Congratulations to Hillary. Shame on Obama, Biden, and Dodd

[Czolgosz]

The Senate set up a fatal roadblock to stop the effort to allow consumers to buy their prescription medicines overseas by requiring certifications regarding the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs.

The amendment passed on a 49-40 vote in part because three of our candidates were too busy seeking to fulfill their personal ambitions to stop for a moment and do the service to the public which they were elected to perform:

Not Voting - 11

Allard (R-CO)
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Ensign (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Tester (D-MT)

YEAs ---49

Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---40

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lott (R-MS)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I have not been a supporter of Hillary's campaign but she deserves much credit for this. I have been a fan of Dodd's and Obama's so I'm especially disappointed in them.

[wyldwolf]

1. Clinton takes her senate responsibilities seriously - not saying the others don't... but..

...she has been especially vigilant in fulfilling her Senate obligations while she campaigns.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Senator Johnson has a valid excuse for not being there

[Czolgosz]

66. Agreed.

[Ethelk2044]

51. Please She has been Absent

more times than Obama when it comes to voting. Yet you say she is taking her job seriously. Please give me a break.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. do you have a source for that claim?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

99. source? nt

[lojasmo]

118. That's not true. Here are the facts.

Clinton has missed 3 votes (2%)
Obama has missed 7 votes (4%)
Biden has missed 41 votes (27%)
Dodd has missed 26 votes (17.7%)

Brownback has missed 37 votes (25%)
McCain has missed 60 votes (40.8%)

[Labors of Hercules]

93. Agreed, and this is the one thing that may sway me in her direction. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

2. This has always irked me.

If these people want to run for President, fine. BUT they should have to give up their other public office to do so.
They are currently being paid to do the business of the people. Not to campaign.

[asjr]

12. It's as if they are calling

in to school saying they are sick when they really are sleeping in.

[karynnj]

35. Dodd very likely would have voted with Kennedy

He does a very large percent of the time. Kennedy led the liberals who voted with the Republicans and very likely he told Dodd his vote was not needed.

This is very custumary for Presidential candidates.

[Czolgosz]

65. We shouldn't have to guess how any current member of the Senate would have voted.

[Monty_]

94. On that note....

shouldn't an incumbent President have to give up their office to run for reelection?

[Horse with no Name]

101. Do you really want to know what I think the answer is?

A sitting President shouldn't have to campaign. His policies are known. He shouldn't have to "sell" himself to the American public thus he shouldn't have to leave Washington to campaign. Commercials, sure, but as a taxpayer I have to say that NOTHING irks me more than watching AF1 go up in the air at the cost of several hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to convince someone to vote for them. IF they were doing their job, that should be all the convincing people need.

[primative1]

3. Must have been a mixed bag bill ...

I see both Kennedy and Kerry voted Yes and Reed (RI) didnt vote.
Devil is in the detail .... details please

[flpoljunkie]

7. And why would the vote be taken, if the Dems knew they would lose it--which they must have.

[primative1]

8. I am not familiar with this bill ...

But obviously this bill was an oddball. In this case not voting was voting.
Trent Lott and Shelby sided with Clinton?
The OP oversimplifies to honor her majesty me thinks.

[Tellurian]

16. Her majesty and Byrd?

If Byrd stands with Hillary- It's a good thing!

[primative1]

17. And Kennedy and a Host of others vote the other way ?.

If anyone would fall over themselves to get cheaper drugs to seniors THE RIGHT WAY that would be the guy IMO ....
But anyhow ... glad to see you back tellurian.
I am still waiting for the substance to your claim that Obama"emenates a foreign culture" that "rings unamerican"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3255316&mesg_id=3255671

[Tellurian]

22. Did they actually digest every word in the Bill?

Perhaps, Hillary and Byrd voted yes because of safeguards not included in the Bill. Such as quality control for purity, accuracy of content, efficacy substantiated by extensive field trials over a 5-10 yr period, side effect warnings, drug interactions. There maybe unanswered questions as to how each country arrives at their safety standards and how we would juxtaposition our own FDA guidelines with theirs and rightly so- Perhaps, Kennedy and Kerry did the politically expedient thing and just voted no for the merits of public perception. I guess, someone will have to pose the question to them personally to know their reason 'why' they voted NO on the vote.

"I am still waiting for the substance to your claim that Obama"emanates a foreign culture" that "rings un american"

Good to see you did the same thing I did. I was uncomfortable with the word "un american" as I am the word "non american" because it doesn't aptly express the thought wanting to be communicated.

And your use of the word "claim" is also not apt in referencing my post, which was no more than an "opinion". The two words have distinctly different meanings.

So here is the background I'm using to base my 'opinion'. Obama was basically brought up outside of the US for the first 18-19 yrs of his life. I don't feel he carrys with him the same roots in the heartland emanating from him as say, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Danny Glover basically anyone who was born and raised here. Obama, to me is more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Americanized but not American. Knowing full well Obama's mother was an American citizen, which automatically makes Obama a citizen as well.

So you tell me the word. I didn't mean to be insulting to Obama in any way but was hurried and wanted to put that thought down...and still haven't come up with an appropriate word to express the void I feel when I see or hear him. Multi cultural also doesn't do it.. So, I'd appreciate your help. This has been bothersome to me all day long.

[primative1]

23. Substitute Words ...

I don't know as their is a substitute for a phrase like "un american". This is likely because, although I think I understand the sentiment you are conveying, I cant say that I truly feel it, so that would make my understanding superficial at best.
I believe the phrase "un american" got its roots in the McCarthy era when certain Americans thought they knew better than other Americans what they aught to feel and express. In the end, common knowledge has us believe that those who were truly "un american" were those who zealously coined the very phrase.
Am I correct?
If I presume so then that would make me "un american" and I have to admit that lately I often have this feeling of being a stranger in my own homeland. If nothing else Obamas rhetoric is reminiscent of the home I once knew. People are people.

[loyalsister]

31. Oh yes I've heard this sentiment before

My sister wanted to travel and my nationalistic right wing father was concerned about the education she told him she wanted to acquire.

She told him that wanting to live in and truly absorb the meaning of other cultures by living their reality was something that she thought would make her understand her own more fully. It was a sort of soul searching exercise.
His concern "Egads!!!! You have to abandon your own to do that!!!"
Oh me oh my how, could I have raised such an ungrateful, unpatriotic, unamerican child!

And he actually wept. It was quite a disgusting display.

[Tellurian]

33. Just came back in..

from jogging around the neighborhood..this thing gnawing at my brain- then, *bingo*.. "expatriate" pops up- I ran the rest of the way home to hop onto the net for wikipedia. I basically know what the word means, a citizen living in a host country, but curious to the all encompassing meaning, would a case scenario be there that fits..well, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate

[primative1]

40. I'm not buying ...

I dont have to look up expatriot to know who they are ....
I know of numerous expatriots that retired elsewhere, mostly due to cost of living considerations. They remain beholding to the US for their support and basically are USING their host countries (although not in a negative sense) by enjoying the fruits without truly becoming part of those societies on a productive basis.
What is the application here?
There is none.

[Tellurian]

45. I'm not selling anything- OB is just the reverse...he was brought up elsewhere..

other than the US- and this from the wiki website. Children of an Expatriate have a somewhat different take..

"A nickname in the UK for former expatriates who have returned to Britain is the "When I"s, or "When we"s, as they are accused of starting conversations by saying "When I was in Rhodesia" or "When we were in Singapore". Similarly, they are sometimes even viewed by their fellow citizens as foreigners, particularly their children, whose accents may seem strange to their classmates. The children of expatriates are often considered Third Culture Kids (or TCKs) and later in life consider themselves "Adult Third Culture Kids" (or ATCKs). These children often hold passports from multiple countries, speak several different languages, and have a hard time defining where "home" is.

The difference between an expatriate and an immigrant is that immigrants (for the most part) commit themselves to becoming a part of their country of residence, whereas expatriates are usually only temporarily placed in the host country and most of the time plan on returning to their home country, so they never adopt the culture in the host country - though some may end up never actually returning, with the distinction then becoming more a matter of their own viewpoint.

While Europeans or North Americans living in the Middle East and Asia may marry local people and have children, most see no advantage in adopting citizenship of their host countries, usually because they consider their stay only temporary. In countries like Saudi Arabia, many expatriates live on segregated compounds rather than integrate with the local population. As a result a lively community of social blogs has evolved that links the different segregated communities.

[primative1]

82. So What Is American To You ...

I just got back from forking over 45 bucks to fill my gas tank and I am reminded that the oil execs that shut down the refineries to create some cover for jacking up their obscene profits are very AMERICAN.
The CEOs that outsource their product lines, lay off their workers only to then screw their shareholders and pad their own pockets are very AMERICAN.
Or how about our politicians who clammer for extensions of Capital Gain Tax Cuts for "investors", when they know damn well the only investors who actualy had profits to avoid taxes on were the ones who patrioticaly shorted the stock market after 9-11.
Or the free press that ignores the fact that selling short stock should not ethicaly be considered as an INVESTMENT. American!
The guys at the garage where I am forced to bring my car for its annual inspection, who tell me with a straight face that I should get a "routine" 2000$ timing belt change are very AMERICAN.


American .... its almost a curse word these days. Don't you think?

Our entire culture is permeated with greed as if its some out of control communicable disease. Is My SUV bigger than yours? Look at how many trophy rooms I have to spare in my McMansion? If we truly have a God in common I have no doubt what that God is.
I once frequented an Australian run website and the Aussies biggest lament was that they couldn't ban Americans from their site because all we were about was get rich quick schemes and they were tired of having to edit through the unrelenting bullshit.

So which American quality do you see lacking in Mr Obama.
If its any of the ones I listed or the ones I could spend all day recounting let me know.

[Tellurian]

112. When I visited Ireland..

They held no prejudice or bias against Americans for which I was very grateful for- They told me outright, it was our government they detested and lamented President Clinton to beat the band. Clinton's picture hung in just about every restaurant we went into and in their gift shops. So, no I can't agree with your Aussie example that may have been overrun with Freepers putting on a show.

The fact is Obama didn't grow up in the US and he fits the profile mentioned in the wiki "Expatriate" definition.
"Adult Third Culture Kids." I didn't particularly care for his tone of voice in his Detroit speech, given last week. Talking AT the people sitting there in front of him. I doubt they did either- His tone was directive, edgy, authoritarian and somewhat demanding. Had I been there I would have gotten up and walked out. We the people have suffered enough. I don't need someone telling me we haven't done enough, we need to do more! feh!

[karynnj]

42. It would be more politically expedient to vote as Hillary did

She will claim she voted for cheaper drugs. It is much harder to explain that The MA Senators voted to eliminate a poison bill that would have killed an otherwise good important bill that improves the FDA - at a point where that is badly needed.

Ask yourself - who is going to be asked to "explain" this vote in 2008? I assure you it isn't Hillary.

[primative1]

49. Expedient ... thats the word ...

YES certainly was not the expedient vote.
Kennedy has no need to be expedient. He has nothing to lose. Thus we KNOW his vote was of conscience.
Clinton chose the do nothing cop out route ... bluster and happy talk for all ... and a big fat zero for net result.
And the rest of the abstention pack don't want to explain .... I suppose avoidance is bad but not as bad as being on the wrong side of a vote. Thats the leadership and courage thing again, oh so lacking in our heir apparant.

[Withywindle]

64. Hawaii is "outside of the US" now?

That'd be news to them!

Obama was basically brought up outside of the US for the first 18-19 yrs of his life.

He lived in Indonesia for FOUR years, as a little kid. Other than that, he was here.

[Tellurian]

77. Hawaii, is not considered part of the mainland. Neither is Alaska.

for obvious reasons..

[Withywindle]

87. That's not what you said.

Neither Alaska nor Hawaii is "out of the US," regardless. Are we now making a list of states that are acceptably "mainland" or "heartland" for a candidate to be from? What about the Florida Keys? Long Island? The UP of Michigan...why, that's almost Canada!

[Tellurian]

109. Yeahr, I did..I don't care how you spin it..

Alaska and Hawaii are not part of the mainland of the Continental United States..Never were and never will be.

FYI..Florida and the Keys are considered a peninsula as well as Long Island. There are man-made bridges to them.

I suppose in your world, you have a bridges to Hawaii and Alaska, you've sold many times over.

[Withywindle]

116. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

This is your original statement I was responding to, verbatim.

Obama was basically brought up outside of the US for the first 18-19 yrs of his life. I don't feel he carrys with him the same roots in the heartland emanating from him as say, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Danny Glover basically anyone who was born and raised here.

Hawaii is not part of the mainland. No shit. It is, however, part of the US. It is one of the 50 states. Therefore, your statement that he was brought up "outside of the US" is just simply incorrect. Not true. Factually FUBAR.

If you're going to go making judgements on which U.S. states do and don't constitute "the heartland" and therefore are a suitable place for a candidate to be from, well, you're going outside of the Constitution and drawing on some weird-ass prejudices. Ohio's OK but Alaska isn't? Is Hawaii too far away? Too tropical and "brown"? Too much of a newbie? I wonder what Sens. Akaka and Inouye would have to say about that.

(And Obama's mom, and the grandparents who helped raise him, are from Kansas anyway. Doesn't get much more "heartland" than that.)

[Tellurian]

121. No, I think you need a nap- You're not making any sense.

Obama was raised out of the continental US and didn't come to the mainland until he was 19 or 20 yrs old.
Deal with it, because thats the way it is. He is considered an "Adult Third Cultural Kid.", meaning, the offspring of an expatriate.

[Withywindle]

122. Well, hell, so am I

I have a parent from another country. So does the woman in the cubicle next to mine (she has two, in fact--from two different continents). So does one of my supervisors. And that's just the people within 30 feet of me at work, and I'm in the midwest. My boyfriend does too, and so do his sister's children. Nothing un-American about that--that IS America.

What I objected to was your implication that Hawaii was somehow less American than, say, Indiana.

I also object to the implication that it has anything to do with whether someone is a good Presidential candidate or not, because that just makes no sense to me...and whittles down our pool of talent to an unacceptable level.

[Tellurian]

125. Funny, 3 posts ago, you didn't even know the meaning of the word expatriate?

now, suddenly, everyone in your office, even you, are expatriates? I suppose, you didn't know DU was testing a new feature, they've been working on. "The TRUTHful response feature" If you're 'not' telling the TRUTH your response shows up in big, bold, red type.

excuse me, your last response indicated you failed the test..However, you can redeem yourself with a sincere apology in writing.
Hopefully, you've seen the error of your ways and will continue to see the untold benefits of your DU experience.

LOL!

[Withywindle]

127. Now you're just being wanky.

I am not an expatriate. Like Obama, I was born and raised in the United States--he isn't one either.

My mother, on the other hand, IS one. She is living outside her native country--that is what 'expatriate' means. I am living in mine.

You're just being gratuitously insulting and it seems to come naturally as breathing to you. It's not really in my nature the same way, so I'm done. Peace.

[Dhalgren]

11. Right.

And Lott, Sessions, and Shelby voted with Hillary, against the bill. But Sanders voted against it, too. So, we need to look more closely at this thing. On the surface it looks to be a bill to benefit Big Pharma, but now I'm not so sure...

[primative1]

13. Could be the chinese import thing ...

How safe is it to buy unregulated drug imports these days ... What isnt counterfit could be rat poison.

[AlGore-08.com]

18. The amendment voted down was a "poison pill" amendment designed to stop a different amendment

Which would have limited the countries where drugs could be imported from to specific countries which (presumably) would only export safe, quality drugs. Here's an AP article about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18530709/

Senate kills bid to import prescription drugs
Supporters point to lower prices; opponents cite safety and quality

WASHINGTON - In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.

On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.

(snip)

The vote neutralized a second amendment, later passed on a voice vote, that would legalize the importation of prescription drugs manufactured in Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan and New Zealand.

(more... )

[primative1]

19. Wow IS That Confusing ....

Is it just me? I will have to get a coffee and figure out what that just said :)

[Dawgs]

4. Agree. I'm not a big fan of Hillary at all.

I like Obama, but this non-vote was very disappointing. Good for Hillary.

[panader0]

5. Clinton and Kerry on opposite sides on this one eh?

[primative1]

6. You see ...

At last a policy difference. I am dying to find out what.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. Reminds me of another crucial bill

Bankruptcy Reform Bill

[elizm]

36. Which Hillary was NOT present for the voting...Hmmm..

Pretty important bill wouldn't you think? I notice Obama was there to vote against that very important one. Should we say 'Shame on Hillary'??????

[Alamom]

41. Bankruptcy Act: Senate vote date, 3/10/05 - Bill Clinton's heart surgery, 3/10/05.

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ...

Senate Vote Date: March 10, 2005




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/10/national/main679236.shtml


Bill Clinton's Operation A Success

NEW YORK, March 10, 2005

CBS/AP) Surgeons successfully removed fluid and scar tissue from Bill Clinton's chest cavity Thursday, cleaning up minor complications from the former president's heart bypass operation of six months ago.

Clinton was "awake and resting comfortably" after four hours of surgery, said Herbert Pardes, president of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center.
His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and daughter Chelsea were with him and are said to be pleased with the outcome.



edsp

[elizm]

43. Perhaps...

You should check the schedules of the other 11 who did not vote on this and find out what may have been going on with them as well.

[Alamom]

50. Maybe you should. Senator Clinton's vote was in question and the answer has been provided. EOM

[Alexander]

106. Bankruptcy Act - voted on in 2001.....Clinton - AYE.

Unlike other DUers I do not criticize Sen. Clinton for rightly being by Bill's side during his surgery.

But I do take issue with her 2001 vote.

[rodeodance]

114. she made a speech on floor of Senate---saying she would vote no if she

could be at the vote.

[karynnj]

44. She was on the good side in 2005, the bad in 2001

Kerry voted against it in all its versions.

[mnhtnbb]

10. This is the kind of thing that got Edwards in trouble with his NC

constituents when he was running for Pres in 03 and forgot to attend to
his current job. Beware, Obama!

[Horse with no Name]

21. The way I understood it...and I have been wrong

is that Edwards didn't seek reelection BECAUSE he was running for President.

[mnhtnbb]

28. That's right. And while he was running for President, he neglected

some votes. That started (probably by Republicans) the rumor
that he wouldn't have been re-elected, which seems to be a favorite meme among the anti-Edwards crowd on DU.

I just put that rumor to the test of Edwards' favorable/unfavorable
ratings in July 04 on another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3254738&mesg_id=3256118

[babylonsister]

14. Cripes. Look at all those Dems who didn't even bother to vote. They ALL

need to hear from us. Disgusting...

[Dhalgren]

15. There's something fishy about this bill.

You've got Democrats and Republicans all over the board on this one. Not voting may actually have been a kind of vote. This is a weird one...

[babylonsister]

20. ProSense tries to clarifiy, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3255850

[AtomicKitten]

25. thanks for this

It's kinda funny when people are ready to pounce but are confused when they see different politicians lined up on opposite sides of a bill.

I do think it's important for the Senators running for office to make every effort to be there for the votes. That's the peril of running for president when you have such an important job to do.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Oh yeah, HRC is a real gem + a broken clock is right twice a day.

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

67. The Goddess of Peace is the real deal, everyone knows it. Your right she's a gem. nt

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

83. Goddess of Peace, mtnsnake? Please pass the Kool-Aid.

Somehow, I think voting for a bill to authorize a bloody, offensive, disastrous war-- and then continuing to support that war in the subsequent years-- disqualifies a legislator from being considered a God or Goddess of Peace. Try again, please.

[mtnsnake]

107. She said her first order of business will be to end the Iraq War when she's elected

if the war is still going on. That's just one of the reasons she's the Goddess of Peace. Plus she's still a peace loving flower child at heart. Loves peace that lady does and the Repukes know it. That's why they're doing everything they can to bring her down.

[Alexander]

102. Calling any politician a "God" is a sign of a delusional mind.

Just saying.

[mtnsnake]

108. Shit, Im in good company then. Ever notice how many delusional minds post here?

Just saying.

[Alexander]

115. None so delusional as to call a candidate a "God" or "Goddess".

You'll forgive me if I start to wonder if you can be taken seriously after that comment.

[Forkboy]

117. mtnsnake may get mad at me for giving up the game

But the term has been used by him in a very tongue in cheek way all along.

[Tellurian]

119. No tongue, no cheek..

Just straight up and down "for real"!

Hillary doesn't want this illegal war to continue.

You should have figured that out by now!

If she had the power to stop it tomorrow; she would.

[Forkboy]

120. LOL

:crazy:

[mtnsnake]

123. No way I'd get mad Forky

...because you make us laugh to often. B-)

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

124. Is that a compliment or a insult?

:D

[mtnsnake]

126. That did it, now I'm mad

(J/K) :evilgrin:

Compliment of course

[Jillian]

27. Oh puleez!

Hillary finally makes it to a vote - and she gets a whole thread about it?
Even makes it to the greatest page:puke:

[mtnsnake]

68. Jealous eh

Hillary has what it takes. No wonder mainstream Democrats love her. Damn she's pretty.

[tkmorris]

72. More mindless trashing of any candidate not your own?

Look, stop the negativity. Concentrate on promoting your candidate. Or at the very least post something that isn't about the primary, or one of the candidates involved. You seem to have a single purpose here, to utterly destroy any candidate not your own. Please stop.

[IronLionZion]

29. sitting legislators shouldn't run for president

until we have a way for them to vote long distance. Actually there are more reasons why any sort of legislator shouldn't run. President is an executive position. We don't need each vote scrutinized and spun.

[w4rma]

30. And this is why the last sitting Senator elected to the Presidency was John Kennedy (slim margin).nt

[Alamom]

32. Things have changed in the last half-century..........

It's been 47 years since JFK ran and won. Since then, we've had a couple of great presidents and LOST the rest of the time.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe it's time to widen the field....looks like that's the way it's going anyway. I think we have a lot of great people running for our side this time and am happy to see it.

I think anyone who has been in politics a while and has the experience to do the job should be able to toss their hat in. Looking for a perfect governor who can carry the whole country with each election doesn't seem to be working for us......

& look what we got from the other side. He was a governor.

[w4rma]

58. I really don't think things have changed that much, considering Hillary does poorly in the general

election matchups. Although she's manipulated the Democratic primary system to give her as many advantages as possible, including frontloading primary dates to help big media/big money supported candidates, such as her.

[karynnj]

34. I think a Yes vote on this was actually better

Senator Kennedy led the group of many of the Senate's liberals to vote this way. The reason is that the main bill is importand legislation - written by Kennedy to increase the budget and to improve the standards of the FDA in insuring that our food, drugs etc are safe. As one who spent more time than I will admit to trying to find whether the wheat gluten in fake meat vegetarian products could be contaminated, I welcome this. (I couldn't get a definitive answer and I threw it all out.) I have also just finished the Kerrys' book which has a chapter Teresa Kerry wrote on toxins.

Bush had said that he would veto the bill if it had the prescription drug reimportation in it as in the Dorgan amendment. The FDA bill is not something that Bush cares enough to keep, if it has the drug part. Kennedy already has a standalone bill on reimportation.

[Tejanocrat]

37. Kennedy led a group of liberals like Lieberman, Bayh, Landrieu, Nelson, and Salazar plus 3/4 of Repu

Senators.

God save me from those "liberals".

Still, even if you think a yea vote was better than the nay vote from 2/3 of the Senate Democrats, wouldn't you still want Biden, Obama and Dodd to show up and represent their constituents on this important issue?

[ProSense]

38. The yes vote was better because

of this.

[Tejanocrat]

39. Yes, that's Kennedy's view. I hadn't assumed that Kennedy accidental pushed the wrong button so I'm

not surprised he has an explanation for his vote.

Still, if you look at the vote, those who agree with Kennedy's assessment are 3/4 of the Repu Senators who bothered to vote and only 1/3 of the Democratic Senators who bothered to vote. Moreover, if you look at which Democratic Senators voted with Kennedy it is not exactly the "left wing" of the party (likewise, if you look at the Repu Senators who joined Kennedy it IS the right wing of their party with few exceptions).

I love Kennedy, but he is not infallible. This vote is just one error.

Moreover, even if we cannot agree that increasing access to cheaper drugs is important and this vote pushed that goal further away, what excuse is there for Biden, Obama, and Dodd to miss the vote? Even if we disagree about the better position on this vote, we agree it was an important vote, right?

[karynnj]

48. Looking at who voted is often the answer

Here - read Prosense's post.

[Tejanocrat]

53. I did read that post. It's basically Kennedy's press release and here's where I disagree:

1. Kennedy feared Dorgan proposal would sink the overall bill granting new powers to the food and drug agency.

I agree with 2/3 of the Democrats who voted in thinking Dorgon's proposal was a good one notwithstanding Kennedy's effort to protect his own legislation.

2. Kennedy cited B*sh's veto threat in explaining his vote.

I'm disappointed that he caved into the veto threat of a president who has threatened many vetos but only used his veto twice in his whole term in office.

3. The poster is wrong when saying "This is not a bill the drug companies love."

Here's how MUCH the manufacturer's association LOVES the bill:

Drug Imports: Senate Sides With Safety

Monday afternoon the Senate voted 49-40 for an amendment sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-MS, that preserves the safety and competitiveness of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The amendment requires the administration to certify the safety of any imported prescription drugs; advocates of drug importation wanted to skip that critical safeguard.

The Washington Times had a straightforward lead:

The Senate yesterday derailed a move to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries by making them meet strict U.S. standards.

The bipartisan 49-40 vote for safety certification for imported drugs saved President Bush from having to veto the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization bill, which he promised to do if it opened the door to potentially dangerous drug imports.

The AP story, meanwhile, offered the usual interpretation/analysis/dance of reporter subjectivity:

WASHINGTON - In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.

How about this instead?

WASHINGTON - In a triumph for consumer health and continued pharmaceutical research that promises to save millions of lives, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to import foreign price controls by allowing consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad.

As the late Milton Friedman wrote in 2004:

We are deeply concerned about proposed legislation to remove pharmaceutical companies’ ability to control the importation of their products. The goal of this legislation will be to reduce prices in the American market by imposing other nations’ price controls on us. If this attempt succeeds, American consumers would get the short-term windfall of lower prices, but they would end up unnecessarily suffering and living shorter lives--because promising new therapies would be delayed or not even developed. Even the threat of price controls reduces the incentive to develop new drugs.

A view that's shared across the political spectrum, or at least it was during the 2003 debate over the Medicaid prescription drug benefit. This from the Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

Importing foreign price controls would deliver a severe blow to a robust pharmaceutical industry, which the U.S. dominates. Price controls would limit the financing and suppress incentives for pharmaceutical and biotech companies to be innovative. The basic problem is that public officials are likely to set prices wrong.

Supporters of foreign price controls promise to pursue the issue, over and over again, until they succeed. Funny how populists who rail against unfair foreign competition want to hand over our domestic drug pricing to foreign governments.

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/05/drug_imports_se.php

[ProSense]

55. That's simply the argument for importing drugs.

Sure the drug companies don't want competition, but the notion that this is about Kennedy being against importation is silly. He has always supported it and as stated is co-sponsoring similar legislation.

The drug companies are not jumping for joy about the new FDA regulation.

[Tejanocrat]

56. Actually, they are because they are getting freedom from lawsuits (preemption) in exchange.

[ProSense]

62. You have it exactly wrong.

Kennedy has no interest in shielding drug companies. From 2006, when the Admin tried to pull a fast one:

Dodd, Kennedy, Waxman, Dingell, Brown Call on Administration to Stop FDA Provision Undercutting State Laws That Protect Patients

Washington, DC: Today Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Leavitt urging him to stop a provision in the FDA drug labeling regulation that would undermine State consumer protection laws, including product liability laws. The Senators ask Secretary Leavitt to explain the justification behind shielding the drug industry from lawsuits. Representatives Dingell, Waxman, and Brown also sent a letter to Secretary Leavitt questioning the basis for the FDA's claim that State lawsuits related to prescription drugs should be barred by FDA regulation of prescription drugs.

Below are the texts of the letters. PDFs of the letters with signatures are available upon request.

February 23, 2006

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Leavitt:

We are writing to express our concern about the final rule published on January 18, 2006 in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR parts 201, 314, and 601. The rule modifies drug labeling requirements in order to give information to physicians in a more concise and appropriate manner. We certainly support such an initiative, and believe it will help physicians provide better care to their patients.

However, the preamble to the final rule asserts broad and vague federal preemption of state drug labeling, advertising, and product liability laws. Such an assertion is inconsistent with long-standing Food and Drug Administration practice and Congressional intent. In fact, the preamble to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2000, explicitly stated that “this proposed rule does not preempt state law.” At the very least, such a drastic reversal of policy with such far-reaching implications should be subject to public consideration and an opportunity for comment on whether the agency has the legal authority to preempt state requirements.

We strongly believe that states have an important role to play in protecting consumers and patients from unsafe drugs, and question the notion that the FDA alone can provide this protection. As a former Governor, you understand that important advances in public health and safety have been achieved at the state level. This new FDA claim of preemption would undermine state laws, even in cases where those laws address an area where FDA has not acted, and would smother the ability of states to take reasonable steps to protect public health and the safety of their citizens. Given recent questions about FDA’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs, it is a particularly inopportune time to remove the safety net that state consumer protection laws provide.

We are somewhat comforted by reports that Scott Gottlieb, Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs at the FDA, has stated that the preamble assertion that State product liability claims are preempted by FDA regulation of prescription drug labeling is not legally binding. This statement is consistent with the agency’s regulations, which state that a preamble statement is an advisory opinion under 21 CFR 10.85(d)(1) that “may be used in administrative or court proceedings to illustrate acceptable and unacceptable procedures or standards, but not as a legal requirement,” as provided under 21 CFR 10.85(j). However, Dr. Gottlieb’s statement notwithstanding, further clarification of the Administration’s intent is necessary. We respectfully request that you provide answers to the following questions no later than March 31, 2006.

When Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938, it specifically rejected a proposal to include a private right of action for damages caused by faulty or unsafe products regulated under the Act, on the ground that such a right of action already existed under state common law. See, e.g., Hearings before Subcommittee of Committee on Commerce on S. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 400, 403 (1933); Adler & Mann, Preemption and Medical Devices, 59 Mo. L. Rev. 895, 924 & n.130 (1995).

In section 202 of the Drug Amendments of 1962, Congress stated that “othing in the amendments made by this Act to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall be construed as invalidating any provision of State law which would be valid in the absence of such amendments unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such amendments and such provision of State law.” Since 1938, Congress has never chosen to preempt State product liability actions through amendments to the Act.

Given these unambiguous statements of Congressional intent, please explain—

1. Why the agency completely ignores the clear legislative history that Congress intended State product liability actions to survive under the federal law, and
2. why a statutory statement that state law is preempted only in cases of “direct and positive conflict” does not control the agency’s contrary interpretation of the law.

In the December 2000 proposed rule, the agency stated that the regulation would not preempt state law. In the preamble of the final rule, on pages 43 and 44, the agency cited only three specific FDA regulatory requirements – all with respect to over-the-counter products – that FDA has described in preambles from before 2000 as preempting State law. These examples suggest that FDA has pursued preemption only narrowly in the past. Yet the final preamble asserts that it has been the government’s “longstanding” position that state actions related to drug labeling and advertising, and even medical malpractice, are preempted. Please explain this dubious assertion and provide all agency statements before 2001 with respect to this issue.

Under Executive Order 13132, issued by President Reagan and reissued by President Clinton, a federal agency such as FDA must consult with State and local authorities about, and examine, the effects on States and localities of each regulation it issues. In the proposed rule, FDA indicated that the regulation would not preempt State law. We understand that, relying on this representation and their own analyses of the proposed rule, the States did not comment on it. Please describe what the agency did to consult with State and local governments about this regulation.

FDA justifies its sweeping preemption argument by making a number of seriously misleading assertions about the comprehensive nature of the agency’s review of safety and effectiveness information and the adequacy of the disclosure of risks and benefits on the drug label. Perhaps the most significant and troubling misrepresentation of FDA’s regulation of the drug label is the claim that, after approval, the approved drug label continues to provide, on a timely basis, comprehensive information about the risks and benefits of the drug. The preamble at page 39 also strongly implies that FDA can immediately require the inclusion of new information in a drug label whenever the agency decides disclosure of such information is warranted. Neither of these assertions is true, however.

Important information about how to use a drug safely and effectively that is developed after approval is not always added to the drug’s label in a timely way, because FDA has very limited authority to require the collection of such information or require its timely inclusion in the label. Although the agency monitors reports of adverse events after approval, such reports rarely provide definitive evidence of risks, and additional studies are often needed to confirm and define any risks that are signaled by adverse event reports. After approval, however, FDA cannot, except in narrow cases, require a drug company to study further benefits and risks. When such studies are conducted voluntarily, they often take years to complete, if they are completed at all.

More importantly, the label is owned by the manufacturer, and FDA cannot require a company to change the label, short of initiating a lengthy court proceeding or withdrawing the drug from the market. Both of these options take months or even years. In practice, this inability to require immediate changes in the label means the agency must negotiate changes in the drug label with the drug manufacturer. As a result, manufacturers can delay for months before adding important new risk information to a drug’s label, and can water down the language requested by FDA. For example, it took more than 18 months for Merck to add new information about cardiac risks to the label of Vioxx.

Is the agency now claiming that it has the authority to require manufacturers to conduct post-approval studies to assess newly discovered risks, or that it has authority to require immediate label changes? If not, what is the basis for FDA’s argument that the drug label always contains up-to-date information on newly discovered risks? Is it FDA’s position that the Vioxx label at all times contained information that correctly described FDA’s view of the risks of that drug? Would claims be preempted that Merck failed to warn patients who used Vioxx?

* * *

If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to let us know, or have you staff contact Ben Berwick with Senator Dodd (224-5484) or David Bowen with Senator Kennedy (224-7675). Thank you for considering this important request on drug labeling, and we look forward to your reply.

With respect and appreciation,

Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senator

Christopher J. Dodd
United States Senator

link

Here is the House version of the bill:

Health - Drug Safety

H.R. 1561
The Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2007

On March 19, 2007, Rep. Waxman (D-CA) joined Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) to introduce H.R. 1561, The Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2007. H.R. 1561 is the House counterpart to the Enzi-Kennedy drug safety bill (S. 484).

S. 484 contains many important provisions that will: (1) strengthen FDA’s post-market drug safety system; (2) establish the Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research, a new public-private partnership to advance FDA’s Critical Path Initiative; (3) establish mandatory clinical trials registry and results databases; and (4) reform procedures to manage conflicts of interest on FDA’s advisory Committees. H.R. 1561 builds upon those provisions to further increase FDA’s post-market drug safety authority, provide greater FDA transparency, and enhance the mandatory clinical trial registry and results databases. Specifically, H.R. 1561 will:

* Give the FDA enhanced tools to ensure post-market drug safety through the “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy” (REMS) process, including: (1) increasing the possible moratorium on direct-to-consumer advertising from two years to three years; (2) adopting the IOM recommendation that the FDA place a symbol on the packaging of a product to let consumers know that the drug is new to the marketplace; and (3) requiring a review of drug products after they have been on the market for 7 years (the average time it takes to detect most side effects);
* Increase the transparency of the REMS review process;
* Enhance FDA’s enforcement authority by giving the FDA the ability to impose civil monetary penalties if drug companies fail to comply with any requirements relating to drugs in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and increasing the amount of those civil penalties;
* Provide for a balance between funding from user fees and federal dollars in FDA’s drug safety budget by authorizing $25 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 in addition to other funds available for carrying out Title I activities;
* Require the FDA to report to Congress on its efforts to integrate the expertise of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (formerly Office of Drug Safety) into the Agency’s approval, labeling, and post-approval safety decisions; and
* Strengthen the clinical trials registry and results databases to include more information on more trials (including medical devices), and give the Secretary the added ability to impose civil monetary penalties for non-compliance.

link

[Mass]

79. I may be missing something, but I do not see the poster saying that.

The point is that the Cochran amendment is bad and Kennedy knows it.

This said, the choice was between 2 bad solutions: voting against the Cochran amendment and forego everything else that was in the bill because Bush would veto it, or accept the amendment.

Kennedy choose to accept the amendment (though it could be superceded by a different law). Everybody can decide whether he was right or not, but deciding that he was wrong does not mean that he is sold to the drug companies, just that he had a hard choice to make and that we disagree with his choice.

[Tejanocrat]

84. Exactly. And whether you are on the Kennedy side of the debate or the side of most Senate Democrats

we should agree it was a very important vote. And since it was a very important vote, it is reasonable to expect our Senators to show up and vote.

[ProSense]

85. Showing up fro the vote has nothing to do with preemption from lawsuits! n/t

[Tejanocrat]

91. Of course it doesn't. Showing up for the vote has to do with fulfilling the job they were elected to

perform in service of the public.

That's one issue.

A drug bill which lets the pharmaceutical giants off the hook for poisoning Americans is a separate matter.

That's a second and different issue.

You were (mistakenly) arguing that the pharmaceutical giants weren't pleased with the failure in the Senate on drug importation. In fact, the pharmaceutical giants are pissing themselves with delight over that failure.

Also, you were cut-and-pasting Kennedy's press release defending his vote on grounds that Kennedy believes the failure to win drug importation makes the overall bill stronger. The Repu Senator are demanding "preemption" as the cost for their support for the broader bill:

US bill to shield drug companies from product liability

...

US federal legislation that could shield drug companies from product liability lawsuits will be reintroduced in the Senate within two months, says Jack Finn, spokesperson for Senator John Ensign of Nevada state.

Senator Ensign sponsored an earlier version of the planned bill (S11) that would prohibit product liability awards for drugs or medical devices that "comply with Food and Drug Administration standards."

The provision, known as the "FDA compliance" or "pre-emption" defence, does not apply if FDA officials were bribed or if the manufacturer withheld information about product safety.... In a highly controversial move, the FDA joined with industry in support of the pre-emption defence (BMJ 2004;329:189) when Daniel Troy, then FDA’s chief counsel, filed "friend of the court" briefs in several cases, including the Dusek v Pfizer case.... The pre-emption defence represents a radical departure from earlier years when Margaret Jane Porter, FDA’s chief counsel in the Clinton era, said the FDA’s view was that FDA product approval and product liability suits "operate independently, each providing a significant, yet distinct, layer of consumer protection." Her viewpoint was published recently in a white paper issued by the Center for Progressive Regulation, a non-profit research and educational organisation based in Riderwood, Maryland.

Robert Reich, labour secretary under President Clinton, speaking on National Public Radio, told listeners that regulatory agencies across the board are understaffed and have had their budgets "whacked" while "many of them are in the pockets of the very companies and industries they are supposed to regulate." It is the wrong time to shield industry from lawsuits, said Mr Reich, when the FDA is "failing in its core mission to protect consumers from harm."

"You can’t have it both ways," he said. "Either regulatory agencies have to be made tougher and more independent, and given the resources they need to protect the public, or we’ve got to rely on courts and private lawsuits to make sure companies have every financial incentive to protect the public."

Here's the whole article: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7482/62-a

Here's my concern: (1) we know that "preemption" is the Repu Senators' goal for the bill and (2) we know that Kennedy was willing to give away drug importation to further his overall bill and (3) we know that the pro-"preemption" Repu Senators voted with Kennedy.

I'm concerned that I can see where this is headed. I dearly love Senator Kennedy, but I think this bill will blow up in his face a thousand times worse than his No Child Left Behind fiasco! He's a great man, but No Child Left Behind proves that he is not immune from error, and we're headed down that track!

[ProSense]

95. I made no statement about the drug companies' response to the importation bill being voted down.

I said the the drug companies are not jumping for joy about the new FDA regulation.

[Tejanocrat]

96. The why do you keep saying "Big pharma won absolutely nothing!"?

[karynnj]

110. Why can't Drogan introduce his amendment as a stand alone bill

or as an amendment on a bill that Bush needs to sign?

[ProSense]

86. The responses were about the FDA bill and the claim that drug companies are happy about it.

Ludicrous!

[Mass]

88. Show me a post that talks about the bill and not the Cochran amendment?

In fact, the bill is not voted yet, anyway. People are speaking about the amendment.

[ProSense]

89. The conversation started with a comment about the FDA bill

This is not a bill the drug companies love.

3. The poster is wrong when saying "This is not a bill the drug companies love."

The drug companies are not jumping for joy about the new FDA regulation.

Actually, they are because they are getting freedom from lawsuits (preemption) in exchange.

Kennedy has no interest in shielding drug companies.

[Mass]

90. You are the only one speaking about the FDA bill.

The articles quoted by the other posters are about the Cochran amendment. The FDA bill has still not been voted.

[ProSense]

92. No, you're wrong.

This is a sub-thread in response to this post.

[Tejanocrat]

57. deleted dupe

[ProSense]

59. It's not an error to the people who die or suffer complications from unsafe or

too high dosage of dangerous drugs. I can tell you stories about Hismanal and grapefruit juice and medications for heart patients from my immediate family. This is serious. An import bill, most likely the one Senator Kennedy is sponsoring will be passed by a Democratic Congress. This bill was an important one.

[karynnj]

47. Kennedy knew how many votes he had

He very likely told them there votes were not needed, if they were on his side.

[mtnsnake]

69. Let me take a guess. Flip Flop man voted "yes"?

Is that correct? Must be so if you think yes is the way to go.

[Alexander]

71. Wow, you're good at repeating right-wing talking points.

Couldn't help but noticed you used them when discussing Kerry.

Particularly since your own "Goddess of Peace" has flipped and flopped on at least as many issues, if not more.

Nice try.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

98. It's really hard for you to be honest, isn't it?

"Actually, most Democrats in the real world would agree with me that Kerry is a flip-flopper,"

Are these DLC Democrats or real Democrats?

"It's only in GaGa Land that he's not a flip flopper."

Is that the same GaGa Land where Hillary is the "Goddess of Peace"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Hey, it's not anyone's fault but Kerry's that the right wing assholes capitalized on him being a flip flopper."

And it's not anyone's fault but Senator Clinton's that she has changed her mind on Iraq, the border fence, abstinence-only education, and MBNA.

I bring up her voting record and quotes, and you call it "lying" and "smears". Well, I guess that means you're calling Senator Clinton a liar, because I'm only using her own words and votes against her. Just like Kerry.

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

100. Not at all. Don't forget...the "t" in mtnsnake stands for truth!

I shouldn't have to remind you of that!

[Alexander]

103. How is it the "truth" that Hillary is the "Goddess of Peace"?

I guess I missed out on the Kool-Aid party.

:crazy:

[Mass]

73. The only reason Kennedy voted for the amendment is that he wanted the bill to pass.

for everything else that was in the bill, not because he agreed with the amendment.

Dorgan can represent the same bill independently and it will pass, and this will not prevent ALL the other important modifications to be enacted. This said, the Cochran amendment is not a good amendment. It is just another way to block reimportation. It is just that, sometimes, people have to choose between a ton of important things and one bad thing or nothing at all.

[Alexander]

46. Would it have changed the outcome? No.

If they did show up to vote, you can bet your bottom dollar Brownback and McCain would have shown up, too. Hence they would've had their 50 votes either way.

[Tellurian]

52. Excuses, excuses, excuses..

If Hillary hadn't shone up, you'd all be doing cartwheels spamming BS links and conjuring up some twisted logic for the not too well informed readership or new posters. Also amazed at the ignorance of some that are so disrespectful of themselves to whine about Hillary absence on the Bankruptcy Bill Vote because her husband was undergoing By-Pass surgery. What turkeys!

The fact of the matter is, she's the hardest working Senatorial candidate running for office.

[Ethelk2044]

54. What we should do

Is compare the total voting record. How many times she has been absent compared to how many times the others have been absent. So what she made one vote.

[Tellurian]

60. Be my guest and post the links..

I've aways had confidence in Hillary. She takes her job seriously and I'll guarantee you, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[bling bling]

70. Here's some of the Senators "missed votes" records

Current candidates running for office plus some others I through in:


Missed Votes by Member

John McCain (R-AZ) - Votes: 66 votes missed (43.1 percent of 153 total votes)

Joseph Biden (D-DE) - Votes: 47 votes missed (30.7 percent of 153 total votes)

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) - Votes: 31 votes missed (20.3 percent of 153 total votes)

Barack Obama (D-IL) - Votes: 9 votes missed (5.9 percent of 153 total votes)

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - Votes: 3 votes missed (2.0 percent of 153 total votes)

Dick Durbin (D-IL) - Votes: 1 vote missed (0.7 percent of 153 total votes)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - Votes: 1 vote missed (0.7 percent of 153 total votes)

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) - Votes: 1 vote missed (0.7 percent of 153 total votes)

Russell Feingold (D-WI) - Votes: 0 votes missed (0 percent of 153 total votes)

Carl Levin (D-MI) - Votes: 0 votes missed (0 percent of 153 total votes)

Harry Reid (D-NV) - Votes: 0 votes missed (0 percent of 153 total votes)


http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

[karynnj]

111. The reason is that many are speaking of the 2001 bill

that she voted yes to - that was similar to the 2005 bill. It fortunately never became law because of first, the change in power in the Senate, then 911, where other issues became far more important. When the converence bill was voted in the House - it lost because of a provision by Schumer preventing violent anti-abortion people from clearing their depts via bankruptcy.

[calteacherguy]

61. If all the absent Demcrats voted nay it still would have passed. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

63. Obama has only missed 4 votes. Grow up.

[Tellurian]

76. Obama missed 9 votes..

The audacity of limp courage to call it as it lays!

[DrDan]

74. Obama and Biden have lost my vote because of this

Dodd never had it

[Mass]

75. Obama stated in the record he opposed the amendment.

If the 5 democrats had been there and voted NO, it would not have changed the vote, as I cannot see any of the GOPers who did not vote opposing it.

[cooolandrew]

80. I had some doubts about her in the past but she is going up in my estimation...

... It is all beginning to appear that some of her past incidents have just been careful maneuvering for the WH. I bought her biography in 04 and fell in love with the woman in who she expressed herself to be. Some of her assoctations gave me cause for doubt but it just appears that it was just good politics. If she is half the woman she expressed in her biography she will make America proud.

Given the stats and the disappointing performance of Barack. I'd say a Hillary/Richardson ticket would be pretty powerful or Gore/Hillary. Both have a ring to it.

[Ethelk2044]

97. She definitely does not have my vote.

[Alexander]

104. She doesn't have mine either....but her supporters here are to blame for that.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn her "supporters" here are from other campaigns, with the goal of bringing down her candidacy.

They've certainly done a lot to alienate potential voters here.

[ElizabethDC]

113. All I can say is

please don't base your opinion of a candidate on what their supporters say on DU. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I often disagree with what other Hillary supporters say here or how they present themselves - it really has very little to do with Hillary herself!

[zulchzulu]

105. Got a link? Is it S.1082?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:15:./temp/~bss2wfN::

Is it:
S.1082
Title: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to reauthorize and amend the prescription drug user fee provisions, and for other purposes.

Actually, here's a link to the bill from NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08drug.html