Hillary Clinton skips vote on retroactive immunity for telecom firms. Criticizing people for missing votes because they were out on the campaign trail usually strikes me as unfair, but given that the vote happened in Washington DC on the day of primaries being held in DC, in Maryland, and in Virginia it does seem a little odd.
« The Wieseltier Factor | Main | Ready to Lead? »
Immunity Vote
12 Feb 2008 02:44 pm
Comments (30)
But this is an "absent" vote. Very different.
Ah, but Hillary has "expressed" her opposition to immunity, according to her campaign staff email sent to Ambinder on this issue--so, voting would just be superfluous.
Besides, there are Latino Texans to court!
That is what I was going to say flip. It will look real bad if she shows up for the final vote on the bill then releases some mealy-mouthed statement of how outrageous it is.
She's not in the area. She isn't running a nationwide campaign remember? I think I heard she is in Texas playing firewall.
Hillary is in Texas today. You must have missed the memo that the Hillary-slam of the day is that she has gone to south Texas on the day of the Cheasapeake primaries. Oh wait, you didn't. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/off_to_vote.php
At least she isn't trying to change the DNC rules after she agreed to them.
Oh, wait.
She sure is giving him lots of ammo for the debate.
I think it's fascinating that after repeatedly criticizing Obama for his "present" votes and missing the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill, Hillary's just handed him the perfect defense to use against those attacks.
MY, actually I understand HRC not voting today, when surely she's going around like a headless chicken.
DaveWoo, except for the fact that she has to still be in the campaign for Obama to use those. And clearly, campaigning is more important RIGHT NOW than leaving herself open for attacks in a few weeks.
Seriously guys, can't we be angry at the right people, the Red State Dems? Hillary was campaigning today and assuredly knew her vote couldn't change what was going to happen. It's people like Claire McCaskill that are responsible. This will continue to happen unless we let the Red State Dems know that getting elected under the Democratic banner simply isn't enough.
My take: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/02/fear-telecoms-hate-red-state-dems-jm.html
Why would she be in DC/VA/MD? The primaries there are just glorified straw polls. Like every other primary except CA, NY, TX, OH, FL and MI.
Oh, and OK and AZ! Those are crucial battleground states.
Gotta wonder, if Yglesias' blog is like this today... how bad is Andrew Sullivan's? Now I'm too scared to even click that link.
Just what in your experience makes you keyboard kommandos think you know better how to run HRC's campaign than she and her
staff do?
Sure she's in the weeds, she knows that, you take delight in the fact if you wish, but she is hardly out of the game.
And yes she chose to campaign in Texas and did not show up for a vote that she knew would not change the outcome.
Your snarky little point is what again?
Oh, that's right, you haven't one. Just pleasuring yourself with pettiness.
Matt, you're forgetting that this one doesn't count because it would force her to take a position on something, and that could potentially alienate some voters!
It might help if Yglesias pointed out that Reid has once again put the '60 votes' rule in effect.
Dodd can't filibuster.
But no...
an easy pot-shot at Clinton will suffice.
Have you seen the vote totals for today?
Matt really is going after Hillary today. It's kind of boring. Is there really nothing at all to report about Obama? I'm beginning to wonder if he really actually likes Obama or just plain hates mean ol' Hillary.
That said, Hillary missing this incredibly important vote is appalling and she should rightly be criticized for it.
Obama voted against immunity.
McCain voted for immunity.
Clinton didn't vote.
Another data point to think about before you cast your ballot.
Just what in your experience makes you keyboard kommandos think you know better how to run HRC's campaign than she and her
staff do?
Sure she's in the weeds, she knows that, you take delight in the fact if you wish, but she is hardly out of the game.
And yes she chose to campaign in Texas and did not show up for a vote that she knew would not change the outcome.
Your snarky little point is what again?
Oh, that's right, you haven't one. Just pleasuring yourself with pettiness.
But she makes it so easy, don't you agree? I just don't like being told I'm a snobby wine and cheese person, while the large number of black Obama supporters are ignored. So as long as Hillary supporters keep tossing that - typical conservative attack on liberals -around, I'll snark away.
I'm fine with Clinton not being there, her vote was not going to matter. I'm not fine with the anti Obama bloggers who threw snit fits a few weeks ago demanding Obama (never mentioning Hillary's name) be at a FISA vote. Today there's no word from Shakesville or Corrente acknowledging Obama showed up while Clinton didn't.
So let me get the Left position on this straight:
-- Government demands cooperation from a company
Company complies with government coercion
The left wants to prosecute the company
What real option for declining government force did they have? Should they have followed the example of the "tax resistors"? yeah, there's a plan that was bound to work out well.
How dare you question Her majesty! It's bad enough you're making her go through this dog and pony show to verify her rightful place, but to insinuate that she has anything but the best interest of all Americans at heart at all times is just shameful. Hillary Clinton for President! Arrest the puppet Muslim for treason!
Why does the candidate still have to physically be present to cast a vote? In this day and age I would hope that congress members could literally phone it in.
Well, that's it. After Dodds and Edwards dropped out, I was uncertain whether I supported Obama or Clinton. No question now - Obama's my candidate and I'll be supporting him on March 4.
What real option for declining government force did they have?
Considering some of the telecoms refused to cooperate (i.e., refused to break multiple laws), apparently there were options. And the government didn't offer them force, the government offered them money. See Greenwald, Glenn.
It was a cold and rainy day in Virginia, as Hillary Clinton hit the high-density Latino population centers, only miles from Washington, DC. and Capitol Hill. Viva Zapata! Upon realizing the Hispanic enclaves would not be nearly enough to pull the fat out of the fire, nor scenic enough for any photo opportunities, Hillary pulled-on her Wranglers, and flew the coop for the lone star State of Texas. Texas, just where I always wanted to go, and you know how much I love the food; how many tacos do I have to eat, muttered Hillary. Maybe there’s a bullfight or something going on … somebody make sure I’ve got my chaps and my hat: http://theseedsof9-11.com
So let me get the Left position on this straight:
-- Government demands cooperation from a company
Company complies with government coercion
The left wants to prosecute the company
What real option for declining government force did they have? Should they have followed the example of the "tax resistors"? yeah, there's a plan that was bound to work out well.
One company did refuse. I think it was Quest? Not because their lefties, but because they saw the legal implications. Why are rightwingers such pussies? (sorry I'm cranky. Democrats roll over again. Thanks Harry Reid! (who backed Hillary in Nevada))
It's pretty frustrating being a Dem sometimes. And by the way it would be nice if fewer Obamaites could stop pretending to be new voters fed up about ridiculous things pretending to switch over to Obama. It's silly and obnoxious.
For consistency's sake, I'm sure hoping MY posts soon about how horrible it was that Obama missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote. Jebus.
James Robertson:
Qwest was asked to do it before 9/11 and refused. Spare me the bullshit. If the government asks you to do something illegal, would you do it? Or don't you believe in laws?
What real option for declining government force did they have?
Following JKC, last time I checked, the telcos do employ legal teams and general counsel for rather large amounts of compensation. Indeed, they have employed ex-DOJers from both parties to lobby for their free pass on enabling illegal, warrantless mass surveillance.
Obviously, though, to J-Rob, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon are just powerless multi-billion dollar corporations.
For consistency's sake, I'm sure hoping MY posts soon about how horrible it was that Obama missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote. Jebus.
Matthew Yglesias has already established that he's perfectly happy to have a double standard with any Hillary Clinton story, based on this blog post.
Comments closed February 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yeah, not to mention her ill-founded criticism of Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature.
Posted by flip | February 12, 2008 2:49 PM