This vote was cast in September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Before I get into why this was such an important amendment and why a no vote was so terrible, I just want to post the vote totals with presidential candidates in bold.

30 Democrats voted YEA: Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND)

Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)

15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):

Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)

Now, on to the importance of this amendment.

I'll start with Senator Feinstein's own description of the amendment from the Congressional record (emphasis is mine);

I offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill to address a humanitarian issue that I have actually thought a great deal about over a long period of time; that is, the use of the cluster bomb. The human death toll and injury from these weapons is felt every day, going back decades. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off. I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.

And we've been using these cluster munitions in every war since Vietnam.

Why are they such a danger to children? Senator Feinstein explains:

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended. This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.

Many countries are just full of these bomblets and many more innocent children will die as a result:

Looking at these figures, it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets--Laos, 7 to 27 million; Iraq, 1.2 million; and then Lebanon, 100,000.

As a result, 84 countries are currently participating in the Oslo process to ban cluster munitions (of course, we're not part of this either):

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Burundi, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Greece, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao PDR, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mozambique, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, St Vincent and Grenadines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, UK, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia.

And it's not just people from other countries these bomblets have killed. In the first gulf war, unexploded cluster bomblets were responsible for 6% of U.S. fatalities, killing 22 and injuring 58.

As a result, Republican Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen issued a memorandum at the end of Clinton's term that all new cluster bomblets must have a less than 1% failure rate.

However, apparently the Pentagon's $700 billion or so dollar budget (and I'm pretty sure that's not including the wars) isn't enough, they've stated that "cluster bomblets with failure rates of more than 1 percent 'will remain in the Department's inventory until used or until they have reached their extended life and are demilitarized.'"

So these inaccurate bombs with high failure rates are still being used, and will continue to cause more deaths of innocent children and of members of the United States Armed Forces.

However, the most compelling reason Senator Feinstein gave was neither humanitarian nor military-oriented. It was entirely strategic:

I also know that there is a dud rate--in other words, a rate at which point these bomblets do not explode. I ask this question: How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in those countries where we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill young children? How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?

That's a good point. When someone's kid is killed by picking up a small piece of shiny explosive from a bomb the United States dropped on your country, they're not going to be very happy with the United States. In fact, they're very likely to start hating us.

And yet, despite all these reasons, Senator Clinton (and Senators Biden and Dodd) still voted against this amendment. Senator Clinton made no statements either on the floor or via press release explaining her vote.

But perhaps her recent statements explain it:

You know, it’s tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don’t need a president who’s up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters

Does being "up to speed" on foreign affairs and military matters means voting to continue the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions?

If so, I'll take someone who's not up to speed. They've shown better judgment.