How do you explain Hillary missing the February 14 FISA vote even when she was in Washington?

From Constitutional scholar pans Clinton for fleeing from FISA fight:

Hillary Clinton, who skipped the politically tricky and controversial Senate vote on the spy law Tuesday even though she had been campaigning in Washington that day.

"It really, I think is symbolic of this disconnect ... here you've got someone who is campaigning for the President of the United States, making pitches to civil libertarians, but doesn't even show up -- when she's in the neighborhood -- to vote against telecom immunity," Turley charged. "I'm not just dumping on her. The fact is there has been a lot of really duplicitous work being done by both parties."

Republican John McCain and Barack Obama both voted on amendments to the measure; Obama opposed telecom immunity, while McCain supported it. Clinton left town early to get to a campaign stop in Texas.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_The_fix_has_been_in_0214.html

Fascinating. Instead of dealing with the substance of the post you raise an extraneous issue. Answer the Obama question first. Equating a missed vote with a failure to hold hearings on something your candidate claims is important is not even in the same ball park.

Ayers is not an unrepentant, he repented decades ago when he reentered mainstream society. Maybe an unrepentant exCIA cold warrior like yourself can't accept this, but terrorists reenter mainstream all the time. Begin, Sharon, Mandela, Arafat to name a few.

You are simply pissed to have picked a loser, and can't accept that there will be no job for you in the never-to-be Clinton administration.

Yeah, we really need more hearings so the American people can be convinced that Bush is a disaster. That's something that is really, really needed. We really need to drive those polls results from the high 90s--oh, that's right, Georgie's ratings are in the sewer.

And give us the facts on the Rezko. You are alleging that Obama and Rezko bought property together yet nothing--nada, zilch--supports that claim. Even the property seller--a Clinton supporter, BTW--says the house and the lot were sold separately without collusion. But nothing apparently will stop your dreams Larry...so, dream on.

"Things" are going to come up in the General no matter who the candidate is. But now is the time for liberals to take the plunge--like the conservatives did with Reagan. And if you guys can't handle the risk then step back into your padded and safe rooms. It's time to stop playing it so safe and sitting in the corner worrying about what the opposition might do. To He!! with them! Obama has nothing in his biography to be ashamed of--and he certainly has proven that he hires sensible people who get the job done.

Larry, can you honestly say that the main reason that European Nations have not deployed more troops is insufficient pressure from a Senate sub committee?

Isn't the real problem that the U.S. essentially undercut the popular support in Europe for NATO operations in Afghanistan by following our disastrous course in Iraq.

If that is the case then Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq seems much more damaging to our efforts in Afghanistan than any inaction in a subcommittee on the part of Senator Obama.

Larry,

You point out that Obama is a politician, and like every politician does not have an absolutely impeccable record. He could have done some things better. But this race is now down to only two politicians. So we're in the realm of comparison shopping. Here is the choice:

On the one hand, there is a politician who was willing to sign off on sending thousands of US soldiers and many, many thousands of innocent Iraqis to their deaths - that's deaths - for the sake of feeding her white hot political ambition; a politician who was so eager to bomb the crap out of the former Yugoslavia, and help in the project of turning a Kosovo drug gang into a bullshit liberation army that could then be molded into US client stooges that would accept a US military base in the Balkans, that she called Bill Clinton several times from Africa to urge him to do it; a politician who took to the streets of New York with a bunch of fanatics during the Israeli-Lebanon war to jeer the UN and cheer on Israeli war crimes, and thunder threats at Syria and Iran along with her neoconservative fellow-travelers who were were anxious to expand the war, as international diplomats were desperately working to bring about a cease fire in Lebanon; a politician who has never failed to deliver the groceries for Aipac, no matter what's on the list; and a politician who professes regrets about Iraq out of one side of her mouth, while voting George Bush a license to do the same thing in Iran.

In addition, this is a politician who, along with her manipulative grab-ass husband, has a fifteen year record of lying and dissembling to the American public, and even now practices the art of expressing manufactured tears of self-pity to land votes.

On the other hand, there is a politician who might or might not have been involved in some shady real estate deal, and failed to call a hearing that perhaps he should have called, but seems to have a more sane and balanced view of the world, decent moral boundaries when it comes to life and death decisions, and a genuinely progressive global vision and instincts as opposed to phony-progressive international scams covering up for the criminal element in the US power elite, the people Hillary Clinton has made it her business to serve in return for political advancement.

Sorry, but I think I'll take my chances on the guy who didn't call a subcommittee hearing as opposed to the power-lusting, death-dealing harpie.

On a smaller, separate note, you appear to know nothing at all about the intellectual curiosity you extol, and are hardly one to complain about intellectual laziness. For weeks all you have done is regurgitate lines of attack developed by other people, in a form that is neither imaginative nor argumentatively compelling, with absolutely transparent, amateurish rhetorical tricks. Did you actually process intelligence for the CIA, or were you just an obedient leg-breaker? I doubt you could beat Obama once out of five times at a game of Tic-Tac-Toe, if he let you go first each time.

Your weird stubbornness and insistence about Obama's intelligence is very curious. For a while, I thought you were just a typical redneck with a bad haircut, who couldn't bear the thought that there is a black man in America who is smarter than you. But now I think you're more likely an unimaginative robot programmed with someone else's message, a hired attack dog chewing on some master's bone. You seem to derive orgasmic excitement from jumping as high as you are told to jump.

With 99 out of 100 Hillary Clinton supporters, I tend to think they are just misguided. For example, I try to cut slack to all those first generation feminists who are just so intoxicated by the thought of seeing a woman President before they die, that they are willing to overlook every wretched thing Hillary Clinton has ever done. But you're too well-connected to be in the dark about these things. So I'm inclined to think you're just an obedient ex-CIA thug, and hired muscle for the Imperialist gangsters who run much of this country. If George Bush hadn't stiffed your pal Valerie, you'd probably be gleefully waterboarding someone for him right now in a secret CIA dungeon.

I guess I don't see how hearings held by the chairman of the Senate Subcomittee on European Affairs would have anything but a peripheral affect on our policy in Afghanistan, especially given the Bush administration's general intransigence when it comes to matters of war and foreign policy. Given the likely futility of such hearings--and the distinct possibility that the Bush administration and other Republicans would have used them to mount political attacks on Obama--maybe Obama's not holding hearings actually demonstrates good judgment?

"Obama’s questionable judgment on these issues outweigh his 2002 opposition to the war in Iraq in my book"

Huh? And again I say, Huh?! If this doesn't represent a complete loss of perspective, I don't know what would. We all like our candidates, but really.

Mr. Johnson seems to be making two points. One is that the issues he raises are so serious as to make it impossible for Obama to be elected; we can skip over this, since clearly few people agree, and therefore, by definition, this is untrue.

The other is that all this stuff will be pulled out against Obama, and it will get ugly, and some people's votes will change because of it. And that's true. It's helpful to be prepared.

But is Mr. Johnson telling us that only Obama is vulnerable? I'm reminded of the story Ulysses Grant told about his first "battle." When he arrived on the scene, the other side had skedaddled. He said he realized for the first time that the other side was just as scared as he was, and he was far calmer going into battle after that.

So let's keep in mind that Obama has a few resources as well - his demonstrated ability to get votes being a major one. Yes, he will be hit a lot harder in the general. And not just on things he's *actually* done wrong - the Repubs are likely to get more mileage out of lies and innuendo. But McCain has as much reason to be scared as Barack.

When it comes to judgment, I'll go with the political judgement of Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, .. The progressives I most admire have endorsed Obama.

At first glance it does seem like it would have been smart for Obama to use his position on the Foreign Relations Committee to press for more NATO involvement in Afghanistan. However, I think that there are at least two considerations in play (besides the fact that he's running for President) that might have acted against that.

One is that in doing so he could have opened himself to criticism from the Right for trying to conduct foreign policy in a non-official capacity. We've seen those charges leveled before. Most recently IIRC, Former President Carter was the target.

The other is that any initiative Obama might have pushed for, no matter how good an idea it might have been, would have been immediately sandbagged by the Bush Administration. The end result is that Obama would have ended up looking naive and ineffectual.

I think a politician has to pick his fights carefully. Not to say that one should only take on fights you can win, but if you're going to lose, you'd better be fighting for a compelling reason. I don't think this one rises to that level.

Great article in Foreign Affairs Magazine in July written by Barack Obama.

Check it out. This is how America should restore its standing in the world.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Excellent article - thank you for providing this information mageduley. Specifics, substance, solutions and good judgement.

This difference between Clinton and Obama? TRANSPARENCY

Obama makes everything OPEN. He hides nothing. He wants the GOVERNMENT OPEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Google for government, opening Washington to scrutiny by broadcasting meetings, will allow people to weigh in on every bill waiting his signature.

Hillary likes the idea of UNITARY EXECUTIVE.
All you have to do is look at her statements and acts. She has a hate relationship with the media and will be just as secretive as GWB. She basically treats the electorate as stupid (remember Shame on you Barack Obama?)

On the AUMF - "it is a vote that puts the awesome responsibility in the hands of our president"

From her memoir - "the west wing leaked, while Hillaryland never did"

Will not release tax records. She is going to tell us WHAT SHE IS GOING TO DO! The American people have nothing to do with it.

Compare judgement decisions. Open Obama Government or secretive Hillary government?

Don't agree? Lets see how Hillary's Judgement in this campaign and another secretive president, GWB used his judgement in Iraq:

1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.

2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.

3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.

4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.

5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.

6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.

7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place

Bill Clinton is Charismatic, that's why he won despite his peccadilloes.

JFK won because his message appealed more so than the experienced Nixon.

All his brouhaha about Obama not having hearings, is counterproductive. The American people want action, not another hearing or another committee reveiw

I, as do others, see the abdication, of putting off our problems, by having more hearings.
More action, less talk, is what America hungers for.

While Rome burned they had concertos. Instead of solving America's most pressing problems, lets have another hearing, on steroid use.

So what is the problem? I think these are sound positions.

Are you saying that we must now stay in Iraq so we are not perceived as losers? We lost the day we invaded Iraq because we defined success as replacing the Bathist regime with one that would look favorably upon American and Israeli interests in the ME. That is not going to happen, not then and not today.

The only thing that the US military can do in Iraq today is to continue the war. Perhaps we can be so successful in the military operations that the Iraqis will tire of resisting us and passively accept our occupation. But the instant we withdraw our forces, those who fought us to this point will insist on a government that supports things that are not those that Americans and Israelis approve.

I think McCain is right, if we want true victory, i.e. domination of the Iraqi people and suppression of their sense of their national destiny, then we should be ready to occupy them for another century.

I happen to believe that if that is how 'winning' is defined then we can 'win'. But keep in mind the price that we will have to pay.

Stepping back a little, here's where I think "we" are:

• Hillary's big, initial mistake was in ASSUMING she was going to be the nominee and didn't have to earn it. The strategy of inevitability was crippled as soon as some showed that she wasn't necessarily the inevitable candidate. Then, one big plank of her strategy fell apart. She's actually been playing catch up since Iowa, and the seriousness of her mistake--the played itself out in poor budgeting, poor staffing out in the hinterland--came home to roost right after February 5 when she was unable to knock Obama out of the game.

• Though I'm an Obama supporter, I've never heard another Obama supporter mention anything negative about our candidate from a substantive standpoint. Occasionally, people will point out political weaknesses of his; but if OTHER Dems point out those same weaknesses, e.g., Rezko or no hearings or too little time in Congress, they are dismissed, as if NO criticism of Obama could possibly hold water. Worse, they are treated as if they were enemies of the Democratic party.

Like it or not, many politicians have fallen because of Rezkos. (Obama himself made it into the Senate in large part because the heavily favored Republican incumbent fell to a sex scandal.) Not doing your job in Congress IS a problem for many voters who feel that candidates should quit office before running. Having insufficient experience has been the PERENNIAL talking point in elections probably since the first GW. Why is it so bad for Hillary to point these things out now? What crime is she committing? What sort of foul play is this to--my word!--criticize your opponent?

Perhaps the fact that Obama, at least initially, didn't criticize his opponents has turned such criticism into evidence of low character for his supporters. I don't know, and I am a supporter.

This is ridiculous. No candidate is perfect. Why are Obama supporters unwilling to discuss his weaknesses? I don't get it.

• When Hillary says, "He lacks experience," Obama supporters say, "You don't have much experience either." But this is manifestly false in all sorts of ways that hardly need pointing out. The biggest laugh line is her time as First Lady. But EVERYONE knows that she was not your typical First Lady who tucked the kids in at night and planted flowers along the Interstate. No; she was going to do things. She took on national health care, among other issues. She failed; but is her failure also going to rob her of her claim to experience? Or tar her as someone with "bad judgement" because she got it wrong back then (thus depriving thousands of people of the health care they could have gotten had she succeed)? Isn't it ENTIRELY possible that when you fail so magnificently and publicly you are just as likely to learn how to do it right the next time? Isn't this what happens in real life all the time, if not every time?

What happens when President Obama makes his first big mistake? Are we going to say (next time he runs) that this bit of experience doesn't count (should be erased from the Book of Life) because he failed? Are we going to say that his judgement is fatally flawed because things didn't work out the way he expected and hoped? After all, at least in the case of health care, she really was trying to do the right thing long before it became a red hot issue.

Similarly, does Obama have to be mistake-free and fault-less to keep earning our support? Maybe. Maybe not. But I am disturbed by the one sided way we are treating her every claim and every mistake.

It's perfectly obvious to me that Hillary learned a huge amount about the presidency--and getting things done as president--from her time as First Lady. How Obama has managed to erase this piece of her experience from many, many people's minds is an amazing political coup. Believe it or not, someone I know--a woman, no less--even criticized Hillary for wearing pearls at the last debate. "She didn't look presidential! He did." It was hard for me to imagine Obama getting dressed for the debate and going back and forth about whether to wear pearls. Lucky for him, he made the right choice, at least for one voter (of whom I'm VERY fond).

• Since we are swayed by Obama's ability to inspire hope, we should as well be swayed by Hillary's ability to convey competence and a get-it-down and fight-for-it attitude. Both things come through. Both are vaporware, at least to some degree. If anything, hope is more vaporous than another's ability to "get it done." After all, Hillary can at least point to some accomplishments in Congress. Obama has yet to deliver on his message of hope for others (he always points to how hope got HIM through): Why should we find his message credible and Hillary's not? They are equally a matter of what the two project.

• Hillary is frequently called divisive. But when has the base ever been worried about being divisive? Doesn't the base want to stick it to the Republicans, bring out the differences, trace the bright line, and not back down on this and that issue? The base is not conciliatory: Why should it be in love with a professed conciliator and trash someone who obviously loves a good fight? Similarly, and somewhat paradoxically, why should Hillary be SIMULTANEOUSLY trashed for being too divisive and also too willing to compromise and reach consensus with Republicans?

• Obama's candidacy points up some peculiarities about the way "the base" thinks or reacts. On the one hand, the base is fired up to deny the Republicans an inch of ground. Give 'em some of their own medicine says we. However, Obama talks frequently about bridging the differences between Dems and Republicans, even to the point of disappearing those differences, because we aren't "red" or "blue" Americans, we are American Americans. So why is the base so in love with someone like this?

• Obama takes or flirts with positions that are, at least currently, part of the Republican "plank." Merit pay for teachers, for one thing. Raising the cap on SS. And there are others. I'm not objecting, mind you, just pointing this out. So, arguably, as someone said on another thread, Obama is to the RIGHT of Hillary, or at least of the Democratic Party as we now know it. Where are his big base bona fides? He didn't call for impeachment? He didn't say end the war now, like Richardson. He moves very carefully and cautiously.

• Otherwise, of course, Obama's positions seem to be solidly liberal. What happens when the Republicans discover that, underneath it all, Obama is just a liberal? Already, one reads op-eds from Republicans saying that, as long as Obama SAYS he's a uniter, we like him. As soon as he tries to ENACT liberal policies, we'll turn against him. This seems perfectly logical to me. So what is Obama's plan to deal with this?

• Obama has invoked Reagan as a transformative president. He was and in a way most of us would disapprove of. But it's important to see two things: 1) context, and 2) content. In terms of context, he followed the Carter malaise, high interest rates, and the bitter end of Viet Nam self-flagellation. So he offered an upbeat, optimistic contrast to Carter and what had preceded his presidency. A lot of people, including Dems, were attracted to that. (Not me, BTW, I LIKE malaise.)

In terms of substance, he introduced ideas, such as supply-side economics, winning the Cold War instead of settling for detente, and beating back oppressively high interest rates (20% on homes).

Obama has number one down pat. People ARE ready to turn the page, and he is able to inspire hope that things can be different. But in terms of number two, he brings nothing to the table, AFAIK. No new ideas, just old liberal ones. In this way, he is very unlike Reagan and thus may not be able to transform the political landscape the way Reagan did by getting his base very excited, creating Reagan Democrats, and shifting the balance of power to his party who were extremely loyal to him.

• Obama's ability to sway people is VERY important. It may be the most important tool a president has to change the country. Can't do anything for very long if the people aren't behind you. His strategy, I believe, is NOT bipartisanship or post-partisanship, but good old-fashioned Reagan-style partisanship in which you convince a lot of the opposition to come over to your side or return to your side AND you inspire a lot more of your own base to come out and vote in a variety of elections.

You get your way because of overwhelming numbers on your side, not because you've reached out to the opposition. You've unleashed the people on the opposition, and the pols start running scared of the voters. The opposition largely falls in line because they are afraid of going against the tide of public opinion and getting voted out. The press gets romanced.

This is what Obama hopes to achieve with his speeches, rallies, and tremendous crowds. He wants to scare the Republican opposition into falling into line. The press are largely there. These speeches are just words; but they are words that move people; and that is the president's most important tool in his toolkit. So Hillaryites shouldn't diminish it in any way. She does not have this ability and it hurts her campaign. It will also hurt her presidency, if she gets there.

• The problem for Obama, as I see it, is that he isn't leading with new ideas (as Reagan did) and his ideas will quickly be seen to be liberal re-treads...unless he retools in some way. His structure isn't sturdy enough yet to last, IMO. Reagan had a one-two punch. Obama only has the one. At least so far. Obama's best hope for winning is John McCain, because he's so weak. But after President Obama wins, it will be a whole new ball game. We'll just have to see.

Help! Larry! Better get the CIA on this right away! Hillary doesn't really know if Obama is a Muslim or not. I mean there is "nothing to base that on" but we don't really know do we Larry? He might be a secret Muslim. BE AFRAID!!:

From 60 Minutes:

"It happened again last week, when a photo of Obama in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign.

Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.

"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said."