Iraq vote key for Clinton, Obama

[babylonsister]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_el_pr/iraq_vote_politics;_ylt=ApdkJu.sNeQEmVEWtYg5nt7MWM0F

Iraq vote key for Clinton, Obama

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent Tue May 15, 4:43 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A Senate test vote on Iraq has the makings of a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign, obliging Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) to take a fresh look at calls for cutting off war funds.

Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders.

Aides to the two 2008 presidential hopefuls declined comment on the issue Monday night, two days before a scheduled vote on Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record)'s proposal to cut off funding for nearly all military operations in Iraq after next March 31.

"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops," Feingold, D-Wis. said in a statement.

Feingold has conceded his measure stands virtually no chance of prevailing, and it will come to the floor under a procedure that requires 60 votes to advance.

Yet the war dominates the fast-moving presidential campaign, and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut swiftly challenged his White House rivals to join him in supporting the legislation.

more...

[Benhurst]

1. It should be; but it probably won't.

From now until the beginning of next year, all the candidates' voting records should be scrutinized. But many are joining up with this candidate or that, despite questionable votes being made and many more still to be cast.

The 2008 campaign has started way too early, too much money is being spent, and the corporate media is raking millions and casting what should be a serious discussion of the issues as a silly horse race, a horse race which will bring in still more millions in advertising for them.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Why will it "come to the floor under a procedure that requires 60 votes to advance?"

Could Reid have made it a vote that required only a majority?

[karynnj]

3. He can't - I think only the budget bills can not be filibustered

The Republicans are on record that they will filibuster anything they don't like. That means that they will bolck the cloture vote, which effectively keeps it from coming to an actual vote. As long as they have 41 votes they can stop stuff.

This will lead to many non-related items being attached as amendments to appropriations bills. It should be noted that the conservative wing of our party argued that using this technique often would be bad for us.

One of the clear cut times it should have been done was on Alito. While it was clear we would get a pro-life justice, we could have fought getting the justice who was in favor of signing statements, unitary President and balance of powers. We should have filibustered and had ads out that explained at high school civics class level how Alito's views would alter everything people thought about the government. (Kids in elementary school and again in high school learn about checks and balances and it was always presented as a good idea - both in the 1950s/1960s when I was in school and in the 1990s/2000s when my kids were. I seriously can't believe that we could not have RADICALLY turned opinion around on this and it would have had an underlying message about the nature of an administration that would want that.

Senator Kerry was 100% right when he said that this was the time to fight it. I have noticed that even Hillary speaks of opposing Alito now - and she did vote for the filibuster and against him - but when it counted she did not put her weight and position in the party behind it. This is one we could have won.

[flpoljunkie]

4. I heard the vote would be an amendment to the water resources bill the Senate is now debating.

Rather than in an Iraq War funding bill. Even if it were included in the Iraq War funding bill, it could be filibustered--although the R's will probably be happy to put the Dems on record on this-but they might rue the day they continue to give their Republican president a blank check.

[Tellurian]

5. Karynnj, you should know better..

"but when it counted she did not put her weight and position in the party behind it. This is one we could have won."

than many of the people here- You can't hit people over the head in the Senate to force them into voting your way. Your childish blame game of blaming Hillary for any and all failures is getting really old. Hillary joined Kerry (a sr senator) in supporting the Filibuster of Alito- The DLC was split on their strategy of how to thwart his nomination- so please stop expecting Hillary to cure the problems of the world, just as your idol, John Kerry, is still only one vote.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Sen._Clinton_to_support_Alito_filibuster_0127.html

[karynnj]

6. Those of following the effort on DKOS and DU,

knew that for the first few days Clinton was very angry that there was a vote. If you think she did all she could - fine.

The NYT was begging Hillary or Schumer to lead this - they didn't. They were far better positioned to do so. She clearly didn't choose to lead on this.

[Tellurian]

7. Hillary did all she could- Kerry was grandstanding. The votes were never there..

Even Dick Durbin told Kerry beforehand, they didn't have the votes because 7 democrats had defected to the Republicans supporting Alito's appointment.

"Kerry was in Davos, Switzerland, attending the World Economic Forum on Thursday when he called for the filibuster. Democratic sources say Kerry called fellow Democratic senators earlier to rally support."I think it was a historic day yesterday. It was the first-ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland," McClellan said. "Maybe Senator Kerry needs to be spending more time in the United States Senate so he can refresh his memory on Senate rules. Senate rules say you have to have the votes in order to filibuster."

sheer stupidity, all for the sake of grandstanding-

Even Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is backing the filibuster, said Kerry's quest is "an uphill battle."

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California say they will join the Massachusetts senators in backing the filibuster.

But at least one Democrat, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, said he will shoot down a filibuster simply because it defies common sense.

"One of the first responsibilities of someone in Congress is to learn how to count," the Illinois senator said. "Having made a count, I have come to the conclusion it is highly unlikely that a filibuster would succeed."


"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid conceded Friday that Kerry's efforts are likely to be futile.

"Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid said

But Kerry went forward anyway!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html

you can read the entire article to refresh your somewhat selective memory always blaming the Clintons for Kerry's foolhardy failures.
When in fact all Kerry did was degrade and embarress the democratic party grandstanding from Switzerland!

[karynnj]

8. Kerry and Kennedy argued for the filibuster at the Senate

caucus - in the Senate building. Kerry then left for an obligation to participate ona panel at the World Economic Conference. Kerry said it was a long shot, but something too important not to try before Kennedy said it was an uphill battle. It was an important battle to fight. Sometimes it is more important to try to do the right thing when the odds are poor than to do nothing and never know if you could have made a difference.

Quoting Bush's press secretary, who said it was called in from the slopes of Davos is beneath even you. It was not true then and isn't true now.

Kerry and Kennedy worked with DKos to get people to contact their Senators. You can access the internet from Switzerland. His and Kennedy's staff provided a lot of information.

Kerry also had a cell phone and Kennedy was in DC - there are only 100 Senators - at least 5 of whom were at the same conference.
Kerry flew back, after Frist set a cloture call.

Link to the biased media all you want - just remember CNN has not always been kind to Hillary.

[Tellurian]

9. The Filibuster Rule states you must have the votes

before you call for a Filibuster- Hillary knew the votes weren't there, but she still showed her support for Kerry.

Whenever you malign Hillary, blaming her for Kerry's failures, I will refute your claims with factual proof.

The alternative is simple- play fast and loose with the Truth regarding Hillary, and be prepared for what you get in return.

[karynnj]

10. It is true that you need the votes to win

It is also true that if something is important enough, it is worth trying to change opinions - in this case mobilizing people to try to persuade their representatives to do what you think is the right thing. Hillary voted against cloture either because she thought it was the right thing or because it would hurt her with the Democratic base if she didn't.

NOTHING I said was untrue. Clearly we disagree on whether there should have been a filibuster attempt. That is subjective. I personally believe that just because something loses, doesn't make it wrong. I also do not think that because someone wins or something wins it is right.

I have never lied about anything. It is possible to be wrong without having lied. What I said in this thread was what I saw. You, in fact, do not dispute what I said - rather you say that Hillary's initial position that there should not be a filibuster were the correct one. Therefore, there is nothing factual that we disagreed on.

Where we disagree is not on fact, but on what should have been done. This is subjective. It can not be proven that any action was the correct one. My values and my politics fit more closely with Senator Kerry; yours clearly are more in sync with the Clintons. You had no reluctance describing - in detail and often - all that you perceived to be Senator Kerry's flaws. He is not perfect, nor are the Clintons. If she becomes the candidate, I will not post anything on her or her spouse. It would not be appropriate at that time. Until then I will point out areas where I see potential weaknesses or argue as to why there are better choices.

I am sick and tired of your insinuations that anyone who disagrees with Hillary's positions is maligning her. You went far further questioning Senator Kerry's motivation on everything. You have also conjured images of a vindictive Hillary Clinton effort to go after anyone posting opinions that are not in her favor in a post that was deleted for good reason by the moderators. That image was one I would NEVER assign to her. That is bullying.