Boy, up until I read this article, I was ready to happily vote for any of the Dem candidates up for nomination (well, maybe not Lieberman). In particular, I think both Kerry and Edwards have so many strengths that--even though they're not my first choice candidates--I thought I could happily work for them.
Up until I read this Hill article about how some Senators regret having a voice vote on the $87 Billion Iraq appropriation, that is. At least according to the article (and granted, Lott is the named source, so you do have to wonder), the voice vote happened primarily to give Democratic presidential nominee candidates cover. The article explains:
"The Democrats didn't want to have a vote on it and have their Democratic presidential candidates vote `yes' or `no,'" said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Some of my Democratic colleagues did not want to be seen as voting against the troops," said Graham.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), for example, has faced criticism for supporting the authorization to go to war in Iraq and then opposing the spending request when it first came before the Senate. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) also backed the Iraq resolution but not the $87 billion amount.
Now I happen to think the voice vote symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Iraq war--and our democracy. Both Republican and Democratic legislators had heard from constituents that the bill was too big, particularly given the cuts happening everywhere in America. That should have forced them to do one of two things. Either they should have explained why we needed to support the Iraq reconstruction, which would have required explaining why we're there in the first place (or explaining that the stated reasons for being there are all lies, but that we're now stuck there anyway). Or, they would have had to vote against the appropriation, which would have pressured the Administration to implement a plan to actually fix something in Iraq. But as it happened, the voice vote allowed this Iraq war to continue, without the support of much of the electorate, without a clear plan, and without any accountability (seemingly from anyone).
So if it is true that this happened just to make things easier on Kerry and Edwards (and honestly, if you've got evidence to the contrary, please let me see it, I'd love to have it), then I've got to really question their priorities. It's one thing to make a vote in favor of force in order to give the Administration and the UN the enforcement mechanisms they feel they need to rein in Saddam Hussein (I wouldn't have made that vote, but I see why some would). But is another thing to use legislative process in such a way that thwarts democracy solely to benefit your own campaign. It says you place your own campaign over the interests of democracy--and in my opinion, it doesn't say much for you as a presidential candidate.