So that's what he did with all that money

House Minority Leader John Boehner explaining why Republicans are going to win big this year.

“[Rep.] Ron Paul [R-Texas] wrote us a check for the first time ever,”

Paul's a pretty good sport considering the number of times Republicans accused him of working with al Qaeda during the campaign.

But they keep telling me Ron Paul is a bigot

From the January 5th debate:

Ron Paul's comments challenging the idea that we're in a war against the Muslim world - (and particularly Rudy Giuliani's inability to utter the word terrorist without the prefix Islamic.)

REP. PAUL: ...I'm as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous. And there are radicals in all elements in all religions that will resort to violence.

REP. PAUL: You paint all Islamics the same way.

REP. PAUL: What you're doing is damaging our relationship by destroying our relationship with all Muslims. That's what you're doing.

Everybody hates Ron Paul

At least all the partisans do.

It wasn't too surprising to see FOX news question Ron Paul's Republican credentials during the debates and later suggest he's taking orders from al Qaeda . Nor was it surprising to see any mention of him banned from the rightwing Redstate blog. Ron Paul is, after all, a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, of torture, of suspension of habeas corpus and expansion of presidential powers. In today's Republican party, that's pretty much heresy. The only thing that keeps John McCain out of the doghouse is his unwavering support for expanding the current war.

Ron Paul's supporters are regularly described as trolls, shills, Ronbots, and dysfunctional hacks who live in their mothers basements (regardless of the evidence that they exist in large numbers - and have jobs.)

It's more surprising to see the sheer vitriol leveled at Paul from the left. He and his supporters are generally regarded as a fringe extremists, and those are the nicer descriptions.

Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald took fire from the left after Andrew endorsed Paul for the Republican nomination and Glenn defended his record as a conservative defender of civil liberties:

In a speech last month, [Naomi] Wolf cited Paul's sponsorship of The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 -- which would restore habeas corpus, prohibit torture and rendition, bar warrantless surveillance, protect journalists from prosecution for reporting on classifed matters, outlaw the use of secret evidence, and compel Congress to sue to challenge the validity of signing statements -- as a measure necessary to "stabilize democracy long enough to take a breath."

Glenn was responding to Dana Goldstein's assault on Andrew. She claimed that Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance proved he was a hypocrite when it comes to civil liberties.

What is "freedom and toleration" without a woman's right to control her reproductive destiny? What is an "ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble" without the acknowledgment that unplanned pregnancy, and the havoc it brings, are features of human life that can not be eradicated? What candidate who stands against "Christian meddling" would strengthen the theocratic movement by allowing states, in the name of religion, to repeal women's rights over their own bodies? Sure, Paul's assessment of the Iraq war is correct. But his libertarianism is in name only when it comes to half of the population. That isn't so principled, and it isn't so exciting. Paul doesn't deserve the endorsement of any thinking person committed to individual rights.

But Paul doesn't become a hypocrite for failing to live up to a progressive caricature of libertarianism. He believes that human life starts at conception and to him arguing that a woman has a right to terminate a fetus is like arguing that a mother has the right to smother her newborn child. Disagreeing with Dana doesn't make him an unprincipled misogynist.

Greenwald's defense of Ron Paul earned him a rebuttal by Goldstein, in which she essentially claimed that Ron Paul's base was made up of little more than anti-semitic skinheads. Ezra Klein, Jeff Feck, and the Sideshow piled on, slamming Greenwald for his comments.

Here's Ezra's case against Paul:

[L]et's be clear: Paul wants to destroy the minimum wage, dissolve Medicare, end the Constitutional right to choice, prevent gay adoptions, preserve "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," undermine Social Security, dismantle public education, etc, etc.

Good point. You've just described the entire Republican field.

In fact all the attacks on Paul could easily be leveled at any of the Republicans running. Why Rudy Giuliani is typically described as a pro-choice social moderate after insisting that he'll nominate judges who'll abolish abortion rights is beyond me.

This goes double for Romney - declared by many of these same bloggers to be the least bad Republican despite his intention to push for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and abortion and to wage war on Iran (not to mention his support for torture, suspension of civil liberties and his own regressive tax proposals). The belief apparently is that he couldn't possibly be serious.

Ron Paul is simply the only Republican in the race who agrees with progressives on anything. And for that he and his supporters are branded anti-semitic, misogynistic, racist wackos - by the very people who should be relieved that there are still some conservatives who believe in fundamental human rights.

Live Free or Die

Ron Paul's 4th quarter donor map. (States with the highest per capita donors are green) Image originally from Ron Paul Graphs.

On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $3.68 million in one day — more than half of what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter

Is it just me or does this map say a lot about the state of the Republican party today? Ron Paul's strongest support comes from the more independence minded Western states (plus New Hampshire) whose voters traditionally want the federal government to keep out of their business.

He does most poorly in the Bible belt.

It's undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that he's the only Republican running who can honestly claim to believe in small government and individual rights. Republicans have campaigned on libertarian ideas of personal freedom for decades, but the party that attempted to abolish habeas corpus, began covertly spying on the phone calls and daily lives of American citizens and declared that the president has extra legal powers during wartime has lost all claim to the libertarian vote.

Rudy Giuliani strives to be as corrupt as Bernie Kerik

Seriously, why is Ron Paul supposed to be the crazy one in the Republican field?

Mr. Giuliani said that he had erred in not thoroughly vetting Mr. Kerik, who is now under a federal investigation for accepting free renovations while he was working for Mr. Giuliani from a construction firm suspected of having links to organized crime. But Mr. Giuliani said that Mr. Kerik’s wrongdoing did not diminish what he had accomplished for the city.

“Sure, there were issues,” Mr. Giuliani added, “but if I have the same degree of success and failure as president of the United States, this country will be in great shape.”

Mr. Kerik is now facing a possible indictment on a range of federal felony charges, including perhaps tax evasion and bribery, stemming in part from his acceptance of $165,000 in renovations to his Bronx apartment paid for by the construction firm, Interstate Industrial. In June 2006, Mr. Kerik pleaded guilty in the Bronx to state misdemeanor charges relating to the same renovations.

Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik image originally uploaded by fecke

Fox host accuses Ron Paul of taking orders from al Qaeda

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?

REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying -- (laughter) -- I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

Mitt Romney gets 373 votes in Illinois straw poll

Or 40.4% as he prefers to describe it.

Non-candidate Fred Thompson came in second with 184 votes and blog favorite Ron Paul came in third with 174 votes.

Notable by his poor showing was Mike Huckabee, whose second place finish at Ames gave him some positive press. He only received 28 votes at the Illinois fair.

You wouldn't expect much excitement at such a poorly attended event. But apparently, Ron Paul is getting under the skin of Romney's campaign committee:

Paul's libertarian stylings and campaign of strict interpretation of the Constitution has earned him an unorthodox band of sign-carrying supporters. They frequently interrupted TV reports of the event and at one point, Romney's Illinois chairman, state Sen. Dan Rutherford (R-Chenoa), ripped a sign out of one Paul supporter's hands and threw it on the ground.

Somebody really doesn't want to be a Senator anymore

From the Washington Post site, these are the number of votes missed during the current session of Congress:

Hillary Clinton (D) ......... 11 votes (3.5%)
Dennis Kucinich (D) ......... 71 votes (8.4%)
Barack Obama (D) .......... 59 votes (19.0%)
Ron Paul (R) ................ 169 votes (20.0%)
Christopher Dodd (D) ....... 74 votes (23.9%)
Joseph Biden (D) ............ 78 votes (25.2%)
Tom Tancredo (R) ......... 225 votes (26.6%)
Duncan Hunter (R) ......... 244 votes (28.8%)
Sam Brownback (R) ........ 123 votes (39.7%)
John McCain (R) ........... 149 votes (48.1%)

Most Senators and Congressmen have missed less than 3% of scheduled votes. Only the seriously ill Senator Tim Johnson has missed more votes than John McCain.

Ron Paul: the favorite candidate of active duty soldiers

Ron Paul, alternatively described as a "crank" and an "also ran" by the mainstream media for his opposition to the Iraq war and belief in a smaller government, leads all candidates in donations from the American military.

“Lots of military people turned out to be aware that our campaign got more donations from soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines than any other,” said Paul in a statement on his website. “Funny, that made a big impression in Congress too. Many of my colleagues were amazed and encouraged that you can be against this unconstitutional and disastrous war, and get military support.”

Paul said it is “an outrage that we are accused of not supporting the troops” and called it a “scam when the warmongers claim to be pro-soldier.”

Ron Paul: restore Constitutional checks and balances

From Ron Paul's House web site:

Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the President issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the President essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation – up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional—hence often refusing to enforce them.

The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted.

The legislature should not yield its authority to the executive. Our constitutional republic demands that all branches of government understand and respect our system and jealously guard their own prerogatives.

In modern Washington nothing is more misunderstood, and less appreciated, than the genius of republicanism. Presidents issue signing statements that effectively “approve in part and reject in part,” laws of the land—even though there is no constitutional provision for such a process. In addition, Congress cedes its powers at the crucial moment when a decision on whether or not a war is to be fought will be made, only to then criticize the effort it could have used its powers to stop.

Ron Paul and the Republican "also rans"

The Washington Post, taking on the unexpected online popularity of Republican Ron Paul. describes him as an "also ran", which is an interesting choice of words considering the election is still nearly a year off and he is very obviously still running.

In fact, given the apparent desperation among Republican voters for someone else to enter the race, it might be reasonable to describe the entire field as "also rans".

As the CarpetBaggerReport put it:

Just below the surface, there’s a subtle GOP yearning for a trusted conservative who can raise a lot of money, appeal to a cross-section of the party’s factions, and be a credible general-election candidate. Allen and Santorum could have been the candidate, but they lost their re-election bids. Jeb would have been the go-to guy all along, except he said he wouldn’t run.

This month's favorite is Fred Thompson, who comes in just behind Rudy Giuliani in recent polls, despite the fact that few people could name his stance on any issue, or recall an event of any significance during his short Senate career (and probably couldn't even tell you which state he represented). Previous candidates for savior of the party include Michael Bloomberg, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, and, absurdly, Dick Cheney (perhaps the only person in the country with lower approval ratings than the current president).

Ron Paul is written off as a fringe candidate with no real chance of winning the nomination. He is of little interest to the MSM who obsess about the horserace rather than the debate over where to lead the country.

But if the latest generic polls are any indication, the Republicans are headed for a resounding defeat in 2008. The party has sacrificed virtually all it's core principles in service to George Bush. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate trying to define the purpose of the party itself.

As one of his supporters in the WP article says:

"I'm not supporting him because I think he could get the nomination. I'm supporting him because I think he can influence the national conversation about what the role of government is, how much power should government have over our lives, how much liberty should we give up for security. These are important issues, and frankly, no one's thinking about them as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul."

The 2008 candidates: quotes on Osama bin Laden

John Edwards: When we had Osama bin Laden cornered, they left the job to the Afghan warlords. They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Dennis Kucinich: "When you [use assassination as a tool], it comes back at your country," he said. "I think Osama Bin Laden, if he's still alive, ought to be held to account in an international court of law...I would say I don't believe in assassination politics, and when you do that, you bring the assassination of our own leaders into play.

Barack Obama: "I think Dennis is right and I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama Bin Laden has declared war on us...under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like Bin Laden, you take him out," the freshman Illinois senator said.

Hillary Clinton: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,'" Sen. Clinton said, "he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

John McCain: "These people will follow us home," he said. "If you leave (Abu Musab) al-Zarqawi, if you leave (Osama) bin Laden, if you see what they're after -- this is now part of this titanic struggle between good and evil which will consume us for the rest of this century."

Mitt Romney: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person"

Ron Paul: Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks.

Free Scooter!

Mitt Romney, man of principal.

MR. ROMNEY: This is one of those situations where I go back to my record as governor. I didn’t pardon anybody as governor because I didn’t want to overturn a jury.

But he says he might make an exception for a man who outed a CIA agent to as part of a political hit job.


Also answering the question of whether they'd pardon Scooter Libby:

Duncan Hunter gave a rambling non answer, then said no, then said maybe.

Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore gave a simple 'No'.

McCain won't comment until the ongoing appeals are over.

Former prosecutor and overall hardnose, Rudy Giuliani, who made a name enforcing laws against spitting on the sidewalk, thought the prosecution of Libby was incomprehensible.

Brownback and Tancredo said yes.

And Tommy Thompson complained that Clinton only lost his law license, so I guess he feels the Republicans are owed one "gimme" on the perjury charge.

Ron Paul, one of only 4 Republicans to vote against the stripped supplemental

While 86 House Democrats and 37 Democratic Senators folded under George Bush's veto threat, Ron Paul continued to buck his party and hold to his opposition to continuing the Iraq war. Representative Duncan of Tennessee and Senators Burr and Coburn were the only other Republicans voting against the stripped down supplemental bill.

Interestingly, presidential candidate Brownback missed this vote.

Ron Paul, the Howard Dean of the 2008 campaign

Andrew Sullivan, discussing the increasing online popularity of Republican candidate Ron Paul makes an interesting comparison:

Paul also has serious online support. Like Howard Dean – another crank – Ron Paul’s supporters are overrepresented on the web. They blasted all the online polls about the debate, and Paul thereby “won” or came second in the debate, according to the ABC News poll, the Fox News poll and almost every other online poll out there. His campaign has deployed YouTube to great effect as well, and the hostility of the Republican establishment has only given his little political insurgency more oxygen.

Like Dean, Ron Paul is considered a crank because of his views on the Iraq war and his rejection of the idea that 9/11 changed everything. The fiscally conservative, gun-toting, small state governor had been branded a liberal nutcase, only when he declared that Saddam Hussein's capture didn't make America safer, that Iraq never posed a threat to the United States and that the Iraq war was a huge distraction from the fight against bin Laden. The fact that he thought the Patriot Act was an assault on civil liberties only reinforced the view that Dean was a left-wing lunatic.

Dean became popular because he was the only voice in the Democratic race willing to challenge Bush directly on the war. For that he was branded a radical, and his fellow Democrats issued the fiercest attacks. John Kerry demanded he apologize for his comment about Saddam - just as Giuliani now demands Ron Paul apologize for his views on the causes of 9/11.

Dean lost his bid, but he was the catalyst that showed Democrats how to challenge a disastrous policy. By 2006 his views were shared by the overwhelming majority of Democrats and independents and helped lead to their victory at the polls. (Although he'll be branded a crank forever).

Ron Paul now stands as the only Republican who'll challenge the president directly on the war. Let's hope he can be the catalyst that brings his party back to reason as well.

5 out of 7 Republican candidates asked, endorse torture

In the recent FOX news presidential debate, Brit Hume created a fictional scenario straight from the pages of 24, a classic "ticking time bomb" plot: American shopping centers are hit by suicide bombers, hundreds dead. Other attackers captured and taken to Gitmo. Will you use enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent a second attack?

(Brit assures us that the best minds in the intelligence industry think these are the most valuable tools available - if not necessarily legal)

Only John McCain and Ron Paul were willing to call this for what it is. It's torture. McCain rejected it explicitly, while Ron Paul made an exception for the fantasy scenario.

McCAIN:We do not torture people.

It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.

Rudy Giuliani, the man who survived 9/11, disagrees. He doesn't want to see another 3000 dead.

GIULIANI: I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of --

Of course, anything that doesn't cause organ failure is no longer considered torture. Giuliani gives waterboarding the thumbs up.

Romney isn't so coy. In fact he's nearly giddy at the idea. Apparently worried that the ACLU will try to spring bin Laden's boys, he puts them safely in an expanded Guantanamo, far from prying eyes.

ROMNEY: I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo... And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

Senator Brownback assures us that he won't let the U.N. get in the way of American safety and he'll worry about the morality of his decision after the crisis is over.

BROWNBACK: I will do it. I'll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, "Well, it shouldn't quite have been done this way or that way," that's the way it is.

Hunter and Tancredo, apparently worried that Mitt is stealing the John Wayne vote, decide not to mince words.

HUNTER: I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let's act on it.

TANCREDO: Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you. (Laughter, applause.)

Hume didn't actually mention nukes, and of course the question was theoretical, but Tancredo seems to know who's network he's on.

Unfortunately, it's left to Paul to point out the obvious. Brit Hume is asking questions in a fantasy world, while a real war rages on.

PAUL: [Y]ou know, I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.

Nobody's for the torture, and I think that's important. But as far as taking care of a problem like this, ... If we're under imminent attack, the president can take that upon himself to do it.

[W]e forgot about [Osama], and now we're over in Iraq in a war that's bogging us down, and we have forgotten about dealing with the people that attacked us. And here you have a hypothetical attack that you're dealing with; we ought to be dealing with the one we have right now on our hands.

Ron Paul votes to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq

Ron Paul, a longtime critic of the Iraq war and longshot Republican presidential candidate voted with 169 House Democrats and Republican John Duncan of Tennessee to begin withdrawing troops within 9 months.

The bill failed 255-171 as 59 Democrats defected. Most of those preferred a bill that would give the president half his request, and keep the second half contingent on "progress" towards a set of benchmarks.

Paul and Duncan opposed that measure, which passed narrowly.

Ron Paul: Congress bears the greater blame for the Iraq war

Ron Paul blames his fellow Congressmen for the catastrophe in Iraq, accusing them of surrendering their Constitutional obligation to decide when to go to war.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.

Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

...As an Air Force officer serving from 1963-1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.

Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.

...Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.

Ron Paul was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq in 2002.

Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards voted for it in the Senate, as did Republicans McCain and Brownback.

Kucinich voted against in the House, and Obama (not yet in Congress) opposed it vocally at the time.

Ron Paul: political power must be fiercely constrained by the people

Proving once again that his House web site is far superior to his presidential campaign site, Ron Paul presents his views on the purpose of government in a weekly note he calls "Texas Straight Talk":

Political Power and the Rule of Law

With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.

The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.

In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.

Hillary Clinton and the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005

Garance Franke-Ruta is waging a fairly lonely crusade in defense of Hillary Clinton at the Prospect site. Most of the comments concern Hillary's attempts to triangulate, including her vote for the Iraq war and her flag burning legislation, but one of the comments repeats a common misperception that she supported the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.

Some of the confusion seems to come from this recent PBS interview between Maria Hinojosa and Elizabeth Warren (a bankruptcy expert):

HINOJOSA: There's a story that I wanna share with our listeners that you actually shared when you were on Now—on our TV program and it's a fascinating story about Hillary Clinton. You said that when the credit card companies were pushing for legislation to tighten the bankruptcy laws, and this is when President Clinton was in office you were summoned by Hillary Clinton to discuss this legislation. And you sat down with her in this back room and you filled her in on what this new bankruptcy law was gonna mean.

And she at that moment said, "Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen." It gets passed in Congress and Bill Clinton, because of Hillary's conversation with you more or less, vetoes that bill. Now we fast forward to Senator Hillary Clinton, bankruptcy law comes for a vote and she votes for it?

WARREN: Yes.

Reading that excerpt of the transcript, it's easy to assume that Warren is confirming that Hillary Clinton voted for the bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.

In fact, Hillary Clinton was the sole Senator not voting on the bill. This was pointed out incriminatingly by Jackson Williams at the Huffington post.

Speaking of profiles in courage, the bankruptcy bill passed the senate by a vote of 74-25. You'll notice that adds up to 99 senators. So who happened to be the one senator absent that day? Why, Hillary Clinton, the wife of the man who twice vetoed that turkey

But in fact it was also clarified by Elizabeth Warren in the PBS interview cited above:

WARREN: Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure position—as Senator a couple of years later—when the bill came up once again—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.

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.

For the record:

Barack Obama and Chris Dodd voted against the final bill.

Dennis Kucinich voted against the House version.

Joe Biden voted for it. In fact he championed it in the Senate, which is why he's far less likely to get progressive support than Hillary is.

The Republicans (including John McCain, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul) were unanimous in their support for the legislation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this post was written about the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005 (S.256) which became law, not the earlier Bankruptcy Bill of 2001 (S.420) which did not.

Several commentors correctly noted that Hillary Clinton supported the earlier bill (although she voted for amendments adding consumer protections in that bill as well). She wasn't the only Democrat to change her position (voting for the 2001 bill and against the 2005 bill) and I'm not qualified to compare the differences between them.

However, several articles have discussed her change of position, including this recent article in the NYTimes.

For what it's worth, Democratic Senators Akaka, Cantwell, Dorgan, Feinstein, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson (Fl), Schumer and Wyden switched in the same direction as Clinton. John Edwards, who also voted for the 2001 bill, suggested he would have switched his vote as well.

Republican Senators Brownback and Hutchinson switched from voting against the bill in 2001 to voting for it in 2005.