So did the Senate strip out the money they appropriated for taking everyone's guns away too? Or was that a separate appropriation despite how closely linked the two plans were?

Oh, I call BS on the "leadership vacuum" part. Not what you're saying, Brian, but the "strategist" who did some fingerpointing at the White House for lack of leadership.

Excuse me, but has everyone forgotten Harry Reid's brave, principled declaration of independence in January?

To refresh:

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Harry Reid bravely stands up to the extremely popular Obama

But now this mess is the fault of the White House? For not providing leadership to Senatorial Dems? But the "leader" (sic) of those Dems said in no uncertain terms that he didn't work for Obama. So he doesn't work for Obama, but Obama was supposed to provide leadership?

Thank you Harry Reid and Senate Dems for providing a gift-wrapped PR opportunity to the Republicans to portray Democrats as incapable of governing.

Hey, Hairless Reid. We already have terrorists walking the streets ... Bush, Cheney, Con-the-lezzy, Dumbsfelt, Rover, Tenent, Yu, Bye-Bee the Baby, etc. How about we lock them up POST HASTE!

I'm glad that no one is buying the argument given by Senate. This looks like Senate Dems not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.

I'm no reflexive Obama supporter, but he's 100 times better than these useless assholes. Fuck them.
Obama wasn't elected to do their fucking jobs for them. The idea that they're looking for leadership from him is a joke; they're incapable of following.

What is it with the automatic reflex of Democratic Congresses to prostrate themselves before Republican Presidents but stab Presidents of their own party in the back?

If this is true, then the test will be whether Senate democrats reverse themselves on this funding once Obama outlines a plan for what happens to detainees.

However Reid's statements yesterday call the theory into question. If Congress does not want to give Obama money unless he can first explain what he can do with it-- well, fantastic, that's just Congress being responsible. But when the Democratic majority leader is echoing the reasons the Republicans oppose closing guantanamo altogether, on its face this sure makes it seem like the democrats oppose closing guantanamo altogether as well.

I can understand withholding funds until they get a detailed plan from Obama. That sounds reasonable. What's insane is the reason they provided to the media : We don't want terrorists on the streets.

Obama has to clean up Bush's mess, bits of Clinton's mess and pick up the slack because the Dems (his allies) didn't do what they were supposed to for the last 8 years.

I guess they'll start kissing Obama's ass again as the 2010 elections near.

The blogosphere's reaction to this whole thing puts me in mind of LBJ's comment about JFK's advisors, that he wished one of them had ever run for sheriff.

As Tip O'Neill said years later, all politics is local. NIMBY rules. Sure, it only should matter if your backyard happens to be the maximum security wing of a federal penitentiary, but that is not how voters think. Which takes major effort.

This is neither Obama's fault nor the congressional Dems'. It's the consequence of an overloaded plate and what is basically about a third tier issue. Sure, Obama 'should' have been on top of this from day one, but his focus was on other things.

I remember congressional Dems doing this to Clinton at the beginning of his term, too. It did not set a very good precedent. It's self-destruction, Dem-style.

So basically what they are saying, is that Congress needs Obama and the WH to hold their hand.

Are Reed and Pelosi becoming the Democrat's version of Steele, destroying their party from the inside through incompetence?

Un..be..liev..able!

Oh give me a break. They are nothing but a bunch of weenies. I realized that Obama is everywhere doing everything but surely he doesn't need to hike to the hill to hold their hands and protect them from the other side? How useless are they to him?

It is absurd to argue that the Obama adminsitration is responsible for the totally craven Senate Dems who caved on this.

Because they didn't have talking points?!?!?!

The only thing more absurd is the argument that locking the detainees up in a supermax would in pose even the slightest threat to US citizens

The Democratic senators are simply saying don't give the Republicans a weapon to club us with--1/3 have to get re-elected next year. Give us a plan on Guantanamo we can support against the inevitable right-wing firestorm. The Senate is trying to focus on the most important issue in the next few months--HEALTH CARE (and now with Souter's retirement, the Supreme Court is huge, too). I wish some of the bloggers here would not go all hysterical against the Democratic Senate.

Not the best way for the DSCC to close the fundraising gap with its GOP counterpart

I certainly will not enter their chance to win dinner contest

I'd rather go with the DCCC delegation

It is not that President Obama has a lack of focus, but that there is just not enough hours in the day to do everything he needs to get done in a little over 100 days--give the President time.