Obama & Clinton save their campaigns from irrelevancy.

I am curious as to the fate of the Democratic Presidential candidate that votes for this measure.

Seems hard to believe he/she could survive the primary process and after that, the general election. I mean if I want more Iraq war, more conservative politics, I would vote Republican. What's the point of the Democratic party if it can't oppose Republicans in their insanity and irrational and unreasonable positions.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

Dodd voted no before the issue was decided. Hillary and Barack were opportunists.

Let's be realistic. Dodd has no chance at the nomination.

So they get the same amount of (dis)credit whether they voted for or against the bill.

That's absurd.

It's all about leadership. In this case, neither of them had the courage to lead.

No it's not. Public opinion doesn't only revolve around the Democratic base. It is also affected by the people who will vote in the general election. To be insensitive to that aspect of a candidate's decision making process is to risk winning the battle while losing the war.

We need to accept the fact that there will be no perfect candidates. The best we can hope for is to try to have influence on the flawed ones. We have done that.

To do otherwise is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Exactly! Why are Hillary and Obama supporters celebrating their No votes when both candidates claim to oppose the war - but neither could tell us LAST NIGHT how they planned to vote.

If this isn't about the base, then explain to my why the DCCC just had the audacity to hit me up for more money in an email trying to explain to me that these were votes accountability. Their credibility is dropping into a black hole.

I said it's not "only" about the "base."

Anyone who is solicited knows full well that they have the option of saying no.

Hillary and Obama aren't the reason that the Democrats capitulated. The blame rests with Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Nelson, and Salazar.

Hillary and Obama should not be faulted for doing the right thing, no matter what their motivation was.

Realistic about the fact that when Hillary and Obama were confronted with a choice, they chose to vote the right way.

If every Democrat in the House and Senate voted the way they did, the bill would have reflected the opinion of the 63% you referenced.

The 63% number isn't a base number. It is the number of all Americans regardless of political stripe.

There was simply no reason to be scared.

Hillary and Obama both lost here because they didn't lead. Their no votes are in the same catagory as Nancy Pelosi's no vote. They tested the wind and realized where they needed to be. In this case they were heading off John Edwards who has been consistent on the issue, and didn't stick his finger in the wind.

Ron Byers

The decision point occured before the vote. Both voted after the issue was decided and neither did a thing to change anybody's mind. They get zero credit. I am not surprised by Hillary. Obama's lack of courage is surprising and instructive.

Ron Byers

marcNYC:

So you are assuming that Hill and O didn't know until just before they voted how the majority would vote. If they didn't they are both highly overrated Senators.

I'm as shocked that Greg Sargent's piece here didn't mention the fact that Clinton and Obama's votes were "safe" as I am unshocked that they voted the way they did. We expect better reporting than that from TPM.

Do you believe that Hill and O are not convinced the American people are against this war?

Why else would they, or any of the Democrats, hesitate to stand up to Bush?

Are the polls wrong? It looks like Hill and O and the Dems think so...

A difference of opinion makes me a troll. Sweet.

User Rating
Ghost of Tom Joad 0

So his vote didn't count because it was already decided? Well, he should not voting altogether then. If he vote didn't count. Kinda like the 2000 Florida Presidential Election results huh

If you read my post correctly that's what I said. Failure of leadership is giving President Bush the go head for the War in the first place, then trying to blame him for EVERYTHING that has went wrong. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube after it's squeezed out.

I have more respect for President Bush than I will ever have for Clinton, Edwards, Biden and the rest that voted for this War and now are trying to BLAME President Bush for everything when they allow it in the first place. Now that's a failure of leadership.

Senator Obama has been right since 2002 and he is still right, now.

Where was Senator Obama on this yesterday? Where was he when the clown with the 30% approval rating was standing in the Rose Garden gloating this morning? He was nowhere to be seen. Neither was Senator Clinton. Failure of leadership. Plain and simple.

Let's consider one possibility: Clinton and Obama were screwed in advance--along with every other Democrat--by the utter stupidity of this situation. This bill never should have come to a vote in the first place. This bill should never have come to the floor of the House or the Senate. This bill should never have existed. The real blame for what happened today belongs to the spineless cretins who negotiated this toothless piece of crap.

It's not so surprising to me that people voted the way they did. What's surprising is that it's come to this at all.

Really? You don't see that a No vote after the bill has been decided represents absolutely no committment by them? Nothing at all is at stake for them. That's why it's called a safe vote.

We already lost the war. The war in Iraq and the "war" against the Republicans.

People will die because of this vote. Every expedient, sell out, triangulated, gamed, messaged, and framed, day that this war goes on people will die because of this vote.

Victory! What victory? You think in a Senate made up of 80% cowards and another 10% hypocrites there's any victory to be had?

A vote to fund war and gussy it up by throwing a few pennies at the minimum wage! What a deal - for every trillion dollar war toss a quarter at the burger assembly line. Let them eat cake with that!

Given that there could be a price for that vote in the general election, I don't view it as safe as you do.

No need to swap. Bush has said and demonstrated he won't listen to our Congress. But he said today, according to reports I heard, that if the Iraqi Parliament says we should leave, we'd go. Them he listens to.

What's wrong with this picture? Does the Decider not understand who the real deciders are in this country? At least for now, that is. I'm sure Karl is working on a plan to get rid of that little obstacle. Heck, what am I saying! He's already go the plan and has put it into motion. It's that little US Attorney/phony vote fraud thing you may have heard about. Feh.

"Obama is the Sanjaya of the campaign. The liberal groupies love him but he can't really sing and doesn't have much to sing about. His campaign is highly manipulative, testing how far platitudes can take you without committing yourself to anything. He may also be an unmarked black hawk, witness his aggressive approach to Iran. PS: you can't copyright hope as he has tried to do."

Courtesy of the Progressive Review (www.prorev.com).

How many times has Obama voted to fund the war?

Very few speeches on the floor of Congress are heard by other congressfolks. The speeches are aimed at us, not at their colleagues. The debating and negotiating is done behind the scenes, and behind closed doors. No vote occurs in Congress before the result of the vote is known. My point being that the judgements about Obama and Clinton based on the timing of their votes and their lack of making speeches on the floor of the Senate are not based on any reality.

For all any of us know, both Obama and Clinton spent hours trying to negotiate with their collegues to persuade them to vote against the bill. Neither one is an appointed or elected leader of the Senate, so their influence over their colleagues, which would have to be based on what favors they could do for them, is minimal.

The blame for the outcome of that vote resides with those who voted for the bill. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted for it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Everybody knew it was going to pass. Only 14 senators voted against it for goodness sakes!

Edwards was against the bill as well.

This is a red herring. Only a moron or an opportunist would make an argument based on the notion that the result of this vote was ever in doubt.

hrebendorf, exactly. The lack of leadership came precisely from the so-called leaders. There should have been no negotiating and no concessions at all. If this murderous invasion is not a matter of principle, what the hell is? The Dem line is that they lived to fight another day. I thought that day was supposed to be when they controlled Congress. When's the REAL day supposed to come?

I have to disagree with the "spineless" description however. There was nothing for any competent Dem pol to be afraid of. They held all the cards against an alleged president and opposition with about as much credibility and respect as Jeff Daumer. And as all the lead paragraphs put it, they blinked anyway.

NJ Lawyer is right. The netroots are being felt.

Keep up the pressure.

Keep hammering on the war and START pounding on "free trade"

"Hillary and Obama both lost here because they didn't lead."

The implication that if Clinton and Obama had come out early against the bill would have changed anything is absurd.

Presidential hopefuls they are but they are not a part of Senate leadership.

Earlier today it came out that some Democratic consultants urged House members to pass the bill.

And did any of you bother to consider that there may have been a threat by Lieberman to switch caucuses? That would have given control of the Senate to the Republicans.

What price? How many of the 37% that oppose time lines to get out are going to vote for any Democrat?

Again, where were Obama and Clinton Wednesday? This vote was an embarassment for the entire Democratic party. The Republicans were voted out forone reason and the D's folded like a house of cards because they were afraid that that the Decider was going to make fun of them for going home for Memorial Day? Give me a break. If you're really afraid of that try working over the weekend like the rest of us do when its needed to get the job done. This vote was a failure of leadership by a lot of folks, including Obama and Clinton.

Really? In 2002 Pelosi led a majority of House Democrats to vote no on the Iraq War Resolution, explaining that Iraq did not create an "imminent threat" to America. This was a very unpopular stand at the time--with public opinion overwhelmingly in support of the war.

That's courage. Think about how our major current Democratic candidates voted at the time--and, yes, that includes Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd. It was supported by Richardson. It was opposed by Obama.

Well, gee, it would have been great if Edwards had managed to "lead" in 2002 when he raced to co-sponsor the Iraq War Resolution. His vote helped get us to today's mess. Apologies don't county, IMHO.

That is why he is my first choice, but contrary to several commenters here I am very relieved at how Obama and especially Clinton voted. I thought that Clinton might vote the other way and that I would have no horse in the race in '08. Public opinion is way more fickle than some commenters would have it -- there is a risk for voting as Clinton did, especially because she is a woman and, like it or not, there are a lot of voters that whether consciously or not, will wonder if she 'has what it takes to be tough enough when she has to be'. For some, the Presidential race in the USA has been a pissing contest for centuries.

global citizen

I agree that Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Biden and the rest were craven cowards for giving the President the authority for going to war. And Edwards' current stance loses a great deal of impact for his previous cowardice. However, its unfair for them to receive anywhere near the same measure of blame for the manner in which the war has been fought in Iraq, or for the President falsely connecting the war in Iraq with terrorism, a false connection which lead to his despicable attack on civil rights here in America. The terrorists' goal is to end our system of government. The President's response to the attack (suspension of habeas corpus, Gitmo, illegal domestic surveillance, the abuses of the FBI letters, etc.), not the attack itself, gave (and continues to give) them their victory. The cowardice of our current democratic leadership as evidenced yesterday gives me little hope that anything will change even should the dems win the White House next year. Although I have never sat out an election, this is the first time I am considering it. I won't actually sit it out, but I truly hope some democrat with intestinal fortitude will enter the race.

Fault Edwards for voting for the initial use of force resolution, but not for trying to blame Bush for everything. Bush deserves the blame for pushing it in the first place. Edwards has accepted the blame for his bad vote--he didn't blame Bush or advisors, but took the responsibility himself.

Since then, he has been one of the most articulate opponents of this war. If you are faulting Edwards for the original vote, fault many other progressives for that vote, too. Sad, but that is the reality.

Obama was right in 2002, though not in the Senate, and deserves credit for being right. One wonders why he was silent all day about the Capitulation Bill. I would have preferred that Clinton and Obama not only vote no, but work to get other no votes. Instead, they both now look like they were kind-of forced to vote no by Dodd and Edwards. It comes down to leadership.

With all due respect, that's bullshit (this goes for tpjmaggie, too).  The Senate had no way of knowing in 2002 what we all know by now in terms of fixed and manipulated classified intelligence released to the Senate committee, and upon which the larger body had to base its votes.  Further, the war powers act set specific conditions that the White House simply blew off.  The angry sentiment aimed at Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, etc. amounts to a validation of the Bush-Cheney administration as Otter in the film Animal House when "consoling" Flounder about trashing his brother's car, saying, "You fucked up.  You trusted us!"

I got the same disgusting email. Practically broke my mouse, deleting it with prejudice. How is it that a hated, lame-duck President of the minority party still gets his way? Because we are dominated by careerist Sophists across party lines that have no morality, have not the courage of their convictions (if they have any at all). There is no leadership in this country. We are drifting along towards a wider war, possibly into a global asymmetric one if Dick Cheney gets his way. Hone the message - impeach Cheney, impeach Cheney, impeach Cheney. Cripple the neocon enablers and we can possibly inject some reason into the process. Otherwise, we are going to drift into a kind of WWI situation where a spark will start an uncontrollable wildfire.

UA

This is so true it takes the fun out of politics.

It used to be like a good football game where you could cheer for your side.

Now that "...we are dominated by careerist Sophists...that have no morality, have not the courage of their convictions (if they have any at all)," it is, at least, discouraging.

I fear that once one is elected to congress, the lure of the private jets and private everything overwhelms all the reasons we voted for them in the first place...and I hate cynics!

Are you just making stuff up?

Sure, as discussed below, everyone had a pretty good idea about how the vote was going to go. But they DID NOT wait until "the issue had been decided". That's a fib.

You will note that I conceded that people pretty much knew the outcome of the vote. However, you stated:

Greg, Did you miss that these two brave leaders of the Democratic Party did not cast their votes until AFTER the issue had been decided?

It is undisputed that both Obama and Hillary cast their votes *before* the issue had been decided. They actually voted early on. Therefore, what you said is untrue.

Now, your points about these two not saying anything about the vote is true. They also totally kept quiet and in all likelihood knew that their votes weren't going to make a bit of difference.

Your point is well taken. I just was correcting the way you put it.

With all of that being said, I don't quite even understand why they voted against it...

On one hand, anti-war people are pissed because we know that they just voted the way they did because they had cover. They didn't actively oppose it.

On the other hand, the pro-war people can be happy they got their money but no thanks to Hillary and Obama, who voted against it.

Its lose-lose.

Isn't it just like the Repugs to demand strict adherence intellectual purity. Oh, it's the Dims you say....

What I want to know is why no one is saying anything about the Executive order signed May 9th granting the Presidency (AKA GWB) the authority to take over control of ALL governmental and business activities in the US in the event of a vaguely describe "'Catastrophic Emergency' means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions".

This is an frightening power grab in which based on a presidentially declare emergency all national functions can be taken over and controlled by the president with NO possibility of congressional oversight.

Here is the link to the White House website text of this Presidential degree labeled NSPD 51.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

All of the senators knew the outcome of the vote before the voting began. That is always the case, except in extremely rare cases where the vote is very close, and some senators have refused to commit to vote either way. This was not one of those exceptions. The senators voted when their schedules allowed them to. And, every single one of them knew the outcome before they voted. That is why it is not worrisome.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Can you say with certainty that it won't be enough to turn a key swing state in a close election?

If the 2000 election taught us anything, it's that every vote matters.

 Well they could have read Knight-Ridder; they could have read the European press

Even more importantly they could have read the classified NIE report unavailable to the public which indicated considerable doubt about the existence of WMD's and any link to AL-Q.

Edwards was ON the intelligence cmte, for pete's sake!  He has no excuse, he could have followed the lead of the ranking member Bob Graham and voted no, given that Graham DID read the NIE report.