It strikes me as ambiguous. Would he have voted, "No," or would he simply have absented himself from the Senate? It seems to me bear either interpretation.

This is one where you have to take a guy's word for it since he's not in the Senate couldn't have cast a vote. There's no reason to doubt his word.

This issue is really only relevant for sitting Senators, many of whom showed themselves to be absolute and complete cowards or fools or both. Clinton did the right thing. Obama dodging the vote was an error on his part.

you can be against the ad AND against the resolution.

Edwards: I Would Have Voted Against Resolution Condemning MoveOn

LOL. You mean just like Obama would have voted against the AUMF if he had been in the U.S. Senate, but repeatedly voted to perpetuate the war once he got there?

I believe Edwards would have voted 'no' on the MoveOn resolution, but I am tired of these claims about how a politician would have voted if they had been in position. Edwards was there and voted for AUMF, then became a serial apologizer when the vote turned out to be unpopular. I am sure that had he not been in the Senate at the time, Edwards would be claiming that he would have voted against the AUMF.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... NO MORE, PLEASE!

I like Edwards and am leaning toward supporting him, but I would be with him all the way if he had said that he would have voted NO because political speech is protected under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and we have had enough destruction of the Constitution through the present Administration, not without a lot of help from some miserable Democrats.

lonetreefox is a constitutional idiot. the First Amendment merely forbids the Congress from passing laws infringing speech, it doesn't protect speech. we can criticize, condemn and do whatever we want as long as we don't stop the speech.

i hate people who use constitutional principles incorrectly.

Judy uses semantic games to obfuscate the real issue.

The real question is how would he have voted if he was in the Senate, NOT running fro president?

For that you have to look at this voting record when he was in the Senate, starting with the authorization to attack Iraq which he co-sponsored.

Judy, your condemnation of lonetreefox is itself 'idiocy'..

In fact, the FIRST AMENDMENT does restrain Congress from enactment of ANY law that 'abridges' the exercise of free speech, freedom of the press...etc"

But what purpose do you think it serves to assail a fellow commenter because you wish to engage in some semantic exercise?

Are you a constitutional expert? If so, I hope you are considered soon for the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michael Caine is exactly right -- there is no infringement upon free speech by Congress merely condemning the ad. If they weren't allowed to take this action, they would themselves being having there free speech rights restricted.

I have to say thatI find Dcshungo's charge that because Obama has voted for funding of the war it somehow means he would have voted for the AUMF to be quite wrongheaded. One is able to find numerous elected officials who voted for funding after the war took place but voted against the original AUMF. For instance, my very own Congresswoman, Rep. Darleen Hooley, has done just that.

Oh come on now - ferchrisakes leave it alone.

Moveon putup up a needlessly confrontational ad - all they did was supply the ringwing nuts ammo to use against those of us in the anti-war movement. It was pointless, stupid, and mis-directed - the General is saying what he was told to say - he's a small player in a larger PR war. Just stop it everyone -

Moveon overpalyed it's hand - that should be obvious to all. I'm with them, but, my god, can't they do it more artfully and less confrontationally?

Look, folks we've got a 51-49 majority in the Senate - that only means we control the committees. Grow up - we can't get legislation passed because of the Senate rules.

I'm getting tired of starry-eyed progressives looking for political purity - politics ain't beanball - politics is a cesspool and as soon as you understand that, we can begin to move on.

Sorry to be so cynical -
Salmon Jack

Why is anyone surprised that Petraeus is a toady. When I was active duty, I knew many officers who were toadies. When working as a civilian, I also knew many toadies!

The more interesting question is why the Dem leaders in the Senate thought any of this was worth their time. Moveon put up an ad that basically said Bush's puppet general lied. That's exactly what the Senate Dems who voted for the 2002 resolution and who just happen to be running for the Dem Prez nomination are also saying--folks like Hillary.

Hillary just got a bit more cover from the moveon folks for her 2002 vote. Ah, political strategy by the Dem DC establishment is never fun to watch.

So, yes, let's tar and feather the two frontrunners who are not Dem DC establishment--Edwards and Obama. Thanks, moveon, for the fodder you provided to Reps and DC Dems who want to stay in power and who want more cover for their 2002 votes.

Moveon needs to get better at their strategy.

I like a lot of what Edwards is saying, but it really bothers me when he starts talking about what he would have done if he "was in the Senate", especially when you look at some of his votes while he was there.

why do we believe Edwards? He has changed his position on so many issues over the past 3 years for political reasons that he is something like Mitt Romney of the Democratic party. Think the Republicans did a number on Kerry as a flip-flopper, wait till they get their hands on Edwards. Please remember that this ad is in response to an unpopular war and John Edwards is a co-sponsor of the bill to go to war. subsequent to the passage of the bill he was a cheerleader to go to war till he started running for president and he disavowed his vote as a mistake. Does he really think everyone is so dumb that they will believe anything he says? Moreover even though this is his war he has never been to Iraq once (well at least I could not find any reference to it but I may be wrong).

There may have been no "law" passed and therefore no technical First Amendment violation. There was, however, a clear attempt by a powerful government entity to chill free speech of the kind most deserving of constitutional protection, i.e., speech with clear political content. I have no problem with individual senators disagreeing with the ad (though I have no problem with it personally). But when they ganged up to pass a resolution, I think that action does raise First Amendment dangers. The fact that so many Democrats voted for this is appalling.

This whole line is an academic waste of time JUST LIKE THE WASTE OF TIME ON THE SAME SUBJECT IN THE SENATE...

I'm no constitutional "expert," but it seems to me that Cornyn's amendment was simply crude politics.

Cornyn told Texans that he wanted to be elected to the U. S. Senate so he could promote George W. Bush's agenda. He has been true to that promise in everything he has done in Washington, including sponsorship of this blatantly political amendment.

Make no mistake, Cornyn's purpose was to villify and damage the credibility of MoveOn.Org and its 3.2-million members, like me, who are generally progressives.

It's dirty politics, pure and simple, and it's a shame that 22 Democrats fell for and supported Cornyn's ploy.

The resolution violated the spirit of the First Amendment. It selectively condemns strong criticism of the military.

I don't want the Senate to spend time being all PC and criticizing ads and such, but at least the Boxer alternative was more general. This selective attempt to silence is troubling given the principles of the 1A It is not "stupid" to say this.

It is unfair to criticize Edwards for saying what he would do if he was in the Senate. People ask what he would do if President ... he isn't President. It is fine to ask in various cases what one would do if in that situation. And, yes, you can be against the use of "Betray Us" (the website suggests the ad itself is more right than wrong) but be against the resolution.

I am somewhat suspicious of Obama ... it is in no way impossible that if he was actually in the Senate at the time, he would have taken the Kerry route. Some "above the fray" path to split the baby that would have given the Pres. power anyway. But, I can't say ... I just can't be totally sure he would have voted the way he spoke in the safety of not having to make the decision in the Senate.

Keep in mind that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq War in 2002. Obama could have easily joined with folks like Pelosi because they had the same reasons and logical argument for voting against the war. To suggest that Obama's postion in 2002 was some sort of "by himself" postion is simply false and gives a pass to candidates like Clinton.

What is more troubling is that a majority of our Senate Democrats--and a significant number of our Dem candidates for Prez--went the opposite way and voted with the GOP to agree to this war in 2002. These folks have a vested interest in blaming Bush totally and failing to remind us Dems that they were actually the MINORITY position among the Congressinal Democrats. To go against your party this way should require some solid reasons. Ask yourself if those exist.

I am okay with Edwards rethinking his vote and saying he was wrong. I remember his MTP interview earlier this year when he said one of several reasons he voted for the war was that former Clinton administration officials provided convincing arguments that the war was necessary. That's the reason Hillary went for this war and failed to read the NIE.

Think about minority positions in the party and who took them and whether or not they were right. The DC Dem establishment, particularly in the Senate, was spectacularly WRONG.

In response to Edwards being smart...really smart...yes he is smart alright, because he is manipulating us. Obviously a 50+ year old man does not suddenly have a surge of intelligence so he has to explain why being on the intelligence committee did he
a) co-sponsor the AUMF bill?
b)cheerlead the war effort
c)vote against all measures that would have put the house in control of this war effort (Byrd amendment)
d)not go to Iraq even once and then issue a public mea culpa when he is out of office

He is a lawyer and lawyers are meant to read everything before they sign on the dotted line...let alone lend their weight behind the bill and sponsor it.

and the there is:

- his vote for Patriot act
- vote for dumping at the Yucca mountain which has been described as a public health and environmental disaster (because of which he has withdrawn from the Nevada primary)
- vote for free trade with China
- vote for the bankruptcy act which gives carte blanche powers to the credit card companies (yes the same corporations he rails against)
- vote for open top mountain mining which strips virgin land of vegetation.

Yes he is smart and he is playing us for gullible chumps. He has disavowed all his previous votes as mistakes made because of Beltway advisers: which can mean 2 things either he does not have any conviction of his own or he is an opportunist of the first order.

Correction: that's "enable," not "ebabble." Had there been a spell check enabler on this, I would have used it...

"Michael Caine":

I wish you would get straight what the senate resolution DID SAY, not how you wish to portray it.

The resolution says the senators "STRONGLY CONDEMN personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

The senate resolution did NOT say "that they did not like the ad," as you have paraphrased it.

The senators were NOT just "criticizing what someone said"; they were CONDEMNING "what someone said."

Correction: that's "enable," not "ebabble." Had there been a spell check enabler on this, I would have used it...

I use Mozilla Firefox as my web browser when I post here and it does have a built-in spell-checker that flags misspelled words.

Once more: The only vote that counts is the one that is actually cast. I do not think that it is very smart or even useful to speculate on how a Senator might have voted on a given resolution, especially if s/he was not part of the debate or was under no political pressure...

Obama was against the war as a State Senator, but voted repeatedly to perpetuate the war once he got to the US Senate. With such a record, who amongst us can say for sure how Obama might have voted on the AUMF resolution had he been a US Senator at the time? The good Senator had, in fact, conceded that even he was not sure how he might have voted had been in the US Senate.

Edwards voted for AUMF then began to apologize ad nauseam once the vote in Bush's hands led to disaster, and he became a presidential candidate.

So, the only vote that counts is one that is actually cast. A Senator claiming, with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight, that he or she would have voted differently when the more popular view becomes known is, IMHO, full of it and an opportunist, especially if he is running for POTUS.

poetry, your so right! What was I thinking!?!

When the Senate produces' a statement saying they "Strongly Condemn" such and such it doesn't mean that they are saying "they don't like it."

Get a grip, poetry. Rather than going all hysterical over Republicans, successfully thanks to people like you, setting the agenda of day thru a fluff resolution. Why don't you concentrate on the fact that Reid-Feingold and Levin-Reed haven't moved an inch.

Focusing on the fluff legislation rather than letting it die on vine means that Republicans aren't getting raked over the coals over their intransigence on Iraq. Way to support the Republican Agenda, poetry and others still going on about this.

Edwards has kind of botched this issue and has probably determined that this is the best way out.

First when he was asked what he thought about the ad, he said that he had not seen it. That seems rather dubious given that it was a full page ad in the NYT and had been given a lot of coverage. Surely someone on his staff must have pointed out the ad and discussed with him.

Then, a few days later, his wife criticizes the ad so we are to believe that she saw it but he did not.

Now he says that it was a waste of time for the Senate to vote on a resolution condemning the ad so he opposes the resolution on procedural grounds.

Sometimes candidates can look bad by trying to be "too clever" and trying to have it both ways on controversial issues. This little dance just gives the impression that Edwards is too slick.

Who does Edwards think he is? Fred Thompson?