He was absent, yes. He missed it, yes. But did he “skip” it?
1. The dictionary defines “skip” as “to avoid attendance at.”
This is a question of motives. Just because he was absent, it doesn’t mean that he avoided attending it. Liberal bloggers need to come up with some proof that he avoided voting if they are going to throw around this argument.
The congressional record clearly states that senators were informed that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not be coming up for a vote in the near future.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.
We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.
But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.
Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?
Mr. THUNE. No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.
2. Barack Obama took a position on the issue.
Now, if Obama had missed the vote and not taken a position on the issue, then I’d see where you can go after him. However, I don’t quite understand the logic of attacking him when he took a position on it!
3. Many other progressive leaders plus Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar voted against the Iran bill.
If the bill was not as potentially harmful as Hillary and her blogger friends are implying then why did the following people also oppose it?
Chuck Hagel, Jim Webb, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert Byrd, Christopher Dodd, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Richard Lugar, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Patrick Leahy, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel.
Jim Webb said:
“At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.”
Chris Dodd said:
“I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences.”
4. Barack Obama missing the Petraeus-Moveon vote is not the same as this.
Taylor Marsh tries to link the Iran vote to Obama also missing the Petraeus-Moveon vote. They aren’t the same. Obama missed the Moveon vote and called it a distraction. He didn’t take a position on it (and said in campaign speeches that he chose not to vote on it) because he thought the whole point of the vote was ridiculous, as it was. Let’s face it progressives, Moveon did more harm than good with that ad.
The Iran vote though is a vote he missed, but took a position on. That’s a big difference.
I think some people need to think through their logic. If Obama were afraid that Republicans would blast him for voting a particular way on the amendment and that’s why he missed it, then why would he take a position? They still get what they want, his position on it, which they still can use against him. As long as they have your position on it and how you would have voted, then politically you’re in the same place.
5. The vote wasn’t even close.
Obama’s missed vote from not being able to get back for the vote that was moved up, was not a tiebreaker at all.
6. Taylor Marsh misuses Obama’s co-sponsorship of the Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.
The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that Obama voted for had language that specifically stated:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran.
This act was about economic sanctions rather than military action, something that Obama has long advocated. It specifically checks any potential use to go to war. It also does not connect Iran with Iraq as does the Kyl-Lieberman bill.
7. Clinton’s Co-Sponsorship of the Webb Bill Came After She Took Heat From The Preceding Kyl-Lieberman Vote
Clinton is using in her defense of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment vote that she co-sponsored the Jim Webb bill. However, let’s not get the chronology twisted. She became a co-sponsor of the Jim Webb bill after she took heat for her Kyl-Lieberman vote.
8. Having Iran as “His Issue”
Marsh wonders– if preventing an Iran war was so important to Obama, why didn’t he show up and have it as “his issue”? This is even more interesting because before this Kyl-Lieberman vote, Barack Obama was already out there talking about the need for economic sanctions and diplomacy, not military action, and Crooks and Liars went after him! You can’t have it both ways. He has made numerous statements before the vote about this issue. See:
- 9/12/07: Obama to Bush: You Don’t Have Our Authorization for War with Iran
- 8/30/07: Barack Obama Editorial: Hit Iran Where It Hurts
- 8/29/07: Alabama Senator Blocking Obama’s Iran Divestment Bill
- 7/31/07: Obama Urges Swift Passage of Iran Divestment Bill
- 5/17/07: Barack Obama Introduces Iran Divestment Bill
Therefore, Obama is not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue. He has the right to speak out about it since he has been a public voice on it prior to the Kyl-Lieberman vote in late September.
9. Priorities?
The interesting thing to me is that some bloggers are more concerned about a candidate who couldn’t get back in time for a vote, but took a clear position on it rather than with the possibility that Clinton’s vote could potentially be used by Bush to take us into war with Iran.
Concluding Thoughts
Marsh concludes by saying,
“Campaigning one on one is important, but when you miss out on key moments to define yourself differently from your number one opponent it’s time to question priorities.”
If by that Marsh means that Obama should never miss any votes whatsoever and always be in the Senate and not out campaigning, then I can understand that even though I don’t think it’s plausible and Obama is not the only candidate who misses votes.
But if Marsh means that Obama can campaign but should be sure to get back for important votes, then that admonition is meaningless in a situation when a vote came up earlier than the Senate leader said it would.
October 11, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I hope you sent this to Marsh. She has had a cob up her a** ever since Obama announced he was running. I do not read her anymore and many readers have stopped reading her as she has a daily rant on the man over the most dumb things, many made up out of her head.
If you do sent this to her, tell her she needs real facts to back up all the garbage she spews about Obama and then ask her what her problem is.
I could never get an answer.
October 12, 2007 at 12:17 am
Thanks for that perspective. This is actually my first time reading her stuff. Someone linked to it from another blog. Glad to know that I’m not the only person who found her analysis to be problematic.
October 15, 2007 at 10:39 am
It is my understanding that Sen. Obama did not vote on the bill that would have allowed Washington D. C. residents to have full political representation in the Senate. Am I correct? If so, why not?
October 15, 2007 at 12:00 pm
The information you received is completely untrue. Not only did Obama vote in favor of the bill (S. 1257), but he was a co-sponsor of the bill as well. In fact, Mayor Adrian Fenty cited Obama’s strong stand on voting rights for D.C. residents as one of the reasons why he endorsed him. Obama has been a leader in the Senate on D.C. voting rights.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00339
I will try to write a more formal blog post today or tomorrow when I get some time to outline Obama’s efforts on behalf of D.C. voting rights. However, the important thing to know for now is that the information you received is FALSE.
Thank you for asking your question though. Could you please share where you got that info? It is important that we track down people who are spreading gross misinformation about Barack Obama.
October 16, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Just to add more persepctive to this point: The vote was announced at 12:14 pm and held at 12:44 pm the same day.
October 26, 2007 at 2:05 am
You should do a dissection of the Clinton memo that was sent to newspapers today. I hastily put together one on my site, but judging from this post, I think you would do a better job than me and I think you have a greater readership than me, so your voice would probably be more effective than mine.
October 26, 2007 at 10:33 am
Thank you for compiling this rebuttal to the incessant complaints regarding Obama’s absence that day. I fully understand that if the Obama Campaign released a memo complaining of this, it would make him look like he’s whining.
So you know, I’ve seen this article either linked or quoted several times in several major MSM comment sections.
Thanks again for all that you’ve done.
- Dr. Greg
October 26, 2007 at 2:37 pm
HELP! your link to the congressional record has expired or they’ve updated it, and I can’t find it myself (not so savvy using Thomas unless it’s an actual bill #, sorry). I need to get this info out to other Iowa Voters, and want to quote the record directly. I’m settling them on the GLBT thing just fine (even members of that group!), but I know Iowans, we will want, and I want to offer, direct quotes, not quoted quotes. Site is GREAT!!! Help us keep them honest!!!….well, help us keep the voters informed??
October 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“The absents are wrong” said a saying.
1-) Obama was not there on the vote on Iraq War in 2002 (He was not a US Senator).
2-) Obama was not at the Senate on the vote on Iran issue ( He was somewhere else).
One could say anything he wants to, because “say something” and “do something” are very different. Unfortunately, Obama has never been present on the most important issues that America’s facing today …
How come we could trust his words when we never see him in actions (the crucial votes)?
Maybe his supporters would say something, but not him!
October 26, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Mary:
You can search for “S12041″ in the Congressional Record
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.html
Next, click on “NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008″
Then go to page S12041 and look at the bottom.
October 26, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Richard, Did you read this article. Barack did not skip. To speak out to a great forum is voting. If you want to ague with cliches “The absents are wrong” How about “He was there in Spirit”? It doesn’t sound any dumber.
October 26, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Also, Barack doesn’t say anything because he’s not a whiner. He didn’t complain about Reid’s sons position on Hillary’s campaign either. Its because he’s not a snitch and a sniveler or a wuss. He stays with the issues and speaks to thousands. He deals with the punches and is stand up.
October 26, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Finally, I wanted to say great job to the writer. You say Obama slant, I say objective. Also I meant to say he speaks to thousands at rallys bigger than we have seen in decades.
Audi
October 26, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Got it; THANKS!!! Air America, now on two programs (Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow) and Countdown have both strongly chastised him for skipping the vote too…i contacted both, but…
October 29, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Actually, we are playing TOO MACHO; both parties, Republicans and Democrats- not
much difference! ASK countries in the middle east to PROVIDE “MONEY AND MEN”
to fight terrorists and ASK ARAB nations to provide petro DOllars in war efforts and against IRAN and mullahs!!! USA alone can not do HEAVY LIFTING for LONG time
there, and sooner or later USA will go bankrupt and still we will be playing TOO MUCH
MACHO- even if we can not afford it any longer and still CAN NOT ASK FOR HELP!
At least, expert Harvard and Stansford professors and TV channel producers
should find out “HOW MUCH DEEP POCKET IS” and ask for help- PETRO DOLLARS-or stop asking Presidential Candidates, day in and day out, how to solve IRAQ and IRAN questions? WHEN, all want to stay there or in that area and WHO WILL PAY???
HOW LONG??
November 6, 2007 at 7:29 pm
[...] Congressional Senate Record said that parties were informed the vote would not be coming up any time soon. This is the excerpt [...]
December 4, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I appreciated some of the facts presented here and in the comments (particularly that the vote was announced 30 mins beforehand). But the bias is unbelievable. I want to like Obama — and thought I would support him after reading his books. But a few things have turned me off:
1) After attacking Hillary’s views as “insider” views, he has offered little difference, and in fact has seemed more naive on foreign policy (let alone not being very inspirational). His only sticking point is that he was against the Iraq war — so was I, but I am not sure he can to speak to what he would have done if in the senate at the time. The strongest argument against her Iran vote comes from Biden, not Obama who offers little alternative;
2) He’s had few accomplishments in his time in the Senate, which not only worries me about his experience, it makes me wonder if he’s been more interested in running for president than doing his job (something I never thought I’d think of him); and
3) I am a bit put off by the fact that every blog I turn to for more information on him and the other candidates has a group of Obama supporters attacking Hillary Clinton rather viciously. I don’t EVER see that from her campaign (or really anyone else). And I find it pretty bothersome. I am not a Clinton-lover, but I fear that the tone used by the Obama camp risks us losing the general election should Clinton happen to take the nomination (by stirring up the lack of trust the public has of her). It’s too remniscent of the tone from the Republicans in the early 90s, and it’s really off-putting. Hardly hopeful. I am surprised noone has accused her of murder yet. The candidate himself has been more delicate, but his minions and supporters are downright nasty.
December 4, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Ugh, thanks for sharing. However, I just want to make the record clear so that people don’t get confused about the facts.
1: It is *untrue* that Obama has not offered and made an alternative argument about Iran. He co-sponsored a resolution about Iran before the Kyl-Lieberman vote and he also introduced a resolution regarding Iran after the Kyl vote. He has also written op-eds outlining how America should approach Iran and he’s made several detailed policy speeches referencing how America should address Iran and other countries. Obama sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so believe me he is thinking about our nation’s foreign policy every day. You can search the archives for more information.
2: Relative to Clinton and Edwards, it is *untrue* that Obama has not accomplished much in the Senate. Since entering the Senate he passed one of the toughest ethics reform bills in the history of the Congress. He also has many major pieces of legislation he accomplished as a state senator in Illinois. Obama has passed more successful legislation in his lifetime than either Clinton or Edwards. If you can point to specific major bills Clinton or Edwards have passed in the U.S. Senate, please let us know.
3: I’ve read some pretty nasty things said about Obama too on blogs by supporters of other candidates so I can empathize. Hopefully we both agree though that it would be ridiculous to hold this against the candidate because they can’t control what their supporters do.
December 5, 2007 at 3:22 am
Most of your points seem quite valid, but I have a problem with this one:
>2. Barack Obama took a position on the issue.
>
>Now, if Obama had missed the vote and not taken a position on the issue, then I’d
>see where you can go after him. However, I don’t quite understand the logic of
>attacking him when he took a position on it!
a- In politics, taking a position is not the same thing as casting a vote. There is far less risk in taking a position than casting a vote.
b- Obama was not as vocal on the national stage in opposition of this bill as others were. I know his press secretary made a statement after the vote, but my sense was that his statements were relatively “inside the beltway” (please correct me if I’m mistaken and missed something). Obama then took a backseat to the slapfight at the Philadelphia democratic debate following the vote. Edwards took the hatchet to Clinton on that issue at the debate, with Dodd and Biden also taking swings. When the discussion of Kyl-Lieberman moved from Biden to Obama, Obama never addressed it and instead talked about Iran in broad strokes… probably to stay out of a fray where he himself was vulnerable (and *possibly* to wait and see how the fisticuffs played to a national audience before getting too aggressive on the issue). Either way, he dodged drawing attention to his absence on the vote.
c- Only after Clinton was bloodied in the melee did Obama attack her on that issue and continue to pound for weeks.
d- My opinion is he has no moral authority on this issue. He missed the vote, fine. No harm, no foul. He shouldn’t be kicked around for missing the vote… BUT, by missing the vote, he loses the right to attack Clinton on that issue IMHO. If he’s gonna attack her for a vote he was eligible to participate in, then he should be criticized for missing the vote. I want to like Obama, but I think he takes too much credit for popular positions that aren’t reflected in a voting record.
And, no, I’m not a Clinton supporter. I just believe in a fair fight. http://www.FUiowa.com
December 5, 2007 at 3:57 pm
xzolox, great comments.
i’m agnostic about what people should do once they have their facts straight about his missed vote. there will be some who say they will tune him out on the specific discussion of kyl-lieberman since he wasn’t there for the vote. i can understand their reasons for doing so. dodd, biden and others who did vote opposite clinton are still there, so she still faces criticism either way.
there are also those who say that even if obama wasn’t there, they want to know what his position is, and how he differs from clinton on the issue. i believe that is a valid case as well and he should be allowed to draw those contrasts.
none of this means that he gets tuned out on the question of iran in general because he was writing, speaking and working on legislation about iran before the kyl vote and after it.
also, he is no less vulnerable because of his missed vote than any of the other Democratic candidates to Republican attacks in the general election because he has already made his position of how he would have voted known. that’s all the ammunition they need–the public, on-the-record statement of whether he supported it or not.
December 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I’m not just tuning him out on the Kyl-Lieberman discussion, I’m saying he’s wrong to participate in it. Edwards, Dodd, and Biden can call her out if they want to, and they all have their own spin on why it was a bad vote. If Obama is going to throw down in that fight, though, then he should be challenged for missing the vote. In my book, it’s a net-loss for Obama to challenge Clinton on that issue. He should sit back and let the 2nd tier candidates handle it.
We can agree to disagree on the issue of whether or not one is held to the same level of accountability on a vote versus an opinion. Opinions can change, votes cannot change, so we are all harsher critics of votes than opinions. With regard to the issue of authorizing the Iraq war, Obama’s opinion is interesting (he thought it was “a bad idea”) but that’s not on par with voting against it. Millions of Americans had the same opinion, what was so bold about him sharing it? If the war went well, no one would chastise Obama for saying he thought it was a bad idea… had he actually voted against it, though, that might be different.
How do you think Obama would feel if I told him “I’m not going to vote for you, but I think someone else becoming President is a bad idea…” I bet he’d be bummed.
http://www.FUiowa.com
December 7, 2007 at 6:10 pm
BTW- with that last paragraph of the previous comment, I’m referring more to the Iran vote than the Iraq opinion. Obama being against the Iran resolution and not voting against it would be like you thinking he’d make the best President and then not bothering to show up and vote for him. He might feel betrayed by you if you didn’t bother to vote. Maybe he should think about that before missing anymore votes.
http://www.FUiowa.com
December 7, 2007 at 7:15 pm
If Obama’s supporters or the news media want to know his position on Kyl-Lieberman and how he contrasts with Clinton, how can you deny him the right to answer?
December 8, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I’m certainly not denying Obama’s right to answer the question and state a position. That’s different from engaging in the political fight that followed. This is just my opinion, but if I feel that if he refrains from voting then he’s a spectator with an opinion just like the rest of us… but he’s actually less qualified to challenge her on the vote than we citizen-spectators are because he was authorized to vote and failed to do so. By all means he should answer the questions and state an opinion, but I don’t think he should be gaining any political respect for an opinion that he failed to act on. Again, IMHO.
In an effort to double-check my gut instinct before commenting on your blog, I looked over the transcript of the Nov 15 CNN debate. I came across this interesting rationale…
Obama: “But understand the problem with this vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It wasn’t simply that it was identified as a terrorist organization; it was also that in the language of the resolution, it said we should maintain our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence. So it’s not just going to have an impact, in terms of potentially having a war against Iran; it also gives this administration an excuse to perpetuate their failed strategy in Iraq. And that could mean that you could be redeployed in Iraq.”
I’m astonished that Obama would miss the vote if this is his position… essentially, he’s telling us he didn’t just miss a vote on “potentially having a war against Iran,” he also missed a vote on whether or not to “perpetuate their failed Iraq strategy.” Missing that vote speaks volumes about the man whose candidacy is predicated on his opposition (in spirit and word, but not in vote) to the Iraq War.
When Blitzer followed up about Obama missing the vote, Obama said it was a mistake. As far as I’m concerned, apology accepted… just stop exploiting other people’s votes for your own political gain. Personally, I respect a vote I disagree with over a missed vote. I’m interested in all of Obama’s opinions and positions, but I’m not interested in hearing him directly challenge Clinton on this particular issue.
February 13, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Stop making excuses for Obama’s inability to take a stance and cast a vote. His excuse was “I was on the campaign trail” is utterly ridiculous. Biden, Dodd and Clinton all took time away from their campaigns and VOTED!
February 13, 2008 at 6:10 pm
i was just telling you what the senate records say. if you don’t want to believe the senate records, then that’s fine. but some other people might want to know about it.
February 17, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This is all very intellectual- However:
What vote do we have to reference, to truly understand Barrack Obama’s position on Iraq and Iran?
March 12, 2008 at 11:06 pm
sagereader,
Please spin the Barack Obama~Antoin Rezko~NADHMI AUCHI connection for me.
March 13, 2008 at 12:16 am
sagereader,
Please explain to me why a man with so little demonstrated Devotion and Service to the U.S.A. and who has so many connections to ‘questionable and dangerous’ ARAB ASSOCIATES is ‘unwilling to demonstate his LOYALTY to the U.S.A. by serving as Vice President, but is interested ‘only’ in ‘complete control’ of OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS and AIRPOWER. Since having these two entities fall into the WRONG hands is the only way this GREAT nation can be brought to ITS knees, questioning Barack Obama’s intentions is merely self-preservation. Are you sure about just what type of ‘CHANGE’ this man, with the ’sketchy background’, wants to bring to the U.S.A. If you’re wrong, then its ‘JIHAD’ for not just the Obamakins by for all of U.S.A.
March 13, 2008 at 7:53 am
^^The Clintons are the ones getting million dollar contributions from the Saudi Royal Family, not Obama so you you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.
http://www.nysun.com/article/5137
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/10/freeh.clinton/index.html
March 13, 2008 at 5:35 pm
sagereader,
I sure hope I’m barking up the wrong tree. If not, then its ‘curtains’ for all of US. You still didn’t explain the Barack Obama~ Antoin Rezko~NADHMI AUCHI connection. Do you know who NADHMI AUCHI is. Do some research and explain to me why people like AUCHI, Rezko, Ali Ata, Aiham Alsammarae, et.al, are sprinkled liberally throughout any Obama background check, once you peel back the insulating layer and peer deeper into this man’s character. Google any of these characters and then google the unsavory characters and organizations that are mentioned in the articles about these characters to get a ‘wide angle’ view of ‘what up’! Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wouldn’t be waist-deep amid these ‘conspirators’ just for lack of something better to do.
Could be just coincidence, but upon investigating what charities Obama gave the ‘allegedly tainted’ campaign contributions to, I discovered that the bulk of the money went to the Congressional Black Caucus, of which he is a member, but a small donation ($5000) went to Muntu Dance Studio of Chicago, of which Obama sits on the Board of Directors. More intriguingly, Boeing Int’l, based in Chicago, comtributed $3,000,000 to this same dance school. Hardly two weeks after I concluded my investigation, it was announced, without explantion, that Boeing would not be getting the largest Defense Contract, in two decades, to upgrade our Air Defenses by building 70 new air-refueling tankers. Like I said, it could be just mere coincidence, but given the political and business corruption being reported and investigated in Chicago and Illinois, I don’t think so. The U.S. Gov’t surely doesn’t trust the Chicago-based company and its ‘possibly-compromised’ Board of Directors with our AIR DEFENSES, but they to could be barking up the ‘wrong tree’, too. In light of all that I’ve uncovered so far, everything else notwithstanding: the healthcare promises, the educational benefit packages, the transparency in government campaign, I feel very much like the U.S. gov’t; Barack Obama much not and can not be entrusted with the GRAND PRIZE: Control of OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS and AIR DEFENSES. Do some research and if you can come up with evidence to the contrary, other than rhetoric, then get back to me with it. I am an African (slave-decendant) American and surely would love to support a MAN OF COLOR for President but not at the peril of MY COUNTRY.
March 13, 2008 at 7:22 pm
^^Antoin Rezko was an associate with and/or fundraiser, donor for other politicians including George W. Bush, Al Gore, the Democratic National Committee, John Kerry, and many more…are you saying no politician then in the Republican or Democratic party should have control of OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS and AIR DEFENSES and has been corrupted by Nadhmi Auchi?
March 14, 2008 at 12:02 am
sagereader,
Your logic and rhetoric are compelling. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, I am now ready to trust Barack Hussein Obama with OUR LIFE and TREASURE; I hereby deem Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA worthy of being the GUARDIAN of the FREE WORLD.
NOT!!!
March 14, 2008 at 1:43 am
In the hands of Republicans and Democrats like Hillary RODHAM Clinton who voted for the war, the LIVES of our troops been taken, our military strained, al Qaeda strengthened, and over a trillion dollars of our TREASURE squandered.
Again, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Stop being such a xenophobe and scaredy cat.
April 11, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Just thought I’d let you know we hit 13,000 downloads today… Download Barack Obama Screensavers! Get them here —> http://www.obamascreensavers.com
April 21, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Seems pretty interesting, looks like Obama’s got his work cut out for himself.
While I’m here, I was also looking at the weekly democratic nominee polls, and it’s almost amazing how Barack Obama came from a 28% deficit to taking the lead over Hilary Clinton just weeks before the democratic caucus.
What do you think of that?
Tell me more at ObamaChoice.com
May 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Barack Obama took a position on the issue.”
But he didn’t vote. When you’re in the Senate or House, your vote IS your position. By not voting, Barack Obama once again dodged a contentious issue while at the same time trying to claim that his position is clear. Well, how about putting that into effect by actually voting?