Ms. Huffington Post columnist, you make no sense

Today I stopped by the Huffington Post and read a column by Ms. Taylor Marsh.
Marsh stated that Democrats should have walked out of the Senate floor today. The title of her story was, fittingly, "The Democrats Should Have Walked Out".

But things get weird in the third paragraph, when Ms. Marsh says, "Now Barack Obama, when the moment to prove leadership was ripe, walked out of the Senate chamber and ducked his responsibility to be counted."

Then she went on to congratulate Hillary Clinton for doing exactly the opposite of what the columnist advocated: Walk out.

I sent her an email asking for clarification, but as I wait, could anyone explain to me what the hell she meant?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-democrats-should-have_b_65253.html

She did, but in a very lame way.

What kind of message would that be.

I think he just tried a different way of stating the same thing Clinton did. Has he made a statement on it? I'm assuming his non-vote was a protest of the amendment, not him trying to duck a vote that could be used against him later by either side. I think he made a tactical political mistake in that his non-vote can be twisted by his opponents, but I don't think he ducked his responsibility or failed a leadership test.

I don't think the Dems should have walked out, I think they should have just voted the measure down, quickly and easily. Why walk out? The more clear statement would be strong rejection of it. Yeah, Lieberman may have won the amendment, anyway, but why have any Democrat on record voting for it?

I'm not in complete agreement with the DU majority on this. I think the MoveOn add was stupid politics, and they should be ashamed, not for what they did to Petraues, but because they took the focus off the facts and turned them into a silly name-calling debate. But the Democrats should have voted against the amendment because the Republicans were playing PR games. The Huffington article is right--this was an attempt not just to smear a Democratic group, but to also split the Democrats. And it succeeded. The stupid little amendment means nothing. But half the Dems in the Senate let the Republicans change the debate, and weaken the party, and divide the voters, and attack one of our strongest groups.

The Dems should have voted together on this, not against Petraeus, but against the Republicans.

It doesn't make me mad at the Democrats. It just makes me doubt the political awareness of some.

But to answer the OP, no, that article isn't consistent. I think she means that since they didn't walk out, they should have all voted no. But if it's good for the group, then it can't demonstrate a lack of leadership or personal responsibility for the individual. That's not objective.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

I agree that the Dems should have all walked out(yes, they *can* do that)and just a guess, but I think she meant that Obama didn't discuss his walk out with anyone until afterwards with the media. Him walking out alone was rather meaningless, and imo, perhaps chosen in order to appear neutral? I dunno, I really don't know him all that well.

I use to read her and she drove many readers away with daily diatribes about him. when they were ridiculous we would point it out and she would just act weird.

Obama was there to vote but he left and if I am correct on this he left and headed for Atlanta for a fund raiser.....So, this tired old noise that if something is said bad about Obama is an article pro HRC....

Obama was there. He should have voted. He did not....He chickened out.....

I do thank you
Ben David

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements," Obama says. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.

Obama goes on to say, "All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq."

(emphasis mine)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/20/372106.aspx