So, when Senator Clair the Twitter voted NO on the Omnibus bill

[question everything]

did she also twit to her constituents that, had her side won, the government would have shut down tonight just the way.... Newt did? And that if any citizen of Missouri would have needed something from the Federal Government like, say from the VA Administration, or a passport, they would be in bad luck because, well, she prefers to twit.

Yes, I realize that most politicians run for office to promote themselves, to serve their egos and not the country. But I think that Twitting Clair is carrying it a bit too far.

This, of course, is what twitting all about - to smile on followers. No followers, and you might as well bark at the moon.

[rwheeler31]

1. She voted no after she knew it would pass. She knows what she

is doing. Give her a break, she has been out on the limb many times.

[question everything]

2. Yes, this is the point. Voting NO when she knows it would pass

how cowardly.

When you compare her to Sherrod Brown from Ohio, who came to vote on the Stimulus Bill last month straight from his mother's wake, and turned around to go back to her funeral.

[rwheeler31]

3. She is from Missouri, Do you realize how stupid republican

this state is?

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Excuse me, but - we're turning blue..............

Obama lost this state by less than 4,300 votes last November.

And as glad as I am that Rush Limbaugh helped McCaskill get elected to Harry Truman's old senate seat, I wish we could get more progressive Dems to represent us in DC.

[skipos]

16. Not on the presidential level you're not

MO has been voting more and more Republican than the rest of the country for the last few election cycles. You need to compare the state's results to the national results to see an accurate trend.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I don't see how it's cowardly given that she didn't change the outcome

The bill passed, end of story. If it hadn't passed and McCaskill had been the deciding vote then I say give her all of the shit you can throw. Taking a stand when there is something to be gained from it is courageous. Taking a stand when there is nothing to gain from it is just plain stupid.

[firedupdem]

7. This has been such a hard thing for me moving from Michigan to

Nebraska and listening to Ben Nelson act just like a republican because of this state. What I want to know is when they run for reelection in these red states do they bad mouth other dems and say "hey, I voted against this bill" just because they are in a red state?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Absolutely they do

I'm from Louisiana. When Mary Landrieu ran for re-election in 2002 and Bush's approval ratings were in the 80's she ran ad after ad about how she worked with the President on this issue and this issue, blah blah blah. I'm still very glad we have her over the people she ran against, though.

The fact of the matter is that how a state or district votes in the presidential election is a pretty good indicator of that constituency's political views. When a Democrat gets elected in a very Republican constituency or vice versa it's because the previous guy didn't do a good job fixing the potholes or got caught with hookers. But the fact is that fixing the potholes isn't going to keep them in office forever. The next time another Republican who doesn't have pothole or hooker problems (yet) will run against them and the district will be inclined to vote with the party they like unless they still have a compelling reason not to. That compelling reason is that the Democrat holding the seat votes how the district likes on the issues and they have a bit more seniority than the challenger does.

[firedupdem]

10. ewwww.....I don't know if I can get used to that. So Nelson will

probably run commercials bashing Obama. He'll say he had to fix the stimulus package before he voted on it so the liberals wouldn't have committed worse atrocities with tax payer money!

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Nelson uses Obama when it helps him and will ditch him when it doesn't

He will run ads that say he is "very independent" from the influence of either party.

[firedupdem]

12. wow...thanks...at least you prepared me!

:fistbump:

I gotta get outta here!

[dsc]

14. funny how that argument doesn't work when it is made to defend Bill Clinton

shocking.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Well, it's a bit different when you are President

Because you can veto legislation with the stroke of a pen, something that congressmen and senators can't do.

That said I've defended some of the things Bill Clinton signed when it was clear his veto would be overridden.

[dsc]

20. fair enough because that is the type of thing I was referring to

specificly blaming him for both DADT and DOMA, both of which passed with huge, veto proof margins.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Clinton still has some blame to take for DADT but it's not due to a lack of spine

Clinton unequivocally supported gays and lesbians serving openly in the military so there was no question of a spine. It was just executed poorly and when he realized that it was going to trigger a public opinion battle between him and Colin Powell, he backed down probably in part because he thought he would have difficulty winning that battle because he had never served.

We would probably be better off today if Clinton hadn't even brought up the issue and the ban had not been codified into law via Don't ask Don't Tell. That way Obama could end the discrimination via executive order and Congress would have to pass a law to reverse his decision which they certainly would have in 1993 but almost certainly would not in 2009.

But I agree that DOMA had far too much of an overwhelming majority to veto.

[karynnj]

23. That's not applicable with DADT

DADT was HIS proposed solution and a vote for it was a vote against what was considered the worse existing rule. (So, if you look at the vote it is likely that the yeses included all the liberal Democrats. If it were vetoed the existing rule - not a better one - would remain. Clinton's caving was creating that compromise.

[Teaser]

5. tweet. the term is "tweet"

.

[Jennicut]

8. Yup....even though it is stupid sounding it is indeed tweat not twit

People are tweating their tweats to you by using twitter or something like that.

[question everything]

13. And this makes my head spin

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yes, her Conservative side is not all that attractive. :( n/t

[hileeopnyn8d]

17. She served a purpose

Her purpose was to call out the Republicans on the earmarks they had in the bill. She, along with Russ Feingold were trying to cut off their narrative, which has now morphed into "the President is a liar, and he's going to spend us into extinction".

Thanks to the rethugs and the media, most people don't even know what an omnibus spending bill is, they all think this is another stimulus thing. I didn't see a whole host of prominent Dems out there informing people about the risks of not passing the bill. I didn't hear anyone talking about government shut down on cable news, maybe I missed it.

They let this whole "earmark and broken promises" meme gain traction and dominate the airwaves. Someone needs to cut these right-wing hypocrites off at the knees, at least Claire tries, I wish more would.

[question everything]

19. Rahcel was the one to mention it

the danger of shutting down the government.

I agree with you. Our side should have pointed this out and reminding everyone at the temper tantrum that Newt threw back in 1995.

[hileeopnyn8d]

22. Our side really sucks at it.

We really do unfortunately. That's why I'm not overly critical of Claire, she puts herself out there when so many don't, and doesn't shy away from admitting when she has egg on her face.

Plus, I'm in St. Louis, so I'm happy we have a Democratic senator.

But you're right, Rachel did mention it. Sometimes I forget she's "in the media" since she's one of us.