And so it starts, Sen. McCain will take his supposed maverick status apart, one pander after another.

The good news is that it does not matter if the Dems nominee is Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, he will beat himself.

That thing Obama was saying comes to mind about how the wheels must have come off the straight talk express at some point...

Incidentally, do you think that this little detail is going to possibly get in the way if the eventual Democratic presidential nominee tries to make an issue of that vote?:

"Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting"

I am amazed at how rigid these people are.As for McCain,is he senile?Are we going to have another Ronald "ketchup is a vegetable"Reagan running on a geriatrics platform?This country is becomingvery strange.

I can't imagine a more obvious contradiction to be used by any democratic nominee. He was so vocal against waterboarding in the debates. This will be at least interesting to see it come back in the general.

This is my letter to my senators:

Senator Burr,

Let me be among the first to admonish you for an utterly disappointing performance in voting to uphold the supposed right of the federal govenment to torture human beings to obtain information. Our president promised shortly after September 11, 2001 that "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." That was an opportunity, a chance to prove to all that might oppose us that we will retaliate, and do so with dignity and honor befitting our proud national heritage. The commander-in-chief has since betrayed that honor, and instructed agents of this country to visit abhorrent abuses on its enemies. We are now attempting to deceive patriots into a twisted philosophy that no one should countenance: that the performance of this torture -- be assured, this is precisely what it is -- somehow furthers the interests of our country.

If we are, as we are told, a country at war, if we indeed occupy the front lines while going about our daily business, then we should reconcile ourselves to the sacrifices, both potential and actual, that this situation entails. To preserve and defend the principles this nation was founded upon, many young men and women have given their lives in armed conflict, in the line of duty as peace officers, and in opposing intolerance and injustice in civil society. If we are to remain under threat, let it be in support of some higher purpose than continued self-interest.

The president asked recently which attack I would have him allow in order to forego torturing detainees. This is a false choice, in that no one can be certain that torture was necessary to extract the pertinent informaiton nor has evidence been offered that specific information made available from these particular enemy combatants and available nowhere else was used to thwart an imminent attack. However, if such a decision were to arise and the choice put between mortgaging the soul of this nation to preserve some part of its body, I think any person who feels that inhumane or degrading treatment is warranted should have to face a jury or court martial and explain why. Any other arrangement puts at hazard the basic guarantee that underwrites our system of government: that all men are created equal, none ebove the law, and none with so low a merit that he does not deserve its protection.

I implore you to revisit this decision,

X