What was her reasoning? It does not jibe with her current stance in Flint, which does not Jibe with her advocacy in Fracking. I am honestly lost.

eom

Just follow who pays her

Tweeted

Will Michiganders (and Michigeese) get to hear about it?

don't learn something bad about her.

If you look at the roll call list, most Repubs voted for it while liberals voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

Interesting that people here are bashing Hillary for joining liberals in opposing a bill that Repukes supported.

99.9% deer-in-headlights responses. This is the problem with our country. The majority of people who even bother to vote, do so only based on personality, demeanor, celebrity, etc.

It found it's way into the drinking water here in Boise, Idaho too when one of their tanks at a gas tank farm sprang a leak.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll445.xml

The bill originated in the House. Sanders voted against it but it passed.
It moved to the Senate, where a substitute version that was significantly different passed, with Democratic (and Clinton's) support. One of the differences between the House and Senate versions is that the Senate version did not have the groundwater provision that was in the House bill.
At this point, the "same" bill had passed both chambers but because the content of the bills differed, the bill was referred to a "conference committee" made up of House and Senate members. Their job was to negotiate a common version of the bill -- known as the "conference report."

That conference report restored the House's groundwater provision (as well as other provisions that the Senate had previously rejected).
When it returned to the House, it passed with Sanders voting no.
And in the Senate, many of the Democrats who had supported the Senate version (including Clinton) expressed their opposition to the changes made in conference by voting no.

In short, when presented with the exact same text, Sanders and Clinton voted the exact same way: No.

K & R

SHOULD.

...don't you?

And the problems in Flint weren't caused by MTBE in the water or some vote 10 years ago.

Once again (I should probably set up a template with this explanation), the water in Flint was clean when it came out of the river or the ground. What poisoned it was a reaction with the lead pipes in the system. The state decided to save a few thousand dollars and didn't treat the water, as it is treated in water systems all over the country, with a harmless chemical that prevents the water from corroding the lead pipes.

THAT is the source of the problem, not some obscure MTBE vote from more than 10 years ago. And remember, that legislation PASSED! It's funny, when Sanders voted for or against questionable legislation on the wrong side of the people, his excuse is always "well it was going to pass anyway". Yet that single 10 year old vote has now popped up THREE times in the last couple of days. Why aren't any of Sanders' fans saying "well, it would have passed anyway"?????

Finally, this type of thing isn't going to change the result in Michigan tomorrow. But stuff like this does chase more people AWAY from Sanders than from Clinton. Bottom line, misrepresentations like this cost more votes than attract them.