Does anyone want to resile from any of the awful things they said about Obama in the other recent diary about this vote?  Anyone?  

But the two are not inextricable: we are in Iraq, because critics of the war and of those who espouse the policies of the administration have been demonized and subjected to various forms of humiliation.  Both are part of the problem, which is why Obama's calculated nonvote, his abstinence only program, will remain a problem.

What! A! P*ssy!

For those of us who live in Chicago, we are well-aware of Obama's enormous capacity for this non-commital bullshit.  His Illinois legislative record is riddled with missed and "present" votes.

Audacity, indeed!

"Do Democrats want somebody who will be above partisan fighting (Obama), or do they want a partisan fighter (Clinton)?"

Obama is running a campaign that thinks it's in a non-partisan era.  After eight years of the far-right Bush, America is NOT in the mood to unilaterally disarm and try to be above politics.

The GOPers aren't in the mood to compromise, anyway.

Ironically, Obama is determined to run a milquetoast, wishy-washy pre-9/11, pre-Iraq War 90s campaign; whereas a famous Democrat associated with the 1990s (Hillary) is running a campaign more appropriate for the times we are in.

If Obama is the nominee, I am afraid of him getting eaten alive.

like this ad while she trianguilates and abandons us on the issues. Obama would rather debate the issues than have back and forth on drivel like this.

First of all, anyone who is still obsessing over the Boxer and Cornyn amendments given that there was a vote today on the Feingold amendment to end the war and withdraw the troops by July 2008 has their priorities severely messed up.

Clinton, Obama, and Dodd all voted yes on ending the war, by the way.  (Biden is campaigning in Iowa.)  It's awesome how these folks do our bidding during primary season!

As for Boxer's amendment, of course it was just as silly and political as Cornyn's, but it was also Boxer's way of making the same point as Obama: namely, the Cornyn amendment is a stunt.  Perhaps Obama is friends with Boxer (who wouldn't be? she rules) and didn't see the need to call her amendment a cheap political stunt in the midst of making his point.

As far as what Ben Smith says about partisan fighting or lack thereof, I think he's just playing the typical media game of trying to fit everything into a narrative.  You know, how Al Gore's earth tones show that he's not comfortable in his own skin.  For my money, the entire controversy over the Moveon ad has been absolutely meaningless, and any time you spend parsing the various votes is time you could have more productively spent clipping your toenails.

Deciding not to vote so as not to tick anyone off has all the hallmarks of CYA in action. Think to yourself if Hillary had made the Obama statement and Obama had voted. The cry across the blogosphere calling her a coward would have been deafening!!!

I can't recall exactly, but wasn't there a knock on Obama for skipping out on controversial votes while Obama was in the state Senate as well? I remember vaguely something about Obama not willing to vote or voting in absentia on a partial birth legislation. But maybe I have my facts wrong?

Anyway, I was seriously considering voting for Obama in the primary earlier this year but I perceived a few months ago that he doesn't have the "fire in the belly" that the 44th president is going to need in the coming years....

Any major bloggers who're still believing Obama is going to fight for them are dealt with a major blow.

Just as Taylor Mash pointed out...
Can we finally dispense with the utter nonsense that Barack Obama would have stood up against the Iraq war if he had been in the Senate at the time of the 2002 vote? I've been saying this for over a year. Mr. Obama gets credit for his speech before the war when he wasn't in the Senate. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he would have voted against the force resolution. His calculation to vote for Boxer's amendment today, then skip out on the Cornyn vote speaks volumes. Will anyone call him out on it?

Despite being an amateur triangulator, Obama is polling horribly in so-called 'red states'...

KY:

Giuliani 54%, Obama 36%
Thompson 54%, Obama 37%
Romney   45%, Obama 43%

An average deficit of 12 points!!

AL:

Giuliani 59%, Obama 32%
Thompson 60%, Obama 34%
Romney   53%, Obama 36%

An average deficit of 20 points!!

If democrats nominate this guy, God forbidden, he'll be eaten alive. Obama is unelectable in general election.

If he believed the amendment offered by his Republican friends was just a partisan stunt, it should have been easy for him to vote against it, just as Dodd and Clinton did.

CLINTON the partisan fighter? Ha!

Again Obama must take the time and waste his time "explaining" why he did what he did, or said what he did.

He should have defended moveon.og all the way. He should have voted.  He's a wimp.  Plain and simple.

You Idiots.

This says it all.

Regardless of where Obama stands, he needs to lead - even if he leads people out of the Senate to not vote on this thing, he needs to lead.  Sometimes I feel like Democratic Party activists are like the partisans of Stalingrad - we're fighting tooth and nail on the ground while we're waiting for someone to step in and lead our frantic efforts.

I'm not saying that Obama can't do that, but he hasn't done it yet.  Nor has Clinton, for that matter.  For goodness sakes, step up and lead.

I'm tired of being rolled.  Those who say they aren't partisan apparently don't have any convictions for which  they are willing to fight.

Good on Hillary.  Better on Feingold.  Best on MoveOn who actually got it right.  I'm proud to be a member.

Damn fucking straight.

Do most people know that Obama was not in the Senate when the Iraq resolution was passed?

For a long time, I thought that he VOTED AGAINST the war. I guess I should paid more attention when he said he OPPOSED the war.

I think most Americans believe that Obama was actually in the Senate and not in the State Senate when the bill was passed.

This is what has always bothered me about Obama. He seems to think he is too good for partisan fights. But partisan fights matter. They determine political boundaries.

Obama supporters call him a transformational leader but transformational leaders don't abstain from partisan fights. On the contrary they revel in it. FDR enjoyed sticking it to the GOP. Goldwater, Reagan were highly partisan. You can't be a transformational political leader without willingness to fight partisan fights.

This is what has always bothered me about Obama. He seems to think he is above partisan battles. But partisan battles matter.

Obama supporters say he is a transformational leader. I don't see it. Transformational political leaders don't avoid partisan battles. They reveal in it. FDR welcomed partisan battles.

"His Illinois legislative record is riddled with missed and "present" votes."

I noticed that too.

I wonder how much of Obama's appeal has to do with the fact that he hasn't been in the US senate that long so he hasn't been forced to cast difficult votes. His supporters just assume that he would have cast the right votes.

I'm for John Edwards with Obama for vice president. I like the less partisan aspect of Obama's credo. A lot of people in the country are way tired of the silly gamesmanship and vicious tricks. Having a fighter for president (Edwards) and Obama as vice will get more votes.

and here we are....arguing about NONBINDING resolution!

I thought this time around the dems would be different. Harry reid is the new Tom daschle. Screw them BOTH.

The idea that Hillary is anything more than a poser is just a joke.  She is bought and paid for by special interests.  Look at her fundraiser yesterday with the Homeland Security vendors.  Our government for sale.  She fights when it looks good, but not when it matters.

And if folks don't think Obama is a fighter, you really need to take another look.  He just isn't going to allow himself to be belittled by this nonsense when there are so many important battles to be fought.

Obama in dead right and OpenLeft is dead wrong.  The Netroots is a fiction.

Moveon.org has a PAC, I found out, but I can't find out who they donate to. Obama takes no PAC money. Neither does Edwards, but he's getting lots of support from Moveon.org, which translates into individual donations from its website. We were talked after 2000 especially into not beating the system, but joining it by establishing our own liberal PACs and 527s - labor, education, health care workers, anti-war, choice, election rights, etc. - to counter right-wing PACs. How's it working out? Similar attack ads. Great! Choosing a candidate based on rhetoric, not performance. Lovely! Thousands or tens of thousands on ads paid to corporate media. Fantastic! Making some PACs corporate entities to get around contribution restrictions. Whoopee! I decided this year I'm tired of it, no more donations, no more house parties for moveon.org or any PACs or 527s, simply straight donations and volunteer work for the candidate of my choice based on his record, his advisors and his character. Yep, his, because Hillary, like Sen. Feinstein, is a bane to my feminist sensibilities. I'm glad Obama supported the Boxer amendment - it condemns all personal attack ads, not one ad because it's offensive to one general. I'm glad he's not dependent on moveon.org, but on his grassroots campaigners. I'm glad Obama rejected the DLC when he was an up and coming Senator and that he doesn't lean on progressive net roots that, also, compromise when push comes to shove. Sen. Webb of Virginia? I phone-banked for him via moveon.org, and I didn't like his conservatism and moveon's choice to support him. I'm done following a progressive organization that compromises so heavily, then criticizes the first viable black American candidate who works across the aisle. Time to quit letting other people do our work for us. Support your candidate directly. You might find, then, that she/he isn't all you thought they were, as a former Hillary-supporter did when he tried to volunteer for her and found a miserable work environment for Clinton's volunteers and staff. The main thing that keeps me going through an insane primary calendar is Obama the person, the leader, and his supporters - the nicest, hardest working, most sincere campaigners I've ever met, and by far the most diverse in age, gender, sexuality, physical ability, race and financial condition. Let's stop letting any representatives make choices for us. We complain our elected ones don't listen to us, then establish another organization with leaders to make decisions for us before even getting to the legislator! It's ludicrous. Pick the best record, the most independent of money-bundlers, the hardest working for transparency in government, and work directly for that choice with your neighbors. It's good practice for when we get rid of the electoral college <g>. And he/she will owe you, not an organization, not a PAC, not a lobbyist. Hell I'll try it this campaign season - it beats what I've been trying since 2000!

Well said Senator.  Congress needs to get to work and quit playing politics.