None of the Dem Senators running for president voted on Mukasky. And what is the politics of this short notice given in the Senate on such an important vote? Hmmm, wonder what Biden, Dodd, and Clinton have to say?

Eric, every person in the Senate who is running for president missed that vote: Obama, Hillary, Dodd and Biden.

Dude, please, please save us from fifty comments screaming "Hillary Bias" and fix this now so we can bitch about something else here.

Good luck, NCSteve: Eric is shameless.

But the good news is we won't get fifty posts, because the supporters of the other candidates are in no position to throw stones.

You already reported -- just 4 items and 49 minutes before this one -- that all four Senators among the Democratic presidential candidates (Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Obama) missed this vote.

I assume that your separate headlines for Clinton, Biden, and Dodd are imminent.

Whatever happened to the "Dodd Filibuster"? Y'know? The one that the netroots and wingnuts tried to bully HRC into endorsing lest she be flooded with thousands phone calls from angry lefties? I am happy that HRC did not reflexively bow to pressure and announce support for the "Dodd Filibuster."

NCSteve wrote on November 9, 2007 9:18 AM:

Eric, every person in the Senate who is running for president missed that vote: Obama, Hillary, Dodd and Biden.

And, as far as I know, only Obama has released a statement, which TPM-EC has correctly considered newsworthy enough about this election to report. In fact, that Obama is the only candidate (so far) among those who'd ducked this vote to release a statement is reflexive, even Pavlovian, in view of his ducking K-L and the ensuing fall out.

The only question that remains is whether Obama, having ducked the vote, would be true to form and feel justified to pontificate if the "Muk" man turns out to be Gonzo redux. People who miss votes, any kind of vote, lose the moral authority to bitch about the consequences of that vote. That is why those who would "sit this one out" would have no moral authority to criticize HRC when she becomes POTUS -- not that this would stop them; having "ducked" the vote they'd become her loudest critics (sounds familiar?)!

Congrats on the great scoop, Eric. I smell pulitzer.

And what exactly is up with Reid and all these vote scheduling shenanigans?

People who miss votes, any kind of vote, lose the moral authority to bitch about the consequences of that vote.

LOL! How about people who show up for a vote for war and vote in favor of it? Do they lose the moral authority to bitch about the war?

NCSteve wrote on November 9, 2007 9:18 AM: Eric, every person in the Senate who is running for president missed that vote: Obama, Hillary, Dodd and Biden.

Dude, please, please save us from fifty comments screaming "Hillary Bias" and fix this now so we can bitch about something else here.

Alas, I'm not that luck on this friday morning.

dschungu, I may be missing something (really, have been out of town for a few days), but the Dodd fillibuster was threatened on telecom immunity, not on Mukasey. What are you talking about?

Just a quick observation from one of NCSteve's Hillaroids.

I note that the only slam against Obama re this came from Richard L. Adlof, notorious Hillary-hater. I agree that the special headline without the clarification on the other senators not voting is a little dodgy.

Obama in 2016!

LOL! How about people who show up for a vote for war and vote in favor of it? Do they lose the moral authority to bitch about the war?

Emphatically, YES, they do and that is precisely the point!!!! They voted for it and the POTUS messed up by waging the war incompetently, therefore they have the moral authority to hold his feet to the fire for doing a lousy job with the authorization that they'd given him. After I vote for Clinton and she is elected, I will have the moral authority to complain if she does not live up to the promises that she'd made me. Those who would vote against her would clearly also have the right to bitch because they did not agree with her in the first place. But those who take a position by not taking one ("sitting it out") are "cowards" who have no right to complain about the outcome of a decision that they did not make (a decision that was, in fact, made for them, which is why philosophically they are "cowards").

This is not even a subtle point, but having minored in philosophy I might have an easier perspective on this sort of things: Choice, freedom and morality are intimately linked concepts. We are free to choose, but once we exercise that freedom and make a choice we become morally responsible for the consequences and must live with them (which is why I am not bothered that Hillary did not issue ad nauseam mea culpas for her AUMF vote -- I have never defended that vote -- but instead to do what she can to hold Bush's feet to the fire to try to rectify the initial error.)

I have written long post-essays about my views on all of this so you'd have to forgive me if I do not feel like reiterating them here.

In fact, I gotta go...

How could this have happened. No candidate voted? This is terrible.

LOL! How about people who show up for a vote for war and vote in favor of it? Do they lose the moral authority to bitch about the war?

OOOOPS!

The question was an implied negative so
that should have been: Emphatically, NO, they do NOT and that is precisely the point!!!... as should be clear from the subsequent comments.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...

colonpowwow,

My response to the prior article pointing out the no show of the candidates stated that if Biden, Clinton, Dood, Obama and McCain were sniped by Reid and the Senate leadership, I would happily stand behind every one of them becuase they had all expressed reservations about either Mukasey himself and/or torture.

Obama's campaign just stated that Obama knew about the vote and the candidate could not be bothered to attempt to stand up for human rights becuase he felt his vote would not have mattered.

Obama had a real tool to use to defend our rights and the rule of law and PUBLICLY announced that he SPECIFICALLY and KNOWINGLY CHOSE to AVOID using it.

If the other four did the same they should ALL be retired from public life IMMEDIATELY.

The fact that this does not disturb more of us is trully disconcerting . . .

Jake D:

Who do you want to see win the general election in 2008?

Jacking D.,

To clarify my P.O.V.:

If Biden, Clinton, Dodd and McCain did the Republican-like chickenhawk sorta bull__it thing and ran from doing the right thing by running from an almost midnight vote, then they should be retired.

Repeat: If they just could not be bother to be a leader doing the right thing . . . Then I am done with them.

If they were pooched by leadership then bad on Reid.

The only thing required for evil to suceed is for good folk to do nothing.

Richard L. Adolf:

You don't think Hillary Clinton knew at least as much as Obama? At the very least, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, you will not vote for him in either the primary or the 2008 general election, right?

per Marc Ambinder:

Two new reputable polls of New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters will show statistically significant drops in support for frontrtunner Hillary Clinton, Democrats who have seen those polls said today.

The polls will be released this weekend and are embargoed; though I'm not privy to the embargo agreement, I'll be a little vague out of respect for the polling organizations.

One of the polls shows that the gap between Clinton and Barack Obama narrowed by more than 10 points. Her biggest decline was seen among older voters.

The other shows Clinton's lead over Obama reduced by approximately 9 points.

John Edwards remains at about 15 percent in both