Don't get a boner...Clinton and Obama voted NO after it was already safe.

[Atman]

There were already enough votes to pass the measure. Shallow "sound bite" votes, good for campaign commercials, nothing more.

.

[LSK]

1. who was out in front of this all week? JOHN EDWARDS

He said send the timetable bill back to Bush again and again and again.

[Liberal In Texas]

5. Exactly. After hearing him on radio shows this week, I like him more and more. n/t

[Atman]

8. But what about his HAIR! And his HOUSE!

Isn't that what it's all about?????

Do I really have to post the :sarcasm: icon? The stock one isn't dripping enough.

.

[Neshanic]

11. No, you have it wrong, his HOUSE, then his HAIR. Lets get the important things.

[malaise]

30. Edwards did send them into a spin this week but remember he

merely repeated what Mike Gravel suggested since the debate.

[judaspriestess]

102. I noticed that too, he really heard and took in what

Mike Gravel said. The man may be a little bit of a loose cannon but He is right on this issue.

[malaise]

108. The sysyem desperately needs

loose canons although that's not my view of Gravel. Mike Gravel paid his dues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
He is primarily known for his efforts in ending the draft following the Vietnam War and for having put into the public record the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

In 1971 Gravel played a key role in the release of the Pentagon Papers — a large collection of secret government documents pertaining to the Vietnam War — which were made public by former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Gravel inserted 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. These pages were later issued by the Beacon Press as the "Senator Gravel Edition" — the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published. The "Gravel Edition" was edited and annotated by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and included an additional volume of analytical articles on the origins and progress of the war, also edited by Chomsky and Zinn.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/

[Madspirit]

65. You Forgot

...the lightbulbs IN the house. :popcorn:
Lee

[Neshanic]

75. I am NOT the lightbulb person. I was the LEED certification troll.

[Madspirit]

83. Somebody

Somebody went on about how Elizabeth didn't change out the old light bulbs fast enough...FOR DAYS AND DAYS. :rofl: I wanted to go shoot light bulbs with a BB gun by the time that thread stopped jumping to the top.
Lee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. He's my candidate right now but gets no credit from me since he's not in the senate

and can't be tested on what he says he would ahve done

[pnwmom]

44. Exactly. So no one can blame him for voting against the minimum wage

increase of 43% that was part of the funding package.

[Timbuk3]

98. Trading a pay raise for more carnage? Nice.

Has anyone run a balance sheet on what that raise in the minimum wage is going to cost in lives and dollars to Iraq?

[MadBadger]

14. So easy for John Edwards to say

[LSK]

18. yeah, hes only running for President, no pressure there...

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

40. Not that he actually had to vote.

And in voting no, vote against a minimum wage increase, among other funding bill items that will benefit many low and middle income Americans.

[tammywammy]

51. ditto that's exactly what I think

Edwards can get out there and talk all he wants, but he doesn't have to actually make the vote.

This is a stupid stupid arguement if you're trying to get someone to be pro-Edwards

[Clark2008]

46. Who voted for the war? JOHN EDWARDS

And, yes, I'll keep repeating this.

PATRIOT Act
NCLB
Yucca Moutain
Predatory lending

Sorry. Don't trust a word he says.

[huskerlaw]

50. Yawn.

Don't you get tired of typing the same thing in every thread that mentions Edwards?

Guess what? We all know all of that. We've all made up our minds about it one way or the other. Stop beating a dead horse.

[Horse with no Name]

55. And Obama says he wouldn't have

But I sure as fuck bet it would have been after it was a meaningless vote. The fucker is cardboard. Better keep his finger in that wind or it will knock him down.

[MadBadger]

76. Whatever you say

I watched that clip five years ago on youtube. That guy sure seemed to predict what was going to happen in Iraq pretty well.

[Critters2]

105. Didn't just vote for it. Sponsored the resolution.

Talk is cheap.

[KittyWampus]

100. Edwards was out in front? What a laugh. He didn't have to vote. Big fucking deal. We know his record

as a Senator and as a POTUS candidate from last time.

He would have done the same thing.

[Quantess]

101. Edwards rules.

He's one of my favorite contenders.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

114. He sure did

It's good to know someone was paying attention to what the majority of Americans wanted to hear.

[Buck Rabbit]

116. Yes, he wanted the :"Time Table" bill which had no more effect than this one.

Both of these bills had the exact same effect on ending the war. None. The "send the time table bill back over and over" was as empty rhetoric as the rhetoric that this bill ends Bush's blank check.

[CTD]

2. BINGO!

That's the first thing I thought as well. The major news outlets had already called the vote before they cast their votes.

No spine. No leadership. Just empty pandering.

Typical DLC Dems.

[Moochy]

10. This is why there is no 'sausage making channel'

The next best thing is CSPAN-2! :puke:

[Horse with no Name]

3. Cowardly comes to mind.

IF they wanted to send a message, they would have cast the first votes.

[uppityperson]

6. Politicians.

[tabasco]

91. I completely agree. They could not be more transparent.

They think the anti-Iraq war people are stupid.

A lack of leadership at a time when we desperately need leaders.

[MzNov]

4. That's EXACTLY how it works. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

9. there was never a question

that it wouldn't pass with a huge majority. They knew that yesterday.

[Horse with no Name]

17. Yet neither would say how they were going to vote today

when asked AND when the vote was golden they voted.
Cowards.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. There's been so much bullshit

tossed around here today, but this takes the prize.

There was NEVER a second where anybody thought this wouldnt pass, and by a huge margin.

They didn't have to wait for the vote count to decide how they were voting. Perhaps they were actually thinking about it and reading the bill, and doing other work on floor on the Senate.

Christ, even when they do what people here want, they still get attacked. It's insane.

[Horse with no Name]

33. You can let them pander to you.

I have to laugh that someone actually today THOUGHT that Obama would actually stand up for something.
Bullshit. He is a fucking coward.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. by voting the way you wanted him to?

this place has gone nuts today.

[Horse with no Name]

49. His vote was meaningless

He could have taken an earlier flight. He didn't do shit.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. ok

you go have your childish tantrum. It's stupid, though.

Do you honestly think there was a question of whether this bill would pass or not?

[Horse with no Name]

66. It didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing

Which is what makes this even worse.
They should have made the gesture...or announced to everyone their intentions--that would have been enough.
But they have STONEWALLED every inquiry about it today...and then cast their votes AFTER it had already passed.
Pure political pandering. No, thank you.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

97. Their SENATORIAL DUTY was to speak in SUPPORT of their position PUBLICALLY

as any LEADER would do.


Mr. President, I would like to speak about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I will oppose this legislation for the simple reason that it does nothing to force the President to change his failed policy in Iraq.

This bill does not provide a strategy worthy of our soldiers’ sacrifice. Instead, it permits more of the same – a strategy that relies on sending American troops into the alleys and back roads of Iraq to referee a deadly civil war. Instead of the same misguided strategy, we could truly show support for our troops by getting the policy right. We could show support for our troops by setting a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for their own country. We could show support by bringing our troops home – not with meaningless benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President.

Mr. President, the original supplemental spending bill we approved offered a roadmap for a new approach, a strategy that could work in Iraq. We set a goal of redeploying most of our combat troops within a year – because if there’s one thing we’ve learned it’s that deadlines are necessary to force Iraqi to make the political compromises that are the only hope for ending the violence.

We set a new strategy – forcing Iraqis to do what only Iraqis can do for Iraq, while giving the President the discretion to leave the troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqi security forces, chasing Al Qaeda, and protecting U.S. forces and facilities. We set a strategy of real benchmarks with teeth to move the political reconciliation process forward. And we demanded that the President ensure that our troops were properly prepared before they were sent into battle.

But the bill we are voting on now does none of that. All of the most important provisions have been stripped out by the veto threat of an Administration that stubbornly refuses to accept reality. All of the requirements necessary to get the President to accept the will of the American people – and the majority of Congress - are gone.

There are benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government in meeting the key political benchmarks – including laws governing de-Baathification, distribution of hydrocarbons, federalism, disarming the militias and provincial elections. But while it says our reconstruction aid will be conditioned on progress in meeting these benchmarks, there is a presidential waiver and no actual consequences if they do not.

We know that benchmarks without consequences are no more than a wish list. These benchmarks have been around for 9 months and the Iraqis have missed every deadline. The President said in January that he would hold the Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks, but they haven’t met any of them and nobody has been held accountable. And now, he insists on a waiver so he can let the Iraqis off the hook again.

So what are we left with? Little more than a blank check that enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same failed strategy that created the disaster in the first place. I don’t know about all of you but five years of a broken policy is proof enough to me that it’s not worth trusting this president with a blank check.

Here’s what we have today: A bill that does nothing to change course. It allows the President to claim he has the backing of Congress as he rushes ahead with the same misleading rhetoric about how supporting the troops means supporting a failed policy.

If they want to debate who supports the troops – let’s have that debate. We believe in providing our troops with the up-armored humvees they need to be as safe as possible in the line of fire — they were prepared to let our troops go without.

We are willing to fight for a pay raise for our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day. This president picks a fight with Congress over whether to give soldiers a 3.5 percent raise or just 3 percent.

We support making sure our troops are fully trained and ready before they are sent into battle. This president has shown again and again the he’ll skimp on preparation to get his way.

We are for real benchmarks to force accountability on the Iraqis, they are for meaningless benchmarks that allow the Iraqi politicians to continue to dither while their country literally burns.

We’re for a timetable to bring our troops home. But this president was willing to use to the veto power to deny the will of the American people and this Congress.

Mr. President, we support the troops by funding the right mission. We support them with a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. We support them with a strategy that has a chance of working, a strategy that gives our troops a chance to come home with a real mission accomplished.

We know how little the words “mission accomplished” mean to this Administration. They’re hollow words, as hollow as all their predictions and posturing about this war. Today, Mr. President, it isn’t even clear what the Administration’s strategy is: it seems to change every couple of months. In January, the President announced that he was escalating the war by sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq as part of new strategy to “clear, hold and build.” Less than four months later, it’s clear that not only has this strategy increased the number of American lives lost – but sectarian deaths have actually increased as well.

Now, just yesterday, we learned that yet another new strategy is in the works. This one reportedly shifts our strategy from fighting a counter-insurgency campaign to focusing on the political reconciliation necessary to end a civil war.

They are just now realizing that we are in a civil war in Iraq that can only be solved politically? That’s been clear to many of us for over a year. No wonder one of the leading generals they asked to become the new “war czar” refused because, as he said, the Administration has no idea where they are going. In fact, it speaks volumes that the General who finally accepted the position – General Douglas Lute – was strongly opposed to the surge.

And perhaps most troubling are reports that this new strategy has basically given up on achieving meaningful political progress at the national level in the coming months. They have essentially acknowledged that the President’s plan to place more American troops in harm’s way to give the Iraqi political leaders “breathing room” to make political deals is not going to produce results anytime soon. And they have decided to endorse the Maliki government, without any accountability, even though there are grave misgivings about that government’s intentions.

So the bottom line is that come September, we are probably going to be in the same position we are now, watching our kids get killed for a strategy that isn’t producing real results in the only category that really matters: political progress. And what are we going to hear from this Administration? More of the same backward logic: the price of failure is so high that we must continue to pursue a strategy that is failing.

And what’s going to happen while we continue with the same disastrous policy in Iraq? We know from our intelligence agencies that this war is a rallying cry creating more terrorists who want to kill us. And this week, the President again selectively de-classified information to make the case that we must stay the course in Iraq. At the same time, we learned that the top Al Qaeda leadership – which is still planning attacks from right where we left them, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border – is using Iraq as a vital means of fundraising.

That’s right: not only did the war in Iraq create a terrorist haven where one did not exist before, and distract us from pursuing the very terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 – it is now providing them with more recruits and more money to try to do it again.

And while we are distracted and bogged down in Iraq, the situation throughout the region continues to deteriorate – with every passing day it seems we move closer to the three civil wars that King Abdullah of Jordan warned of last year.

Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah, newly empowered, have succeeded in paralyzing Lebanon even as Sunni extremists with ties to Al Qaeda have opened a new front against the Siniora government in the north.

Israel faces a growing threat from Hamas as Palestinian factions fight a bloody battle for control of the streets of Gaza – and many fear that another war with Hezbollah or Hamas is only a matter of time.

Iran, emboldened by our compromised position, defiantly moves forward with its nuclear program and continues to detain American citizens. And the resurgent Taliban continues to fight a determined battle against under-manned NATO forces in Afghanistan. We simply cannot continue down this path.

Mr. President, as we approach Memorial Day it’s appropriate to think about how we honor the lives lost in Iraq. Without a doubt, we should all agree that repeating the horrible mistakes of the past is no way to thank troops and their families who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

This bill we are being asked to vote upon today is a colossal mistake that gets us no closer to achieving peace and stability in Iraq. For that reason, I will oppose it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

[JNelson6563]

109. Now THAT'S a great statement!

:applause:

[Virginia Dare]

112. Maybe they actually wanted to read the Bill before they

commented on it. How COWARDLY of them...:eyes:

[Atman]

56. So why did they have to wait until the end to puss out?

Why not stand up IN THE BEGINNING and show LEADERSHIP?

Because they're not LEADERS, that's why.

.

[MonkeyFunk]

64. I have no idea how they decide which order to vote in

but do you REALLY think they were waiting to see if it would pass or not? That's the stupidest thing I've read here today.

There was NEVER a question that this would pass overwhelmingly.

[Horse with no Name]

68. With all due respect

Almost to the SECOND that the vote passed, they cast their votes.

[Atman]

69. So AGAIN, if there was never a question, why weren't they out front about it

and try to sway others...try to show leadership...try to sway others...try to do SOMETHING?????

If it was a done deal, there would have been no harm to them to be OUT FRONT yesterday, the day before, THIS MORNING. But they were SILENT.

Just in case.

I'm tired of "just in case." I want someone who will do what is RIGHT, regardless. Sadly, that doesn't appear to include Hillary or Obama. The "just in case" candidates.

.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. If you really believe

they were counting to see if it got 51 votes before voting, then you're so naive it's almost cute.

There was NEVER a question of this bill passing by a huge margin. I knew that. They knew that. It's childishly innocent that you didn't.

[Atman]

90. SO WHY DID THEY REMAIN SILENT???

I fully understand what you're saying. It only reinforces the point; why did they remain silent about how they'd vote and why did they not publicly urge others to stand up to Bush????

They didn't.

They played it safe. They did not act as LEADERS.

.

[Virginia Dare]

113. If they had done that..

no doubt there would be people here trashing them for political grandstanding...what the fuck ever...:eyes:

[blm]

80. They knew Kerry-Feingold wouldn't pass but still spoke AGAINST it on senate floor

and did so ADAMANTLY to make sure we all knew she did not believe in a withdrawal timetable.

Now that she has changed her vote, she doesn't want to be SEEN or HEARD leaing on her changed position.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Oh, but they're so brave, the way they stand up to the Bushes.

How would we even understand what's going on without their leadership.

Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey I mean.

[ladym55]

13. Sad but true

Anyone out there STAND for anything????

[Colobo]

15. Only 14 people voted no; why criticize them and not the ones who voted YES?

[William769]

19. Because Liberal Dem's can do no wrong.

Didn't you get the message?

[Atman]

27. Because they could have been out in front of it and provided LEADERSHIP.

But instead, they cowered in the back of the room in hopes we'd be tricked into thinking they're leaders.

.

[pnwmom]

52. You do understand that in voting no they've both gone on record

as voting against a 43% increase in the federal minimum wage, which was also part of the bill?

They're going to have to explain that for the rest of their presidential campaigns.

[Horse with no Name]

59. They removed the minimum wage out of the bill

So that the President could veto that one.

[pnwmom]

86. Do you have a link for that? Here's mine.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070524-1805-minimumwage.html

WASHINGTON – America's lowest-paid workers won a $2.10 raise Thursday, with Congress approving the first increase in the federal minimum wage in almost a decade.
President Bush was expected to sign the bill quickly, and workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
That almost became the fate of this year's proposal. Democratic leaders attached the provision to the $120 billion Iraq war spending bill, which was vetoed by the GOP-controlled White House on May 1 because Democrats insisted on a pullout date for American troops.

But with the House passing a rewritten bill 280-142 and the Senate 80-14, the end is likely near for the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

SNIP

[Horse with no Name]

88. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x958038

[pnwmom]

89. He's expected not to veto it, because it was part of the agreement for

passage. But time will tell.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070524-1805-minimumwage.html

SNIP

For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
That almost became the fate of this year's proposal. Democratic leaders attached the provision to the $120 billion Iraq war spending bill, which was vetoed by the GOP-controlled White House on May 1 because Democrats insisted on a pullout date for American troops.

But with the House passing a rewritten bill 280-142 and the Senate 80-14, the end is likely near for the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., called the increase one of “the proudest achievements of this new Congress.”

“We've overcome many obstacles – and faced every procedural trick in the book – to get this minimum-wage increase across the finish line,” Kennedy said. “Democrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.”

SNIP

[pnwmom]

92. I just realized that what your link doesn't say

is that while the House considered the matter as 2 bills, the Senate considered it as only one.

So for the Iraq funding bill to pass the Senate, the minimum wage and other domestic funding bills had to be included.

[Horse with no Name]

94. Hmmm

Interesting.

[blm]

84. Senate floor speeches are for convincing other senators and the public of your position

and THAT is where neither would show up to do that part of their jobs - they wouldn't LEAD on the most serious issue being debated in the country.

[rinsd]

118. C'mon now you've been on DU long enough.

Everyone is screaming for Obama and Clinton to vote no on this and when they actually do what is wanted they get crucified anyway. Same old shit.

[William769]

16. Damn it's tough being the two frontrunners.

:rofl:

[Fuzz]

20. What if I took Cialis and just can't help it?

[Atman]

31. If you still have it by Sunday, call your doctor.

Or Hillary.

Or Obama...no judgements here.

:hi:

.

[jobycom]

21. So now they are bad for voting no?

There was never any doubt that Bush would get his way. That was decided back in 2006, when we couldn't win enough votes to override his vetoes.

Who did you vote for last election? Some people spend a lot of time attacking Democrats who did the right thing around here.

[Bluebear]

23. Malarkey. They did not "do the right thing", they swapped votes.

They were mum ALL DAY and only voted once the goddamn thing was decided so they could 'save face".

[jobycom]

41. Sell it someplace else. nt

[Bluebear]

93. Have a good life. nt

[MadBadger]

24. I feel like all this animosity is from a certain candidate's supporters

The candidate will remain nameless however.

[Atman]

35. BWAHAHAHA! Good one.

I'm sure you'll name the nameless candidate after he's/she's already been named, right?

.

[William769]

60. The nameless candidate is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.

:rofl:

[jobycom]

43. If you mean Bush's, I agree absolutely. nt

[MadBadger]

48. Nope, not talking about freepers. Certain democratic party candidates

[William769]

57. The ghost candidate?

[MadBadger]

62. I dont feel like trashing that candidate and his supporters by saying his name.

Though it is fairly easy to tell who I am talking about.

[Horse with no Name]

25. Not at all joby

They deliberately waited until their vote was meaningless.
YOU may like being pandered to...I don't.
Hell, the ones that voted AGAINST the base showed more courage than either of these cowards.

[jobycom]

54. Hogwash. Ever person who voted NO did so knowing it was meaningless.

[Cameron27]

26. I don't understand it either.

They did good, they voted no and I'm happy.

[jobycom]

36. I understand it. Not everyone on DU has a DU-esque agenda, you know.

There are plenty of people who are only here to create dissent. It's that simple--anyone posting this nonsense is a Freeper or is a goddamned fool.

[Atman]

39. You're a guppy.

You're THEIR base. Not the Democratic base.

.

[Cameron27]

67. I know what I am

(never thought of myself as a guppy though, lol) but Senator Durbin and Levin's votes hurt big time. So yes, I'm damned happy for all the no votes. They're all getting a nice email from me.

[AZBlue]

72. According to certain DU'ers, they are bad no matter what they do. No matter what.

[jobycom]

78. Define "DU'ers"

If by DU'er, you mean only someone who posts here, yes. If you mean someone who has an agenda different than that expressed in the DU rules, I think maybe not as much as it seems.

To me, right now, this is a litmus test of DUers, as opposed to plants.

[DUyellow]

111. would have been nice to see some leadership

But whatever, it's not like they are running their campaigns on how bush sucks. They never talk about how we need better leadership.... Oh wait, that is all they say. They had a moment to stand up, and that time was before the vote, and they were nowhere to be found.

[bonito]

22. BINGO!

[leftchick]

29. thank you

this blind desperation here is freakin me out!

[DU GrovelBot]

## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Sparkly]

32. Understandable, politically.

This way, they can tell people who didn't like the bill that they voted no.
And they can claim to others that they only voted symbolically knowing it would pass, and thus didn't withhold anything from the troops.

The first is for the primaries, the latter for the general.

(Remember the supplemental Kerry voted against, and all the brouhaha over that?)

[azmesa207]

34. Safe vote by Obama and Clinton

Edwards can be out front on this he no longer a Senator as long as they voted no you should be satisfied but no down grade a Democrat that make you happy . What about the ones that voted yes?

[Horse with no Name]

38. Pissed at them too...but at least they were HONEST

This was a deliberate political finger-in-the-wind piece of bullshit.

[pnwmom]

96. What's so safe about voting no on a minimum wage increase of 40%?

In the Senate, the Iraq funding bill was packaged with domestic funding, including the first minimum wage increase in 10 years. So both Clinton and Obama had to vote no on a wage increase in order to vote no on Iraq funding.

Not an easy or safe choice IMO.

[KoKo]

42. It's AMAZING...They don't care that the Lefty Internet Folks are Watching THEM!

They think they can do these CALCULATED VOTES that "come in when the other vots are done" and go out on the Stump and SAY: "I VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL...SO...VOTE FOR ME!" They THINK we don't know they were like "sneak thieves in the Night" who came in when "all was clear" stole the goods and now TAKE CREDIT FOR BEING THE POLICE!

GIVE ME A BREAK!

[NastyDiaper]

45. Obama Stalled until Clinton arrived.

Then they voted NAY. Clinton just after Obama.

The vote was safe from the git-go, so we'll take what we can get.

It Sux. Big Time.

But I do think people owe it to read Harry Reid's transcript. And recognize that Obama and Clinton in fact did vote no.

Props to Dodd.

[Liberal_Dog]

47. Simply Gutless

Not much else to say.

[Connie_Corleone]

53. This bill was going to pass anyway.

Did any of you actually think that the bill was NOT going to pass? If you thought that then you were living in a dreamworld.

People here wanted them to vote against it, they did. Now some are calling it a "safe" move because they supposedly waited until they knew it was going to pass anyway?

They knew it was going to pass YESTERDAY. I knew it was going to pass.

Which is it? Do you want the politicians to do what the people want them to do or not?

They voted the right way.

[Atman]

61. So you think it means NOTHING if the frontrunners take and opposition stance?

Hmmm. Curious.

[Connie_Corleone]

70. You'll need to clarify your question because I don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever you're trying to say, it doesn't look like anything I said.

[Atman]

79. Here's my clarification...

They provided no leadership by remaining SILENT for until their votes were cast. You say it was a DONE DEAL...but let's say, just for shits and giggles, the frontrunners in the race spoke out loudly and clearly and UP FRONT and urged the others to vote against this disastrous bill, regardless of the peril it may have spelled for their candidacies?

Am I a Pollyanna? Sure. But dammit, I promise you, if the politicians would stop campaigning to win the votes of Tim Russert, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, we'd get some real leadership.

These two took the safe road. The low road. The expected road.

That's NOT leadership.

.

[jillan]

63. Give Dodd some credit

He is in the Senate and spoke out early against this bill.

[Matariki]

71. Damned it they do. Damned if they don't.

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

73. Just like gw, DUers will rip on Democrats *no matter what they do*.

[Atman]

95. As will you, Bloo.

You're always first in line to rip on other DUers for not being YOUR kind of DUer.

Funny how that works, eh?

.

[Neshanic]

74. Like those two extremely polite cartoon chipmunks. "After you, NO after YOU!"

What a pair these two are.

[treestar]

81. They still voted no, so won't that incur all the penalties the others

are said to be afraid of?

[Matsubara]

82. I don't have a boner, but they deserve SOME credit.

In the final stretch, the rpug can STILL say that they voted against "supporting our troops" or whatever, so they deserve some credit for taking a bit of a political risk.

Good for them.

Bad for the troops, that the rest of the House did the WRONG Thing.

[illinoisprogressive]

87. Like they did not know the outcome before the vote. Pluueeezzzeee!!!

[magellan]

99. Exactly my first thought too

The "politically convenient" NO votes.

[Pushed To The Left]

103. Looks like Clinton and Obama are damned if they do and damned if they don't around here!

I'm proud of ALL of the Democrats that voted No. At least four of them (Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, and Dodd) are Presidential contenders. I'm very disappointed in the Democrats that voted Yes, and I think they deserve criticism. But I think it is downright ridiculous to attack any of the Democrats who voted No, especially considering the small number that had the guts to do it.

[Bluebear]

104. "At least four of them (Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, and Dodd) are Presidential contenders."

Coincidence?

[Pushed To The Left]

106. Usually its the Presidential candidates who are more cautious. This time they were the ones who

showed guts. If they "played it safe" then that would imply that the Yes votes were gutsier than the No votes. I highly doubt most people here feel that way!

[donheld]

107. But what If I need a boner?

:shrug:

[A wise Man]

110. They thought they were fooling someone

[bigtree]

115. by that standard, so did everyone else who falls within the margin

necessary to pass the bill.

[DemDem07]

117. The only SAFETY votes where the YES votes.