In the days before S.256 was finally brought to the floor Senator Clinton voted for every amendment which would have added consumer protections to the bankruptcy bill. Amendments which were repeatedly rejected by both the Republican majority and far too many Democrats. She even voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
...
Senator Clinton was not there--the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.

From Senator Clinton's official statement on the bill:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.Link

I agree that Senators get drilled in the GE because over time they leave behind a record subject to easy misinterpretation and attack. That's why Obama decided to run when he first entered the US Senate.  Didn't want anything messy like an actual record lying about. He knew he could probably skate by with empty, meaningless rhetoric; a candidacy about nothing.

And that's why PushPol should understand that there is a trail even in Obama's spotty record that is fair game. If Obama and his supporters want to take shots at the gas tax suspension they should reasonably expect to take incoming for their candidate's hypocrisy.

PushPol should have been more forthright in admitting that Obama's three votes in the Illinois legislature on a related issue did in fact occur.  

PushPol should also recognize that Clinton's recomendation that taxing the oil companies to make up the lost revenue cancels Obama's disingenuous claim that 6,000 jobs would be lost nor would this tax close the door on future review of Oil company taxation.

On the whole energy matter PushPol should come clean and admit the fact that Obama supported a Cheney energy bill.  Was Obama's support a payback to one of his major supporters; the nuclear power industry?

If PushPol is any kind of progressive he/she should recognize that usage taxes like the federal gas tax are regressive in nature and disproportionally fall on middle and low income people.  Replacing regressive taxes with an addition to progressive taxes on oil companies may be a step in the right direction.

PushPol's comments are further evidence that criticism of the Precious based on evidence is out of line, a significant article of the Obama rules.

Allowing the process to continue to a proper conclusion removes a possible Republican charge that Democrats deliberately cut out millions of voters.  Those who claim that the process damages the party have yet to advance any real proof or reason. The idea that McCain isn't being attacked is ludicrous. He is being attacked and if the party wants an assault on McCain 527s can certainly take up any perceived shortfall.  There will be plenty of time to attack McCain after the process is complete.

In the meantime the GOP can't really zero in on a specific Democrat. Remember that the Swift Boat liars were formed when it was obvious that Kerry would be the nominee, well before the convention.

One thing an Obama supporter should avoid at all costs is giving the GOP extra time to demolish Obama. They'll do a thorough disembowelling as it is, no need to allow time for them to raise it to an art form.

proudliberalpatriot should recognize that beyond Leahy's foolish overt statement have been other elected officials like Richardson who have gleefully given the GOP ads by using terms like monarchy, entitlement, etc.  There have been numerous calls for Clinton to withdraw by the usual suspects in the blogosphere, in the world of print and broadcast "journalism" as well as continuous grousing from Obama supporters and I believe surrogates to that effect.  

They all say the same thing.  "He said it didn't work, and he learned from his mistake".  

Except that there is no proof that it didn't work.  There is one study that says that 60% of the benefit was passed on to consumers in Illinois -- but it could have been more or less, because its not like gas prices were completely stable throughout the period when the holiday was in place.

Obama's claim that "it didn't work" is based on the loss of revenue to the state -- of course, Clinton's plan is contingent upon making up lost revenue through a windfall profits tax, but none of the Obots over there understand that distinction.