You have your facts slightly wrong. The Senate never voted on Kyoto. Clinton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification, since he knew it would be rejected, and he wanted to keep it alive.
The 97-0 vote was not on Kyoto, but rather on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which was phrased in a way that made opposition to the resolution politically impossible; it stated "the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol... [that] would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States."
Gore started making the argument that global warming would end up costing us more in the long run so that signing the protocols would be in the interests of our economy. In other words, the Democrats regrouped after the first setback and were gearing up to get it passed.
And while the Byrd-Hagel amendment got 0 votes against it, the support for it could be better guaged by the vote on McCain/Lieberman's "Kyoto Lite" bill S.139 which got 43 votes. Not enough support to get it through yet, but close enough for worry.
Which is why it was good, and important, that Bush put a stake through the heart of Kyoto.
Very good historical analysis on your part.
Senate votes can be incredibly deceptive, unless one takes a very close look at ALL of the circumstances that go into any particular one.
I think it was teh international counrt that Clinton signed, which Bush unsigned.
Clinton was willing to put the UN over our sovereign courts.
Kerry also shows every intention to subordinate the US to the UN, but I guess some people want to see this happen, while they run around claiming what pure conservatives they are.
NO real conservative would want to have the US subordinated to the UN.
