Obama In Iowa When Mukasey Vote Was Scheduled

Comments (36)

John wrote on November 9, 2007 9:11 AM:

"He's already announced his position on it. I don't think the vote will be close."

That's leadership? Keep it up Obama and you'll be lucky to keep your Senate Seat.

DonnaG wrote on November 9, 2007 9:16 AM:

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?

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

It was certainly a pretty moronic statement, since every important vote like this one should matter to the Senator, but lets be clear who really deserves our anger.

“After the longest confirmation process in nearly 20 years, the Senate has finally voted to confirm Judge Mukasey as attorney general,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Senate GOP Conference. “The Department of Justice has a vital role to play in the war against Islamic terrorists, and it is critically important that it have a leader who can ensure that it fulfills its mission. Judge Mukasey is this kind of leader.” Thursday’s vote came as bit of surprise. Earlier in the day, Reid said he was not sure whether there would be a filibuster on the nomination, which would have required 60 votes to break. The majority leader signaled that a vote could even be delayed until after the two-week Thanksgiving recess, which starts at the end of next week.

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.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 9, 2007 9:28 AM:

Please stop cutting and pasting oppo research items from the Clinton campaign.

None of the four were there for the vote, so this is a patently unfair post.

DTM wrote on November 9, 2007 9:29 AM:

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.

Jim Lyons wrote on November 9, 2007 10:00 AM:

It wasn't close. Senator Obama wants to win. To win he must be in Iowa.

BTW - picking up ground in Iowa.

I'll be there (flying in from PA) to help in the pre-caucus week.

Obama '08
Join the movement.

horizonr wrote on November 9, 2007 10:12 AM:

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.

NCSteve wrote on November 9, 2007 10:15 AM:

DTM,

Would that it were so.

I hoping the forestall the usual cycle. You know the one I mean: the Hillaroids see an uncomplimentary item about Obama and pounce without direct instructions from the Cube. Then, when they found out she missed it too, we'd get the headache inducing doublethink "explaining" how Hillary's missing the vote was totally different from Obama's missing it.

dcshungu wrote on November 9, 2007 10:25 AM:

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?)!

Michael wrote on November 9, 2007 10:28 AM:

Actually, I'm glad he was in iowa campaigning. Mukasey was going to be confirmed anyway. Why waste the time. Get out there and get voters to beat clinton!!!! That's more important right now as opposed to a meaningless no vote on mukasey.

LJ wrote on November 9, 2007 10:28 AM:

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

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

DTM wrote on November 9, 2007 10:29 AM:

NCSteve,

Obviously you were right, and I stand corrected.

LJ wrote on November 9, 2007 10:32 AM:

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 10:39 AM:

Aaaannd, just like clockwork, heeeerrrre's DSChungu with that headache-inducing doublethink explanation of how Hillary's missing the vote was totally different and morally superior to Obama's having missed it I was expecting.

Thanks for that. Plusgood, that one.

slcathena wrote on November 9, 2007 10:45 AM:

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?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 11:04 AM:

A real Democratic leader woulda pulled a "Mister Smith" flew back and filibustered Mukasey's pasty white arse rather say that his vote doesn't count . . .

I coulda stood behind him if Reid had sniped him BUT no person who could not be bothered to stand up for human rights should ever be President.

colonpowwow wrote on November 9, 2007 11:17 AM:

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!

votenic wrote on November 9, 2007 11:19 AM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

dcshungu wrote on November 9, 2007 11:24 AM:

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...

willyjsimmons wrote on November 9, 2007 11:26 AM:

Forget the Obama vs. Clinton crap for two seconds (silly)...

who is going to find out if Reid did this on purpose?

Why in the world do you call such an important vote

1.) late in the evening? Trying to avoid news coverage?

2.) on short notice? Trying to catch other Dems off guard?

What the frack is going on?

Mike M. wrote on November 9, 2007 11:33 AM:

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

dcshungu wrote on November 9, 2007 11:36 AM:

Aaaannd, just like clockwork, heeeerrrre's DSChungu with that headache-inducing doublethink explanation of how Hillary's missing the vote was totally different and morally superior to Obama's having missed it I was expecting

Just got glimpse of that comment on my way out. All I did was to state the obvious about what Obama has done in the past re:ducked votes. He's ducked votes and then turned around and slammed those who had voted. I did not defend Hillary for ducking this vote, and I would be the first to criticize her if she tries to be "Clintonian" (as in Bill) about why she ducked it. She, like the other candidates, lost the moral authority to bitch about the "Muk" man. Period.

Ciao, capi!

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 11:42 AM:

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...

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 11:58 AM:

I assume all of you with 9-5 jobs are at work, TODAY, on a Friday? Why is it only President Bush who gets flack when he's on "vacation"?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 12:09 PM:

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 wrote on November 9, 2007 12:16 PM:

I agree with Richard L. Adlof that Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Dodd should ALL be retired from public life IMMEDIATELY.

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 12:46 PM:

Jake D:

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

AJM wrote on November 9, 2007 12:52 PM:

I have no idea why Reid set it up that way.

53/40 in the Senate where 40 can conduct a filibuster is not necessarily close.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 1:27 PM:

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.

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 1:30 PM:

Anonymous:

Edwards

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/LeeEdwards.cfm

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 1:33 PM:

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?

tony wrote on November 9, 2007 1:37 PM:

I think this was more dirty tricks from the democratic leadership. Obama missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote because Reid implied he would postpone it by a week. Now Reid calls this vote on short notice when all 4 candidates are out campaign and would have to go through hell to back to DC.

I'm not pissed at the candidates. This is just more funny business by the Democratic leadership and it's got to stop.

opulent wrote on November 9, 2007 1:45 PM:

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

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 1:45 PM:

New thread: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/richardson_blasts_hillary_obama_dodd_and_biden_on_mukasey_vote.php

colonpowwow wrote on November 9, 2007 2:24 PM:

Puh-lease everybody. I can't believe some of the hyperbole over a missed meaningless vote (the outcome was inevitable, there were not enough votes to sustain a filibuster, Mukasey, although at the very least, repugnant, would have been replaced in the voting box by Ted Olson or someone just as excrible, and finally, wasn't Mukasey originally suggested to Bush by the Democrats as someone they could support?

Get some perspective or cut down on the caffeine. The presidential caucuses and primaries are imminent. Sorry, but that's more important than this meaningless vote.

The fight on this is literally, so last week, all these candidates went on record on how they stood re a vote, and after the dust settled, this confirmation was inevitable.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)