Why does it seem some would rather have Obama & Clinton vote YES?

Look. I understant 'politics' and 'political expediency', etc... etc... etc...

But I fail to understand why it seems some here are pissed off Obama & Hillary voted no. Would you rather they voted YES?

Hillary I can somewhat understand as she voted for this shit in the beginning but she has come around since and stated CLEARLY that she would get the troops out if elected.

Obama (although only a state senator at the time) has been 100% against this from the beginning.

I don't get it. They both went on record. Might even hurt them in the General. Why the hate?

Will NOTHING please some of you?

if they wanted to show leadership and vote NO then vote early and see if others follow. But to wait until it is clear the bill will PASS before voting NO is not leadership. Kerrey came out early and said he would vote no.

What would they have voted if the vote was close? Would they still have voted no?

They have one less to bitch about or you would think. Also fake outrage has been taken to a new high.

ON EDIT: speaking of fake outrage Obama and Clinton both before the vote have been pounding the pavement for a pullout in Iraq, yes it wasn't done on the Senate floor but this bullsit of not showing leadership is just that bullshit.

We wanted them to use their leadership positions to help influence others to vote no as well, not hide their views until it was safe.

.

That is NOT leadership.

add: I did not want them to vote yes, but now a question for me will always be - how would they have voted it they had they voted early and taken a position.

I think this is misconstrued. Those complaining do have a valid point and that is the lack of leadership in relation to the vote. Did they stand up and loudly proclaim their position? No. They both slipped in very quietly at the end of the vote and cast their own.

Good vote? Yes. Done in the fashion of true leaders? No.

Julie

no leadership...on something so important.

They should have stood up to Reid and tell him to get a backbone.

95% of politics happens behind closed doors.

Instead of being leaders

they both hid behind "no comment".

If they were real leaders on this (or any issue) they would be out there in front leading. Not sneaking in the back and quietly voting right before the vote closed.

Aren't you asking too much? Lower your standards!!!!! :sarcasm:

Better yet, I'd like to see them use their constitutional power (except we don't have enough votes in our party to support the democratic party position and their constitutional power).

And no, it's not fun when some of the power brokers that are hamstringing meaningful opposition are tied to the Clinton campaign.

How many actually call, e-mail, etc their representatives when they do something they support.

I've seen a few posts thanking Senators and/or Representatives for their votes.
How many called to thank them? How many e-mailed?

I live and work in Korea. I called Rep Hare's office and Sen Obama's office and thanked them for their no vote because they need to hear it. I also called Durbin's office and expressed my displeasure with his vote.

People seem to have a lot of time to criticize the votes, how many actually contact their representatives who voted no to express their approval.

I'm betting, it's pretty damned small in relation to the number who come here and criticize.

edited for spelling

But anyone who thinks they were leaders in any way is seriously deluding themselves.

It's not what they did, it's how they did it.

Julie

nt

Looks like the DLC is paying these poster per posts. How do I get in on the action?

just wow.

and in the media with the intention of bringing others to that position.

In June 2006, Hillary believed it important during that debate before the Iraq withdrawal vote to state adamantly that she was opposed to any withdrawal timetable.

She has since changed her position, but has not chosen to support that position publicly in the debate before the vote yesterday.

I think that was the disappointment - the NOT LEADING factor.

"When a General is asked whether anyone in Congress understands the military's position, and the General responds you mean anyone besides Senator Clinton, you know that the military knows she supports the soldier. But the fate of the soldier is often determined by the wisdom of the policy which he or she is asked to execute. That is what this vote is really about. On a tactical level it is about the law of holes which says when you are in one stop digging--or in this case don't double down on a bad hand as our President is determined to do. On a stategic level it is about the two pivotal questions she posed to the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group on December 7, 2006: 1) how do we get the Iraqi government to step forward, and 2) how do we get our own government to follow your recommendations. The answers were to stop giving the Iraqi goverment a blank check, and start exercising congressional oversight now that your party is in control of Congress. The bill she voted against here, shorn of deadlines gives the President a blank check, and the non-binding benchmarks it imposes on the Iraqi government are illusory. As such, her vote is not only courageous, it is sound policy. I would encourage anyone who has not seen the video of that hearing to view it on her website, because it is a showcases the rare combination of skill, insight and leadership she has and we need in a president."

until the end and had nothing to say to advance an effort to lead others to her position.

Just Like you blm, no matter what she says some people just won't listen. I have seen your post here for a long time, she could be the 2nd coming and you would find fault with it. She did the right thing, she voted no. Thats more than I can say for several others. You just keep up you negativity against her, It doesn't matter. When all is said and done she will be the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States. ANd thats all that matters to me.

take on any leadership role in this debate?

I have years on this board of defending the Clintons as aggressively as any of you. I do not do so any LONGER since becoming more aware of HOW the extraordinary kindnesses Clinton extended over the years to Poppy Bush have come back to hurt our country and our party in the long run. Blame Clinton - his book told me exactly what his priorities were at the time, and exposing the corruption of the BFEE did not even show up.

and that is my bottom line. The Clintons have not shown any desire to make that a priority for them, and Bill's book is proof of that.

Read your own sig line.

If Hillary would come out and declare that she will open the books on BushInc and promise to hold Bushes accountable for their crimes of office I will be first in line to defend her here and anywhere.

But, all we have is their record to go on. And THAT is the sticking point that you have no interest in acknowledging - the actual record.

Where has Mrs. Clinton done this?

that they inherited in 1993.

Clinton's time as a senator has never focused on investigations of BushInc or opening the books on them in anyway, has it?

If I missed something, please share.

Or am I missing something?

brand new senator? And he was a pretty lowly senator, at that. But, if honest government and accountability for crimes of office is a priority for any lawmaker, then it will show in their focused efforts.

In 1984, when Howard Baker retired from the Senate to join the Reagan White House as Chief of Staff, Bob Dole was elected Senate Majority Leader.

In 1986, many of the Senators who were swept into office on the coattails of Reagan's landslide election in 1980, failed to win second terms, and the Democrats regained control of the Senate.

And outrage is their favorite tone. They compensate for their lack of factual information by being outspoken and angry.

Most of them are probably "fans" of another candidate but who still fit the above description.

It's times like this that I pine for more thoughtful and intellectual discourse that this painfully irritating rubbish that passes for political discussion around here.

'They didn't vote fast enough.' Lord have mercy.

I have posted this several times and will continue to do so...

For a lot of these people it's easier and more fun to come to DU and bitch and moan about how every candidate is really some sort of republikkan-lite. Yet...how many here call their representatives to applaud them for doing the right thing.

I called both Sen Obama and Rep Hare's office to thank them. I did this because I'm sure the republikkan's were out in force calling to express their opinion. Then I called Durbin's office to express my displeasure.

It's too damned easy to come to DU, post your unhappiness and then move on.

I don't know the exact reason why Sen Obama and Rep Hare cast their votes, I just know they did the right thing and I'm leaving it at that.

BTW: I'm supporting Edwards. I'm stating this in case someone thinks I'm posting this to your post because I'm shilling for Sen Obama

Yummmmmmmo!

Unfortunately they can't admit when they are wrong.

In order to (self) justify your support for a candidate, you have to read everything the other candidates do in the most negative possible light and question their motives even when they say/do the right thing. The corollary is: you must ignore anything questionable in your own candidate's motives.

are chronically unhappy. Period.

vote prior to voting, and they waited as late as possible to cast their vote.

As two leading Democrats, their input prior to the voting could have changed a few minds, and put more pressure on others as well. As Presidential candidates, and leaders in the Democratic Party, I expect Hillary and Barack to LEAD, not follow.

In Hillary's defense, she has submitted a bill to rescind the bill authorizing Bush to use the military in Iraq, and I think that's a great idea. It shows she understands many who voted for that bill made a mistake, and it's time to take that authorization back.

She has taken a stand on that, and I give her credit for that. Yes, I've been critical of her but I do try to recognize the good things she is doing.

But these Clinton and Obama apologist don't want to hear it.

She failed to deliever.

There were no delays in the vote. It is as if the house and senate had made up their mind to pass the bill and some were selected to take the safe no vote while others took the hit. Edwards has vocally been opposed to the funding bill and the war and has made no bones about it. But Hillary and Obama appear to be politicians in that they are dialing their actions in to whatever the people want. No outspoken opposition prior to actually casting their vote gives no weight or credulity to their actions. It appears staged and opportunistic.

:)

==================
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.

Then why bitch about WHEN Obama and Clinton sent their votes in? 9 times out of 10...everyone knew how they would vote going in. So what, they didn't stand on the Senate floor and proclaim their dislike for the bill...and neither did everyone else that voted against it. I think people are just looking for something to bitch and complain about personally.

They'd want Obama or Hillary to vote no, as an argument why we should support another candidate, probably Clinton or Obama.

People ARE NOT upset they voted no. Show me the post were anyone said that? The anti-war crowd is pissed that Clinton and Obama did not go out to the floor and speak like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer putting out on the line before the vote. Instead these two characters waited until it was "safe" to vote after the issue was decided.

Please stop trying to slime other posters with smear and half-truths. I know you are a Clinton supporter, but don't let your bias interfere with the truth.

i am not a Clinton supporter. and the fact that you accuse me of 'slimeing' other posters is laughable.

i don't think you have been here long enough to get to know me so i'll bid farewell.

even when he gives in to pragmatism.

So, while I agree with the you on the vote and lack of leadership, your take on matcom couldn't be further from the truth. He's been here a long time.

I will hold off on my accusations until I see a few more post of his. So I will agree with you that the kid may just not be fully educated yet on this one. I'll give him an "A" for effort. As he grows older he may see the errors of his ways.

Like I said, just because he has a pragmatic streak doesn't make him any less earnest or any less left.

I thank him for his military service. I'm also a Gulf War vet too.

That would be a sign of true leadership.