Hillary voting no on the moveon.org resolution was quite stupid of her, imo.

[calteacherguy]

Now, I've become a luke-warm Hillary supporter of late, but kudos to Obama, Biden, and whoever else abstained from acknowledging such nonsense to be worthy of the senate!

Obama had it right on this one, and kudos to him for it!

[Beaverhausen]

1. Well, that makes one of you

[hobbit709]

2. Beats being one of the 25 that voted "Yea"

[emilyg]

37. Yes it does.

[Colobo]

3. You need to come back to the Obama side.

We like you here. :)

[More Than A Feeling]

4. It was brilliant of her to avoid the temptation to Sistah Souljah the netroots.

It might have won her a touch of goodwill.

[calteacherguy]

5. No, it was quite wrong to give such a resolution a second of her time, and the senate's time.

Politically, it sets her up if she is the nominee for attacks claiming she supports the ad. Stupid on more than one front.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. I agree that these resolutions were a total waste of time.

But having said that, its stronger to come out and vote no. It increases my confidence in her slightly that she knows where her bread is buttered, and that moveon and the netroots are too strong for her to go against us too much.

[calteacherguy]

16. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm part of the "netroots," and I personally think the ad stunk.

I prefer politicians who are principled, and don't cave to anyone, or participate in petty partisan politics.

[Clintonista2]

6. Obama didn't abstain

He just didn't vote. Abstaining would have required him to use some political capital.

[calteacherguy]

9. Not voting is even better. Showing up would have implied the bill was worthy of the senate. nt

[Clintonista2]

15. Well, it really is a question of free speech

You may not think the bill was worth voting on, but it was before the senate nonetheless. Moveon.org had every right to say what they did, and by the senate passing this bill, it sends the message that they don't.

[calteacherguy]

19. No, the bill does not send a message they didn't have a right to say what they did.

It was a "sense of the senate" resolution, and totally undignified in the U.S. senate.

Kudos to Obama for his statemanship, and boo on Hillary for lowering herself to their standards.

[jkshaw]

30. Totally agree, calteacherguy

Why didn't ALL the democrats stay away? I can't wait to find out who the 25 dems voting yea were.

[calteacherguy]

34. It's wrong to vote on it on two counts

1) It's not worthy of the senate

2) It plays right into Republican hands by giving them the card to play that Democrats support the name-calling of Patraeus

We ought to have learned to stop playng their games a long time ago!

[OHdem10]

13. No disrespect but in the past when a candidate did this

it was considered being chicken. Reporters jumped all over
Kerry and others when they used campaigning as reason for
not voting on significant issue.

I have decided to support the candidate so I do not have
a dog in this fight.

Hilary did the right thing on this one.

[calteacherguy]

14. Significant issue??? This was not a significant issue worthy of a vote, that's the point! nt

[Clintonista2]

17. It really was a vote on free speech

They were voting on whether to censure MoveOn.org's statements. That's basically voting on whether they had the right to say that or not.

[calteacherguy]

21. No, it was not a vote to curtail free speech.

It had nothing to do with their rights to say what they did. Are you trying to tell me that after this vote, no one will be allowed to run a similar ad if they so desire? Has the constitution been recinded by this disgusting, petty little partisan charade?

[Dawgs]

27. And that's not a waste of time to you?

Wow, nice spin. :rofl:

[Clintonista2]

20. I agree with you

I was just pointing out that he didn't abstain, he did less than that because he knew it would hurt him politically.

[DaveJ]

8. Why? Because it was a waste of time?

I feel that the vote was significant in creating a relationship between politicians and the military industrial complex (MIC). Those who voted 'yes' indicated they were subservient to the MIC (their bitches so to speak) and Hillary voted 'no' because she plans to be in charge of them soon.

I personally think that the MIC is running things now, not BushCo, and that BushCo is the MIC's biatch (excuse the colloquialism). It would least least be a baby step forward to have a POTUS who at least represents the people instead of the MIC.

[calteacherguy]

12. Because IT'S NOT WHAT THE SENATE SHOULD BE DEBATING!

I applaud Obama's refusal to participate in their little charade!

[DaveJ]

24. I like Obama

He's an Illinoisan like me after all, but I think it took guts to say "No," and the candidates who declined to vote were playing it safe. Those who think they might not win need to play it safe for political reasons.

[DURHAM D]

32. I am not sure how to tell you this but you don't control

the agenda.

Neither does a freshman Senator.

Actually, no one really does. Parity in the senate and the VP with a vote means Dems can't control it.

The issues that come to the floor are the issues that come to the floor. That is it.

[Adelante]

10. I agree

Vote for the Boxer amendment and walk on Cornyn. Don't even dignify the piece of shit with a vote.

[lateo]

11. If they didn't vote no...

I won't vote YES for them in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Wonder how Edwards would have voted? Guess I'll have to speculate!

Elizabeth Edwards Criticizes MoveOn Over Petraeus Ad
September 14, 2007 03:03 PM

...Elizabeth Edwards makes hers the first campaign to directly criticize MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, breaking with the Democrats' strategy of, basically, ignoring it.

"Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us,'" said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/elizabeth-edwards-critici_n_64472.html

Does that mean that they would have voted FOR the amendment if they had a vote? :shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

23. You forgot that she also said this:

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS/70914014/1001/LIFE

Don't forget - many people here also disagreed with the Move On ad.

[ronnykmarshall]

22. Oh my god

She can't win for losing.

What a crock of shit.

If she didn't vote like Obama did, shit would hit the fucking fan.

[liberal renegade]

25. It's going to really chap your ass

when Mrs.Clinton becomes the next president, isn't it...

I can't wait to read your posts when that becomes reality.....

Rush Limbaugh lite.......

[Colobo]

26. President Obama, Jan. 09.

[DURHAM D]

28. Your opinion is quite stupid imo.

Obama had it wrong - he weenied out of the room.

[calteacherguy]

29. Why allow them to set the agenda? nt

[DURHAM D]

31. You changed the question.

Neither Biden nor Obama ABSTAINED. That would have been slightly closer to registering a protest. That is NOT what they did.

Voting NO was the protest.

Voting YES was wrong.

NOT VOTING was nothin' at all. It actually meant he had a scheduling conflict.

And then that statement - he made a statement that was essentially the same thing as bringing a note from home asking to be forgiven for missing school because he forgot it was a school day.

[calteacherguy]

33. Why take the time to vote on this worthless piece of shit?

Obama did the right thing. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[DURHAM D]

35. I don't agree to disagree. n/t

[yurbud]

36. I'd say no or abstaining are both defensible options. The Dems who voted FOR it have a lot of

explaining to do.

Moveon.org is actually pretty mild, but even so has gone farther out on a limb PRwise than the Democratic Party. Therefore, they should support or at the very least not kick them since they are doing the Democrats job for them.