Okay Richmond, obviously I've struck a nerve. I should have clarified that her standing to criticize Obama on "present" votes was now significantly less persuasive. She should still explain why she was the only Deomcratic Senator to fail to vote on such an important amendment that would have served only to protect civil liberties. (I suppose that makes me facist?) In your rant, you failed to acknowledge the purpose of my post...this will look very badly for Hillary, and it will live in the news cycle until Texas and Ohio on March 4.

In not attending the vote, it opens only further questions about who is in her pocket. Does she receive lobby money from any large Telecomm companies? We will never know what information was obtained by Telecomms that willingly chose to break the law for domestic spying. Though her one vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, you'd think she'd want her name in bold letters as standing in opposition to this balnket immunity.

And therefore, I think this will help serve to doom her campaign. If you want to address that you can, or you can bring up facism and Kim Jong Il or the first amendment on another unrelated rant. (However, if you think that Obama "fans" are a weak underbelly to the campaign, you'll be mistaken. The record turnouts at the polls, not exactly turning out for McCain or Huckabee, aren't going anywhere.)