depend upon the availability of and proximity to safe deep storage reservoirs. Nevertheless, it is time to recognize that the phrase "clean coal technology" is devoid of meaning unless it means "zero carbon emissions" technology.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: clean coal (2.00 / 4)

spoken like a true Obama Progressive.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 3)

You should see the ads the coal industry runs in West Virginia in support of mountaintop removal mining. Walker Machinery (a big-time supplier to the mining industry) has a series of commercials starring animated bugs who claim that - contrary to what the federal court says! - mountaintop removal mining bugs them not at all.

Here's a link to a post with examples of all of the ads: link.

And here's a link to another blog post with transcripts of the commercials: link.

Creepy sample:

Reporter: "Coal's opponents used the courts and bug habitats to attack West Virginia's economy."

Reporter: "So Mr. Bug, how's the water in your woods?"

Bug: "Water's fine. My family moved on the valley fill as soon as we heard about the beautiful reclamation the coal miners built."

Reporter: "But the (undecipherable) stopped coal mining because you couldn't live there."

Bug: "Temporary my dear, we just moved during construction."

Reporter: "So your homes aren't in danger?"

Bug: "Creepers no! And you know what - I don't need electricity in my home... Do You???"

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 3)

Sometimes you wonder how these corporate PR types manage to sleep at night.

In Samantha Power's book on genocide she recounts the story of Judgment at Nuremberg, one of the first mainstream films to educate the American people about the horrors of the Holocaust. When they showed it on TV, one of the network sponsors was the American Gas Association, and apparently they felt all the references to gas chambers made their favorite energy source look bad. So they made the network dub out any mention of gas chambers.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

Wow, isn't that crazy. And it is all semantics, because the term 'gas' in gas chambers is very different than the petrol of gas stations. However, I can see how people may make that association. They should have found another way around it other than omitting 'gas chamber' because now it is factually inaccurate.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those are amazingly dumb ads (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for the link. If I stop laughing at how dumb they think we are, I might get some more posting done.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 9)

Obama can be a real panderbear when he wants to. He looks out for his own self interests well, and the thing he was looking out for was where he was going to get financing for his next election. There was some real potential in them there energy companies. Of course all politicians do it. He just can't admit to being a politician. How is that believable of someone coming of political age in Illinois?

by Scotch on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST

He can't vote "present" ALL the time. (2.00 / 4)

by JimR on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:09:17 PM EST

He can't vote "present" ALL the time. (none / 0)

Yeah he voted the right way on clusterbombs and got nuke legislation passed. Guess who voted the wrong way on clusterbombs...

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't vote "present"... (none / 0)

This line of attack is getting old. Voting present in the Illinois legislature is a common tactic employed by the Democratic Party. On many of those votes, party leadership directed him to vote Present. Other Present votes were used as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with some aspects of a bill without using the full force of a "No" vote. And other times he was just voting Present to protect himself from political attacks.

So yes, we can debate the use of Present votes, but it is disingenuous to go around attacking Obama's character because he used these votes. Lots of people do all the time. That's politics.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't vote "present"... (2.00 / 1)

Landstander - you got it wrong. She is attacking his having voted present in U.S. Senate, not in state leg.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Judgment (none / 0)

Even if Obama supporters were to concede the fact that the vote on the Energy Bill constituted pandering and poor judgment, this vote is far less disasterous than Hillary's authorization of the war. Given that nearly 4000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, given that the war is on pace to cost American taxpayers over 3 trillion dollars, given that the war has tarnished America's international reputation and strained alliances that have been in place since WWII, and given that the WMD justifications for prosecuting the war turned out to be false, the vote to authorize the conflict can be characterized as one of the worst votes in the history of our nation (no exaggeration). I expect politics and pandering play some role in the decisions of our leaders--they did not get where they are by ignoring the wishes of those who support them. However, when the chips are down and the stakes are as high as they were in the Iraq War Authorization vote, I also expect our leaders to throw politics aside and act in the best interests of the country. Hillary failed that test, and if we could not count on her to put the nation's interests ahead of her political fortunes with the consequences stemming from that vote as dire as they were it calls into question her willingness to do so in many other instances. You may characterize Obama's vote for the Energy Bill as politics as usual, but at least concede that his pandering is on an order of magnitude less than the sop Hillary threw the pro-war crowd in 2003.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:28:29 PM EST

Even if I did agree with you (2.00 / 10)

I would still say that Obama did pander. Obama was guilty of the same thing he is supposed to be against.

He is just another politician with a real good yarn.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point (none / 0)

The point is not whether he or she pandered, but the consequences of such political opportunism. Even if we were to say that Barack's vote on the Energy Bill was politically motivated it had nowhere near the negative consequences that Hillary's AUMF vote did. If we aren't pollyannish we will recognize that politicians make political decisions all the time --its how they get elected. There comes a time, however, when the stakes are too high to allow politics to become part of the decision making process. Knowing the history behind the AUMF vote, I am 100% CERTAIN that this vote was one worth losing political points over. Not being as familiar with the Energy Bill, I cannot say the same thing about Barack's choice. I will say however that I would find it quite surprising if the negative fallout from implementing the Energy Policy will be anywhere near as bad as that from the prosecution of the Iraq War.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point (2.00 / 6)

AUMF!!! AUMF!!! That's all you've got. And you refuse to accept that Obama said he might have voted for it if he had seen the intgelligence. Pretty thin stuff to hang an entire campaign on.

by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point (2.00 / 2)

Nearly 4000 dead American Servicemen make a rather compelling counterargument.

by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point (none / 0)

Well not exactly. He said the case hadn't been made from where he stood and since he predicted the outcome using public information - and private information would have also supported that prediction - to assume he would have thought differently isn't logical.

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point (none / 0)

And you refuse to accept that Obama said he might have voted for it if he had seen the intgelligence.

I am tired of this line of attack because it is always used out of context. Obama said this in 2004 and, at that time, was trying to provide support and cover for John Kerry. What was he supposed to say - that our Democratic nominee for president was wrong and didn't have the judgment to be president? He did what any good Democrat would have done and provided cover for our presidential nominee.

2004 is the only time I have ever heard of Obama giving an ambiguous answer regarding the AUMF. Is there some other quote I am missing? Or do you just like to take things out of context to make Obama look bad?

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point (none / 0)

If every Democrat (except Lieberman, who is to the right of most Republicans on this) had voted against the AUMF and Cheney had to break a tie to get it passed, the war would have gone ahead as planned--the introduction to the resolution even contains language (albeit not legally binding, but Bush seems to have his own ideas about what is law and what is not) that states that the resolution does not confer on the president any power that he does not already have.

by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah um. No one died. (none / 0)

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah um. No one died. (none / 0)

Well, you forget about all the mining deaths and related illnesses. You forget about the deaths due to air pollution and related illnesses. You forget about the reason for Iraq - oil and our energy dependence. If Iraq didn't have a resource that is coveted and if we had passed laws and given the dollars to clean energy, conservation,etc., we wouldn't be in Iraq. Oh, and how about global warming - think about the deaths that is causing and will continue to cause. Katrina, Rita, tornadoes, heat waves, flooding, etc.

So, voting for this immoral bill has cost, continues to cost and will continue to cost many more lives including the ones in Iraq.

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judgment (2.00 / 2)

But Obama supported the war from 2004 onwards....even when we knew there were no WMDs.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Support (none / 0)

There's a difference between supporting the reason for the war and supporting efforts aimed at keeping our troops safe while over there. Obama has been consistently against the war since 2002, any votes to fund efforts to arm and protect our troops notwithstanding.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 9)

Thank you for posting a diary that criticizes Obama on his actual voting record!! So sick of reading about Rezko, NAFTA, Ayers, etc.

Yeah, this was a crap vote.

I'm only here to look for engels. Screw the rest of this big blue craphole.

by sricki on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST

Don't thank me (2.00 / 7)

I wish he had more of a voting record to look at.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. (2.00 / 4)

Seriously, that's a huge problem. It's hard to criticize when there's so little there. He just hasn't been around long enough. And he's been very careful. I think he's managed to avoid taking a stand on a lot of controversial issues -- probably more in IL than in D.C.

Has anyone around here bothered to get hold of ALL his votes from the IL state legislature and really examine them?

I'm only here to look for engels. Screw the rest of this big blue craphole.

by sricki on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to see them too (2.00 / 1)

all I know about are the 160 Present votes.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. (2.00 / 1)

sricki - all the votes are available on www.progressivepunch.org. There are also the published senate hearings.

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. (none / 0)

Thanks! I need to go sift through there.

I'm only here to look for engels. Screw the rest of this big blue craphole.

by sricki on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

I personally dont like the fact that he voted for the bill, but if he did it because it was very important to interests within his state, I think it's more excusable than voting for a war just so that you can claim you're tough enough to be president. There is really no constituency that is served by having voted for the war in Iraq, other than one's own political future.

by highgrade on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28:59 PM EST

That's SUCH A LIE-- (2.00 / 8)

Read her speech-- SHE DIDN'T VOTE FOR A FUTURE POLITICAL POSITION

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

She also said why it wasn't.....

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just Words, Just Words (none / 0)

Hillary's actions are at odds with the sentiments that she expressed on the Senate floor before her Senate vote. Notwithstanding anything she said her vote did embolden a doctrine of "unilateralism, pre-emption, and arrogance of American power or purpose" and if she didn't know that it would do so it calls into question the judgment she is touted as possessing. Those who criticize Obama as being all talk should concede that, at least on this one issue, Hillary's words were a meaningless sop to the liberal wing of the Democratic party while she prepared to make a political decision jeopardizing America's interests. Clearly when one votes for a bill entitled "A resoultion to Authorize Military Force in Iraq" one must at least recognize that the resolution will be used for just that purpose. If her vote was truly to empower the inspectors and her vote was misused by Bush, then where was her outrage when Bush used the authorization for the purpose for which it was intended. She may not have been able to single-handedly stop the war with a no vote, but the Clintons carry a lot of clout in the Democratic party. They could have galvanized a significant portion of our voting bloc against the war, making it a Republican conflict and a much harder sell for Bush. At the very least it would have given us the ability to use the war against the Republicans in 2004 and get our troops home shortly thereafter. Instead Kerry was outflanked by charges that he saw the same intelligence as Bush and voted for the war. We will face the same charges if Hillary is our nominee.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry didn't lose (2.00 / 1)

For those reasons.

Most people are smarter than that narrative gives them credit for.

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Words, Just Words (2.00 / 5)

Then please explain how it was OK with Obama when he was supporting Sen. Kerry in 2004 for voting the same way. Why is it ok that Sen. Kennedy, another Obama supporter, agreed with Mr. Kerry's vote on the war, and actually made the exact same case that Sen. Clinton did?

Why did he say in 2004: "But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

Obama, like his endorser Kerry, is a flip flopper when the need suits him.

by cmugirl90 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Words, Just Words (none / 0)

Fact Check: Sen. Kennedy voted against the WAR.

Obama supported the Democratic candidate for President. Should he have supported Bush? What are you talking about?

Obama has alway thought the WAR was a very bad idea. Hillary only started thinking it was a bad idea in 2005 (after it was an obvious disaster).

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Words, Just Words (none / 0)

There was nothing wrong with supporting Kerry because he was hawkish. I would hope he would support Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee even though she has a more aggressive foreign policy philosophy. While there was little difference between the parties with respect to the war in 2004, there were big differences in other areas.

Kennedy did not make the same case that Clinton made-- he has been a critic of Bush's foreign policy.

Saying that he might have done things differently if he was privy to stronger evidence is not inconsistent with speaking out against the war based upon the evidence he did have. Hillary, who had access to all the evidence -- which we now know was paper thin -- had no excuse for believing Bush.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 1)

She didn't vote for war just to prove that she is tough enough. I believe she was honestly misled by Bush and his cohorts. Not only was she misled, so was John Edwards, John Kerry, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, etc., etc......geez are we going to lay blame on ALL of them????

by findthesource on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My problem with her explanation (none / 0)

Is that just by looking at the text of the authorization, not to mention the Bush campaign's words during that time, and even the media coverage, it was clear to ANYONE with a single functioning brain cell that Bush was going to war, and was looking for Congress to rubber stamp the decision. So to suggest that by granting him authorization that you weren't voting for preemptive war is like the bartender who that continues to serve alcohol to the drunken customer, then announces his surprise that he caused an accident later that night.

by highgrade on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

Always the same tired old excuses for Obama and his pandering even though he will bring the new politics.

There was a constituency for the war in Iraq, it was the American people who clearly believed that Iraq was responsible. Go back and look at the polls. I also remember I was in the distinct minority against the war - most people believed there was WMD and were afraid (esp. about the nuclear part). I had to be careful who I spoke too - passions were high.

She also is the Senator from NY - and I don't think her constituents were against the AUMF. I also do take into account her floor speech and Hans Blix's view: which was that the US needed to show a united front to Hussein and show that if the inspectors weren't allowed back; then force would be used.

I really did not believe Bush, but, I also didn't see the doctored intelligence and I didn't have to vote. Sure, I can say I still would have voted no, but, I don't really know for sure. Even Paul Wellstone grappled with this vote and partly because of political reasons - he was up for re-election. I believe Obama when he stated that he didn't know how he would have voted. That is an honest answer. IMOP, he probably would have voted the way his constituents felt.

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh. No one died. (1.00 / 1)

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:47 PM EST

See above-- Hillary DID NOT (2.00 / 4)

vote for war in Iraq -- see above, she laid it out clearly. It was a vote for inspections to see if Hussein was reconstituting weapons program or not.

Explicitly she stated we had to know what threats Saddam Hussein posed, but she laid it out that it was NOT a vote for a pre-emptive war and why.

See above, and read her speech in link.

by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah rewriting history is lame. (none / 0)

Anyway I'll add her vote against the banning of the use of clusterbombs on civilians. Happy?

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that was just a speech! (none / 0)

lol.

by highgrade on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You obviously are short on words (2.00 / 3)

but I think scruples are important and Obama has none.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You obviously are short on words (none / 0)

Ah. So you think HRC wanted to go to war and it wasn't just a "look tough" political calculation?

As far as scruples, it's clear Obama has more than Clinton so I guess your SOL.

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the truth about what I believe (2.00 / 3)

I think Hillary, just like me and most of America, trusted her government, trusted Colin Powell.

Hindsight is great if you have it but so is honesty and it's funny how it's about as hard to find someone who admits to believing Powell as it is to find people who voted for Nixon.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the truth about what I believe (2.00 / 1)

Then you are also unqualified to be President. The millions of us who fought against the war and even marched in the streets are better able to lead.

No hindsight here amigo. I was against it from day 1. I knew they were lying. I listened to the international community. I understood PNAC had been pushing the invasion for years. I knew that Saddam was basically secular and wouldn't have been running with AQ. All of that information was available if one was smart enough or cared enough to pay attention. Again, millions of us in the US and around the world did. Again, we're more qualified to run the country than the people who did not.

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I ain't planning on running anything (2.00 / 4)

but I do think it takes a lot more than being against things to run a country.

with that I must retire. work comes early.

I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.

by NewHampster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I ain't planning on running anything (none / 0)

Being against things? You mean being against the war because of very specific reasons that are readily apparent to millions? If a well connected politician with staffers can't figure out the truth of the matter then they certainly aren't qualified to run the country.

by illlaw1 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I ain't planning on running anything (none / 0)

"And then I thought about it and it was hard for me to come to this conclusion but I figure, if it was between me and you, you'd be the only one qualified to run the country," John Kerry to his friend Barack Obama.

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the truth about what I believe (none / 0)

I didn't trust George W. Bush from the day I first heard his name. And from the VERY first time he mentioned Iraq I knew we were headed to war. This was obvious to the millions of people who were protesting the war throughout 2002. And people like Barack Obama who were at anti-war rallies BEFORE the AUMF was passed. Sorry if it wasn't apparent to you and Senator Clinton.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Factcheck.org disagrees with this diary (2.00 / 1)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ nh_debate_the_dems_turn.html

"Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. "

by shalca on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:42 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

So the guy got it wrong on one thing, b/c he thought he saw a way to help an important industry to his state. He has an excellent energy plan and the all-consuming power of American popular opinion based on the IPCC working to improve our energy policy. I have no doubt that Obama will sign the House Energy bill (hopefully one not corrupted by Dingell).

Do you really want to compare and contrast? Aside from Iraq, how about Kyl-Lieberman, or various other bills?

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:13:19 AM EST

How did Obama vote on K-L? (none / 0)

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How did Obama vote on K-L? (none / 0)

As he should of with his absence. Why waste one's time entertaining any idea of Lieberman's on foreign policy?

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How did Obama vote on K-L? (none / 0)

The man is trying to get elected.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0)

He was campaigning instead of voting.

No illness in the family or anything?

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see (none / 0)

How did Hillary vote on K-L? I have real concern that Hillary would gladly follow bush's preemptive war policy. She likes to look tough you know.

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't (2.00 / 1)

Not when folks like Wes Clark, and Joe Wilson endorse her position on that issue.

I don't think Dick Durbin thinks his vote meant what you think it means too.

You might be wrong about that vote and what it meant.

We do know that Obama only started using that vote to attack Clinton AFTER the vote.

No one remembers him telling anyont to vote "No" before the vote actually took place.

You know. Taking a stand on the issue.

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't (none / 0)

Obama opposed the war before the AUMF was passed. Here is a speech he gave just weeks prior to the passage of the AUMF.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ma's_Iraq_Speech

We do know that Obama only started using that vote to attack Clinton AFTER the vote.

How we he supposed to use the vote against her BEFORE she cast the vote?

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did You know (none / 0)

We were discussing Kyl Lieberman?

by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did You know (none / 0)

No, I was lost... :/

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't (none / 0)

Is that really his speech or re-enactment?

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see (none / 0)

Pay attention to what I said first. He did what was appropriate to ignore this useless piece of legislation. Why waste his time to vote on this ridiculous resolution? Especially, when we have a more important job of changing this nation.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see (none / 0)

Or may be he didn't want to have a position on this issue, like his other present votes?

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see (none / 0)

You're rather ignorant of legislative politics, aren't you? 126 out 4000 votes. Wow, you found a trend. You know, I'd prefer someone who follows a legislative strategy to vote present to someone who caves the Republicans.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (2.00 / 2)

How did a diary about Obama's voting record turn into a diary about Hillary's voting record? Why is it impossible to discuss Obama's voting record without drawing contrasts and comparisons to someone else's voting record? If all of the Obama supporters are so sure their candidate is "THE MAN" why the need for the distraction?

by JustJennifer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

Apparently this vote is indefensible aside from the argument that "it's not as bad as voting for the war." That's how we got here.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point (none / 0)

The point is not that its indefensible, its that most people don't know enough about energy policy and the alternatives that were available to discern whether Obama made the right move there. I for one know a whole lot more about the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq and can safely say that Clinton acted against the best interests of the country and the effects seem to me to have been much more disasterous than any consequences of Obama's vote on the energy bill. Can you tell me why (or if) this vote was anywhere near as harmful to our nation as the AUMF vote?

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

Yes, BHO was voting for his state.

But there were 24 Democrats that voted for this. And, they took out Alaska and off shore drilling. And, they took out Yucca Mountain. So, it wasn't the Cheney product when it passed.

Also he has a top-notch environmental plan.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10 /8/13403/3579

Here is the BHO info from 2005:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_ob ama_says_energy_bill_helps_/index.php

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

According to Geraldine Ferraro, if Obama were a white man and had done the following in relation to Cheney's Energy Bill:

voted Aye on the committee reports.
voted Aye on the conference report.
voted Aye for the 2005 giveaway to the Oil and Gas Industry.

He probably wouldn't be where he is now. He'd be back at work as a full-time senator.

by zenful6219 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST

Re: Where was the Obama Judgment in 2005 (none / 0)

You continue to bring up irrelevent information and cannot admit that this vote was terrible. Give an argument that is relevent to the diary. Do you think that this was a good vote? If so, why?

by anya109 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.