one word: semantics

Nothing short of a fiery self-immolation could satisfy Stoller, who bashes Democrats with more gusto than do the editors of Red State.

I wish Harry Reid had kept that damn thing from coming to a vote--it is a distraction.

I also wish the Obama campaign had gotten ahead of the blog reaction to this by releasing the statement before the all-too-predictable backlash erupted.

The vote was only a few hours ago so I don't think this statement is really "behind the reaction," at least not for the majority of voters who, you know, work for a living.

The Atlanta rally, contra The Hill, had no role in this.

Obama voted on the Feingold bill two hours later.

More Democrats should have boycotted this idiotic vote. What a waste of time. Nothing Obama does will please Stoller.

Works for me. Obama is right on, and Stoller is an idiot. The Dem-bashing in certain parts of the blogosphere is Karl Rove's fantasy come true.

Obama's missing the vote: Profile in Courage. If the kitchen is too hot, let's get out!

Folks, with friends like MoveOn clowns, you don't need enemies. Voting for the Boxer bill but not BetrayUs bill makes no sense. Is BetrayUs not a military figure? The only sensible vote is against both, which is achieved only by Russ Feigold. He got it right!

The Democrats in the senate need to go tit for tat. Give us a resolution condemning the catastrophe in Iraq and the unfair malignment of parents and protesters begging for an exit strategy. Hit the Republicans in the gut. And hit them as hard as you can!

The senate voted to CONDEMN anyone's RIGHT to express an opinion the senators do not agree with.

You should all be terrified that this is dismissed so lightly.

Here's the resolution (it does not mention MoveOn.org -- it is intended to silence all criticism of all military people):

"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

If your are going to vote no on one you should vote no on both. If you vote yes on one, you might as well have voted yes on both. Both ammendments said almost the same thing. The democrats lost on this one again. Reid should not have let either ammendment come up for vote. I think we need a new majority leader and maybe we could select Feingold.

It's a stupid piece of petty politics, but I don't see where they condemned anyone's rights.

Beware of politicians decrying politics.

"Jeremy":

One person's FREE SPEECH is another person's (a Republican's) "personal attack," and THAT is what they are CONDEMNING.

I say it is FREE SPEECH that is at risk here.

Everyone is hyper-ventilating on something that is plainly obvious: Obama ducked the MoveOn condemnation vote for purely presidential politics reasons. It was no 'profile in courage' or 'new kind of politics.'

If he wanted to protest the triviality of the resolution, he should have gotten to the Senate floor and voiced his dissent. To reappear after the votes have been cast and counted and claim that he was making a statement (by not making one) is simply incredible and ludicrous.

poetry--

nothing is being out-lawed or prohibitied. There's no fine for voicing the language in question. All the Senate is doing is saying, "hey, we don't like that!"

This is on a level below a flag-burning amendment. Please. It was a stupid political stunt, not some major fight.

An awful of lot words being spilled over a political stunt.

Yes, "mopper," those are all important issues.

BUT the very fact that the Republicans senators thought THIS issue should have priority over all those issues should tell you how committed they are to denying us our RIGHT to FREE SPEECH.

Interesting that the Senate didn't vote to condemn Paul Krugman for his column making the case that Petraeus was shilling for the administration and not for the first time.

poetry,

Quit being such a drama queen. It was a meaningless resolution saying some Senators didn't like what they said. Your hyperbolic hyperventilating aside, it simply did not condemn their right to say it. You might make a "chilling effect" argument, but judging from their response moveon doesn't exactly seem intimidated.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that moveon's rhetorical choices had some part in creating this sideshow? Sometimes I get the impression that too many who I agree with politically want to beat the wingnuts and freepers by adopting their tactics. . . tactics that have generated considerable political blowback.

I don't know. Does this kind of stuff play with waivering Reps and indies or is moveon just tossing out red meat with ads like this? It certainly seems like the Reps won this round of faux-outrage with this resolution passing. Was it really smart for moveon to put Dems in the position of defending "Petraus is a traitor"? Just asking.

Think of it:

Did the MoveOn ad say anything that was factually untrue?

Are the Republican senators criticizing the MoveOn group for writing something that was not true?

No.

But think of this:

The senate Republicans, though in the minority, so COWED some 20 Democratic senators (some even from Blue sates), that these Democrats voted FOR a resolution condemning a political group for saying something with which the Republicans did not agree. (We may never know if those Democrats agreed with the text of the MoveOn ad or not.)

These Democrats actually voted to condemn anyone who utters a negative statement about any military person, regardless of whether it is true or not.

Twenty Democrats were sucked into the Republican vortex and voted in a way that I am sure they are ashamed of in private.

They are saying that, in America, dissent is no longer an option. That if you speak out against a group the Republicans wish to defend, the Republicans will whipsaw the Democrats into supporting a fiendish resolution condemning you for exerting your Constitutional RIGHT to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Appalling.

For weeks now, EC has been about everything but important issues regarding, um, you know, candidates' positions on big issues, important election realities and their consequences.

I think most EC posters [ who selectively choose inanities or non-election news to be given a post], other blog writers most often referenced [Matt Stoller & Ben Smith...to wit] and most commenters here are male.

But, by the tonality and pettiness , geez, I would swear that I am witnessing a gaggle of old hens sitting on the porch of an old folks' home with nothing better to do than vie for who can come up with the most tit-for-tat irrelevant bitchiness about the silliest things.

the ad was vapid.

Dodd pretty much took Obama to school on this one. Does this give anyone confidence that Obama would be a stand up guy as President?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/20/171936/036

check this out

trivial is the wrong word. it was no more trivial than the old HUAC, or what Joe McCarthy did. he should have "voted", and "fought", as well as "protested".

Obama goofed.

Flamingo wrote on September 20, 2007 5:00 PM:

"Works for me. Obama is right on, and Stoller is an idiot. The Dem-bashing in certain parts of the blogosphere is Karl Rove's fantasy come true. "

Seriously, Stoller has gone around the bend and it's nauseating to see it posted here as if it's relevant.

DonnaG, I also agree with what you said 100% re: EC, who it links, and the contenct of the comments. It's sad really, I used to think the conversations/issues discussed here were a cut above the rest of the web, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Obama is downright delusional.

(1) You don't register a protest by saying nothing.

(2) Kissing babies is "empty politics." This is mass demonization.

DC Dems have one or more important reasons for allowing such political nonsense to arrive on the Senate floor. That's what needs to be examined.

It's a shot against moveon's money-raising ability that will go to support Dems that the WDC Dem leadership does not want in Congress. And it undoubtedly helped the DC Dem candidate, and that's Hillary. Some moveon folks will see her vote as a positive for Hillary; others won't.

So what are these folks banking on? That the movement out here in the non-DC country will fizzle out and that the Dem establishment folks will retain their political power.

I don't think they are right, but we certainly need to become sharper on the underlying reasons political plays happen in the Senate--which seems to have a collection of DLC Dems in it.