Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge his "no show" vote on the Iran resolution.

[Ninga]

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge his vote on the confirmation of Roberts and Alito.....was late....and after the confirmation was approved.

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama did not lend his voice or his passion to defeating Roberts and Alito by going directly to the American people and asking for support for a filibuster.

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted in favor of making it harder for people to file for bankruptcy.
Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act.
Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS
for a bill that ought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts.


Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama was a NO SHOW this year, on the vote of official opposition to Attorney General Gonzales
Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama was a NO SHOW this year, on the bill that would extend Homeland Security.


Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama has baggage that is relevant.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Until it's too late.

[origin1286]

2. You almost did it...

You almost had valid criticisms!

And then...

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act.

You spin me right round baby right round
Like a record baby right round round round

[redqueen]

9. So you're saying he didn't vote to extend it?

Is that what you're claiming?

[Ninga]

16. Yes he did. look it up yourself....

3/2/06 Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

[atreides1]

28. Here you go

He did vote yes, you can look it up yourself!


Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act. Yes

Vote description: H.R. 3199 Conference Report; USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005

Key Vote Analysis
With this vote the Senate reauthorized the 2001 USA Patriot Act. The original bill, passed the wake of the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks, gave federal law enforcement authorities broad new powers to pursue those suspected of terrorist or espionage activities. A Washington Post report said the original bill made it "easier for federal agents to secretly tap phones, obtain library and bank records, and search suspected terrorists' homes." Proponents of the bill, including the Bush administration, argued the bill gave law enforcement the necessary tools to prevent and disrupt potential terrorist attacks. Opponents asserted that the parts of the law gave law enforcement officials too much authority to infringe upon the privacy of regular citizens.

Most of the measures in the 2001 bill were only authorized for four years, which required Congress to take up the matter again in 2005-2006. Original action on the bill was blocked in the Senate 2005 by four Republicans and a majority of Democrats who demanded that safeguards be put in place to protect against abuses of the law. Those safeguards included ending the use of "National Security Letters," which did not require a judge's approval, in order to obtain some forms of electronic information. Senators also added a provision that would allow the recipients of a "215 subpoenas," which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to challenge "gag" orders that prevented them from disclosing the fact that they had received a subpoena. In the end the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly to renew nearly all of the original Patriot Act's provisions and the president signed the reauthorization bill into law on March 9, 2006.

[origin1286]

40. Indeed he did

But he did just as he said: renewed a modified version of it. One that better protects civil liberties.

Fail to see the problem.

[aquart]

3. Gonna bring a lotta change.

But what the hell. He's inspiring. Truth is irrelevant to spiel.

[GodlessBiker]

4. I acknowledge it. Nobody's perfect.

[AX10]

5. K/R

Obama is not the saint he is being made out to be.
As I said, he's an empty suit.

[Skinner]

6. I don't really understand why you have made this a thread about Obama's supporters.

Couldn't you have passed along the relevant information about Senator Obama without somehow trying to shoehorn his supporters into it?

Why on earth would Obama's supporters be talking about this stuff anyway? They are his supporters. Let's get real here.

[sandnsea]

13. Obama supporters have happily talked about it

But thanks for your point just the same.

[redqueen]

17. I think people here expect supporters to either challenge the veracity

or explain their reasoning in thinking that it's acceptable... because many times the supporters will get into a "yes I still support candidate x even though they did x, but your candidate did y" discussion.

That said, I do agree with you that making the OP about the issues rather than the supporters' unwillingness to debate those issues wasn't the most logical decision.

[Ninga]

23. If I have offend or created a faux paux, then i sincerely apologize. However, the

retorts and arguments i have endured have been here, from his supporters.

If you wish, I will delete and rewrite another way. But most sincerely, I intended it to be a educational wake-up call.

Most sincerely,
Ninga

[maddiejoan]

7. It's worse than a no show

it's effectively a lie

http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/10/24/misinformation-campaign-backfires-on-obama/

Resolution 970. Look it up

[Ninga]

46. Hey maddiejoan, try this one and your blood will boil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[maddiejoan]

57. yeah

it sure did.

[Dawgs]

8. Bullshit. Show me where Obama supporters refused to acknowledge any of those statements.

[Ninga]

Well, let's start with you. What do you acknowledge? Huh?

[Ninga]

66. Well, let's start with you. What do you acknowledge? Huh?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Oh, I acknowledge it.

I just don't think it's important.

Being absent for the Kyl-Lieberman nonsense is one thing, actually voting FOR it is a whole other matter.

[leftynyc]

25. Only to a hypocrite (eom)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

How does that make me a hypocrite?

If I had said it was OK for Obama to support it but not for Clinton to support it, fine. That would make me a hypocrite.

But as it is, I think it's just a piece of stupid, mostly meaningless legislation which would be OK to ignore if you had something better to do, but actually be there and vote FOR the thing is unconscionable. If Clinton had been an absentee, I wouldn't have cared either.

So, explain to me how I'm a hypocrite. Tell me simply. As if I were stupid.

[leftynyc]

55. As if you're stupid - no problem

If you can't see that taking a stand at least takes guts rather than being a coward and passing on a difficult vote (which seems to be a pattern), you're pretty hopeless. I don't agree with all of Hillary's stands or anyone elses (Biden was my candidate) but I do admire guts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Still no explanation.

How about an analogy?

I think of it like this:

If some freeper showed up at DU and posted, say, a racist cartoon demeaning to black people, I'd ignore it.

Why? I've got better things to do then feed trolls, and the guy's going to get banned anyway.

However, if some DUer said "I agree with this cartoon, I support it all the way," well than that's quite a bit different than simply ignoring it.

[leftynyc]

71. If you think that's a valid analogy

I don't have to pretend you're stupid. A cartoon on a website vs a bill with the force of law behind it?!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. A non-binding bill.

:shrug:

[Windy]

27. Precisely... there is a world of difference especially when

someone who is embroiled in the heat of a democratic primary fight for president who takes time out of her schedule to make a point of being in Washington to cast her vote for this provactative war mongering legislation!

[iconoclastic cat]

11. There's fleas on every politician. Looking for purity is naive. nt

[Skip Intro]

12. Wanna see an example of that refusal to accept reality -

read this short exchange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3984360#3985711

[FrenchieCat]

14. I believe he has 2.5 more years before his apology is required, hey?

At least it was a "non vote".....not a pushy sell, a co-sponsorship, and a vote while sitting on the intelligence committee.

[iamjoy]

38. Well, You Have A Point, Cat - But You Miss One Too

I think the point is there is this sort of aura about the Obama campaign, as if he is perfect. The truth is, he's flawed just like any other candidate.

I would personally rather not get into a pissing match about whose candidate is worse. I have decided to give all candidates the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere in their messages, but have made mistakes or done things with which I disagree.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. G-D can't be every where all the time.

[Mass]

18. May be you should check your sources.

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge his vote on the confirmation of Roberts and Alito.....was late....and after the confirmation was approved. : Late? Compared to whom?

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama did not lend his voice or his passion to defeating Roberts and Alito by going directly to the American people and asking for support for a filibuster. Not that many people did, aside from Kerry and Kennedy.

Bankruptcy bill: He voted NO.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044
Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act. No, he did, as did all but 10 other senators. And your candidate voted for the first Patriot Act.

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS
for a bill that ought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts: he did, and he was wrong.


Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama was a NO SHOW this year, on the vote of official opposition to Attorney General Gonzales : true.

Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama was a NO SHOW this year, on the bill that would extend Homeland Security. Which bill is that?

[Windy]

32. He was right on class action lawsuits too.. he was following the law...

"Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS
for a bill that ought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts: he did, and he was wrong."

This is called diversity of citizenship and cases of this type have original jurisdiction in the federal courts...

[Bake]

44. Wrong. It's concurrent jurisdiction.

Cases with diversity of citizenship must exceed an amount in controversy of $75,000 in order for the federal court to have jurisdiction. Such cases can also be heard in state courts but are removable to federal court. For that matter, cases involving federal questions (i.e., questions of federal law) may be brought in state courts originally, and a defendant may remove the matter to federal court.

Class actions have historically been heard in state courts. Supreme Court precedent has long held that state courts have jurisdiction to hear nationwide class actions. The sole reason for the legislation limiting class actions to federal court is because the Republicans have been stacking the judiciary on their side. It is likely an unconstitutional infringement on the prerogatives of the state courts, but I doubt a Republican federal judge would find it to be so.

Bake, Esq.

[Windy]

67. How long have you been in practice? How many class actions have you heard of

with an amount in controversy less than $75,000?

There are reasons for federal jurisdication such as convenience of the parties and witnesses, etc...

[Bake]

73. I've been in practice for 15 years.

Graduated third in my class at law school, by the way. And did class action practice almost exclusively for ten years. There are lots of class actions with an amount in controversy FOR EACH CLASS MEMBER of less than $75,000. And in establishing divrsity jurisdiction, that is the key amount, although the precedents used to be split on whether the AIC could be satisfied in the aggregate or must be satisfied for each plaintiff/class member. Generally each class member must satisfy the amount in controversy to qualify for diversity jurisdiction.

You could dig up the references, but that'd be too much work.

Bake

[Windy]

19. Oh come now...

"Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that Obama voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS
for a bill that ought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts."


That's called diveristy of citizenship. Under the law, cases of this nature filed in multiple states are under the original jurisdiction of the federal courts!


Hillary, Biden and Dodd also voted for those measures, was absent during the campaign and did not fillibuster Allito/Roberts.

Make sure you list your swipes in context.

all of the candidates have their positions on each of these issues on their respective websites. You should look at them and read what they say about their voting records then judge for yourself.

[Bake]

49. 28 USC § 1332

But don't let the facts confuse you.

Bake

[sandnsea]

20. Presidential candidates miss votes on occasion

Kerry led the Alito filibuster. There was no Roberts filibuster which you need to lay on the leadership.

He voted against the bankruptcy bill. The Patriot Act was reformed, even if not enough. He was wrong on the class-action vote.

So?

[Windy]

36. Yes, and HRC made a POINT of coming back for Kyl/L ... speaks volumes. poor judgment.

n/t

[sandnsea]

41. His vote didn't matter, he knew it, so what

Hillary broke with the Dem Party to continue her war hawk image. That's just the truth of it and that's the problem.

[Bake]

53. His vote didn't matter, so he didn't have to go on record

and risk alienating one side or the other.

Going on the record DOES matter. It's called leadership and he missed a great opportunity to exhibit some. If I'm not mistaken, he later admitted it was a mistake to miss the vote.

Bake

[sandnsea]

61. He went on record that day very clearly

He opposed Kyl-Lieberman and has repeatedly said why.

[Bake]

62. Really? Did he go back and actually cast a vote?

Because that's what I'm talking about. A simple yea or nay that cannot be spun.

Bake

[sandnsea]

68. Like Edwards' entire senate voting record?

Or Hillary's?

Yeah, those recorded votes are sooooo important. :eyes:

[Windy]

65. That was my point. Hillary made a point of coming back to vote for HORRENDOUS legislation.

[Connie_Corleone]

21. I acknowledge his mistakes.

Hell, I don't even agree with Obama on some issues. He's not perfect. No one is. I don't have him up on some pedestal where he can do no wrong in my eyes.

I just know that I agree with him on most issues and I took the time to look at his voting record, read his speeches on the Senate floor and he's the candidate I support.

[tritsofme]

22. The only relevant vote listed there is the Iran resolution.

The rest is just a bunch of whining.

[goldcanyonaz]

24. Yeah, the vote that took place when he wasn't a Senator.

[Ninga]

29. All of the votes Obama made, I took from the official record. He most certainly made those votes.

[truebrit71]

26. So his non-voting is just as bad as HRC's vote FOR it? In what alternate universe?

Sorry, I'm not buying it...

[Skip Intro]

50. Its the difference between conviction and calculation.

I'd personally rather have someone who voted their convictions, whether I agree or not, than someone who's going to hide when the hard choices have to be made.

Btw, Obama supported designating the IRG a terrorist org, and spoke out about the need to leave troops in Iraq to blunt an Iranian threat.

[Ninga]

31. How about the bankrupcy...and the no-shows.....? and the no show for life time

Supreme Court appointments, no debate, no stiring speeches, just a late night no vote. Bullshit i say.

Very relevant and very material.

[sandnsea]

42. What about Edwards' no shows in 2003-4??

You are aware of those, right? Do you really want us to go drag out his senate record?? It's ugly, trust me.

[KittyWampus]

30. Edwards supporters refuse to acknowledge his whole Senate career and POTUS run

and how working at Fortress AFTER his supposed evolution totally throws any credibility Edwards has out the window.

At least Obama isn't running from his record.

[Ninga]

33. This isn't about Edwards....And Obama has not been challenged on his record YET.

He will be.....

[sandnsea]

43. There's nothing to challenge

That's your problem. There's no there there.

[Ninga]

54. Opps...you must have forgotten to read this.......I hope you can comprehend it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[sandnsea]

"instructions from Democratic leaders"

Strategy with Planned Parenthood. Yes, we know. No there there.

[Skip Intro]

52. his record, or lack thereof. nt

[stillcool]

34. on the other hand....

...............some excerpts from...

The Theater of the Absurd
<2008 presidential election>
by A K Gupta
www.zmag.org, December 8, 2007
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/TheaterAbsurd_2008election.html

The presidential race is about many things: money, branding, celebrity, the media and theatrics. The one thing it's not about is politics.
Going into 2008, there are six major issues confronting the United States: the Iraq War and the "war on terror," global warming, healthcare, immigration, the deteriorating economy, and the expanding police state. Not one of them will be substantively addressed during the next year of presidential campaigning.
There will be a lot of screeching about immigration and terrorism when the general election gets underway and the Republicans play the fear and terror cards, but no intelligent discussion.

Look at the presidential campaign, which has turned into a two-year-long death march that began after the November 2006 elections. First was speculation over who would run. Then the contest was to secure high-profile consultants, pollsters, campaign managers, spokespeople, and bloggers, followed by jockeying for celebrity endorsements - Oprah for Obama, Chuck Norris for Mike Huckabee, the Osmonds for Mitt Romney, Bonnie Raitt for John Edwards and about half of Hollywood for Clinton.
The most ludicrous stage, a media creation, was the "money primary:" the race to connect with wealthy donors to generate the heftiest quarterly fundraising totals. In this second Gilded Age of America, a candidate must have the golden seal of the moneyed elite to be considered "serious."
Thus before voters cast a single ballot in any primary, the presidential field has been winnowed to those who could pass these hurdles. The serious Democratic candidates, as the mainstream media define it, are Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
There is a not dime's worth of difference between them. None promise a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. None endorse single-payer healthcare, the only real solution. All three favor unproven and corruption-prone "cap-and-trade" mechanisms to combat global warming, rather than strictly regulating pollutants at the source. All are largely quiet on immigration, trying to quadrangulate between corporate need for cheap labor, a populist storm of jingoism and the power of the Hispanic vote.
On the Republican side, the field is more open, but all the candidates are lunatics. Almost without exception they compete to show who hates immigrants the most, who will ban abortion the fastest, who will bomb Iran the fiercest, who will waterboard the most terrorists and who will stay the course in Iraq the longest.

Politics are only for damaging an opponent's brand identity. Clinton's adversaries seized on her wavering response over whether she supported driver's licenses for illegal immigrants to remind voters she has no beliefs other than what the latest polls or her biggest donors tell her. Not that the other Democrats, except perhaps Kucinich, have a coherent plan beyond cobbling together buzzwords like "enforcement" "secure borders," "guest workers" and "path to citizenship."
Edwards has turned the head of many progressive because he actually talks policy, but he's starring in a well-known role. Lacking the party machine backing Clinton, and the media hagiography illuminating Obama, Edwards packages himself as an issues man, which is the role Jerry Brown filled in the 1992 race and Howard Dean in 2004.
Among Democrats, talking politics means having to address how corporations and the upper class - the ones who fund presidential campaigns -plunder the government. In one television ad, Edwards says, "We don't have universal health care because of drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists in Washington, D.C." In another, he states, "Do you really believe if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with a crowd of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful is going to change?"

Those are strong words, but if Edwards somehow does manage to get the nomination - mainly because the party bosses quake at the thought of either a woman or Black man heading up the ticket - he will start singing the virtues of the free market. So far, issues candidates have not been nominated in the post-Watergate era. They can contend because they generate a groundswell of support, but eventually they fade as they are unable to shake enough money from the corporate tree to buy huge blocks of television advertising needed to compete.__So most candidates choose to avoid politics and concentrate on branding to create a product that fulfills emotional needs of a public that looks to shopping as the palliative for any social, emotional or spiritual ill. (Political branding is also bolstered by Hollywood and
A.K. Gupta is an editor of The Indypendent, a biweekly newspaper based in New York City. He is currently writing a book on the history of the Iraq War to be published by Haymarket Press.

[Laurab]

35. I don't refuse to acknowledge anything.

I'm not going to agree with anyone 100% of the time. I like Edwards, but he has a LOT of questionable votes, too. You tell me one candidate that doesn't have baggage, who is viable.

I prefer Obama. I'm not uneducated, and I'm really not stupid - I've studied all the candidates, and he's my choice. It's simple as that - baggage and all, he's my 1st choice. Edwards is my 2nd, for many reasons. Apologies are nice, but they don't remove his record, either.

[TomClash]

37. Let's look at John Edwards' record

Support for the War.

Missing close to 30 votes in the Senate in 2004, including the one on the odious Federal Marriage Amendment.

Voting for the Homeland Security Act.

Voting for the USA Patriot Act.

Voting for the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, making sure those Credit card debts survive discharge from bankruptcy.

Voting for No Child Left Behind.

Voting for HAVA.

No one is perfect.

[iamjoy]

39. We Already Have - Ad Nauseum

but there's this cult about Obama like he hasn't done anything wrong. Furthermore, of all the Democrats, some of the most vitriolic attacks on Clinton and Edwards seem to come from Obama supporters.

[Egnever]

45. So its ok to excuse edwards for his heinous votes

but we should condemn obama for missing a few? :wtf:

[Ninga]

48. Don't make this so easy.....if you are a good reader and can comprehend, try this

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Egnever]

70. Again a non vote somehow equals a totaly heinous yes vote?

Sorry but not for me.

[iamjoy]

75. Not At All

but neither is it okay to slam Edwards for his lousy votes but give Obama a free pass (which seems to have happened in the past several months).

[Occam Bandage]

47. Obama no-showed Kyl-Lieberman, and he deserves all the shit he got for that.

And most Obama supporters--real Obama supporters, not the ones in your mind--agree with that.

[Ninga]

51. OK, Occam Bandage, what say you about this????

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Occam Bandage]

59. There are two parts to the issue.

The first is hinted at in the line, "sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support." Often these were good bills with poison pills, intended to do nothing more than trap a candidate for later attack ads. In those cases, "present" votes are the proper vote; it's saying to the Republicans, "I'm not playing your game." In other cases, it's a form of "soft opposition" to a bill--say, you agree with the content, but believe it is Unconstitutional or poorly worded. And it is indeed noteworthy that in a majority of "present" votes, Obama was doing it alongside many Democrats as an organized protest.

However, it is possible that in some of the cases in which Obama claimed a bill was "too rushed" and voted present, he was only attempting to avoid political fallout from a controversial bill. These are, I think, outweighed by the literally thousands of votes he cast and committed himself to, but you can interpret that as you will.

[Ninga]

64. The very last line asked an important question...why didn't he just vote "no" and it

wasn't answered by Obama or his campaign.

[Occam Bandage]

69. First, it's kind of obvious you only skimmed it,

since that wasn't "the very last line." It was the last line of the first page. Secondly, that line was in reference to only one bill.

[Adelante]

58. Get this

I am perfectly happy that Obama did not vote on that piece of tripe sense of the senate resolution on Iran. I wish every single Democrat had refused to vote on it. It was an unnecessary provocation that accomplished exactly nothing, just the kind of legislative fol de rol I am so entirely sick of.

[Ninga]

63. Get this...the sum of this OP is beyond your single minded opinion. And if he is such a big

leader, with vision, why didn't see the need to lobby all of the Dems to No show on the vote just like he did.

Rubbish. Leadership takes place when nobody is looking, leadership is hard, it takes work and tremendous respect for stepping up to the plate and getting the job done.

[progressivebydesign]

60. but, but, he's YOUNG!! And he's a rock star!!

and people love to hear his speeches. Isn't that enough for you? :sarcasm:

I love Edwards and Clinton. My two faves. There's so much substance between them, and they both have plans that I support. they walk their talk, not just hold rallies.

Apparently the Obama thing is about image, not history or plans. Someone actually called HIllary "old school" and said that Obama will win because he's "young and fresh". Where does this idea come from (Mountain Dew commcercials??) that a president needs to be "fresh". your breath should be fresh, your underwear should be fresh, your president?? Should be experienced. Bush was "fresh", see how well that worked out.

[readmoreoften]

72. I suppose that might ruin the bug-eyed, slack-mouthed adoration.

Eh, idolatry is a sin.