"do you keep ignoring the part about our government not utilizing them?"

First of all, the amendment would not prevent our government from using cluster bombs. Nor would it have effectively prevented our government from using them in civilian areas. Read what the amendment actually says:

"No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians."

All that is required for the US military to continue to use cluster bombs is that it write its "rules of engagement" to forbid their use in civilian areas. It would be surprising to me if the US military's ROE did not already include that proviso. And, when it seems that the ROE is being violated, the US military says the same things the Israelis say: we didn't know there were civilians there, the "bad guys" were hiding out among civilians, a few low level soldiers violated the ROE's and those "bad apples" are being punished, etc.

In short, there is a loophole in the amendment big enough to drive a truck through.

"Your principal argument that Obama has not been 'taking on AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby' just isn't relevant in regard to the vote on SA 4882. It simply has nothing to do with the diary."

The point of the diary, I take it, is that Obama has taken a principled stand against the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Israel blatantly and massively used cluster bombs against civilians just weeks before Obama's vote on the amendment which provides the evidence for this alleged prinicipled stand. Israel also happens to have a virtually invincible lobby on Capitol Hill. Yet Obama did not even peep about Israel's actions. If you want to play naive, that's fine, but I think most people understand the difference between a symbolic vote for a Senate amendment that everyone knows is going down to defeat, and taking on the most powerful lobby in Washington. Moreover, what good would a law prohibiting the transfer of cluster bombs to nations that use them against civilians do, if the President and other top leaders, like a Senator Who Would Be President, refuse to enforce that law against blatant offenders, like Israel?

As I mentioned before, the use of US-made cluster bombs by foreign governments against civilians is already illegal under US law.

And that brings us to:

". . .your position that SA 4882 was mere paper legislation because 'US law already forbids foreign governments...' is not substantiated."

The following is the first sentence of the Washington Post article I linked to:

"The State Department said yesterday that it has begun a preliminary investigation into allegations that Israel violated U.S. rules prohibiting the use of American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas during the recent war in Lebanon."

So, you see, it is substantiated. Read the article, and you will see that Israel was denied US cluster bombs after its violation of this US law in 1982. The ban was since rescinded, Israel got US cluster bombs, and broke US law again in 2006 by using them against civilians.

"there are numerous authorities that are adamant about the need for more vigilance against these cruel weapons."

Certainly, but what "vigilance" did Obama demonstrate in his silence about Israel's use of them against civilians, or in his fawning, sycophantic speech to AIPAC? How can you even write this sentence? Vigilance is needed in enforcing the law, even when politically unpopular, and Obama showed no stomache for that.

"Furthermore, you're entirely ducking the argument that Senator Clinton's vote is absolutely the wrong vote in this instance, even if your points are correct. Calling Obama's vote 'easy' is not a defense of Senator Clinton's vote. She voted wrong on this and Obama voted right."

I think it has already been pointed out that the then ranking member, and later chairman, of the committee voted against it as well. And, as you mentioned, AIPAC did not oppose the amendment, even though, if it had been passed and enforced, it could theoretically be used against Israel. That is  because knew it wouldn't be passed, and even if it was, it would never actually be used against Israel. The human rights group you cited also stated that national laws were ineffective on this issue. There were also procedural reasons that have been mentioned for voting against it.

There is nothing simpler, and more facile, than taking some vote, out of the hundreds if not thousands made by a legislator, out of context, and using it as a club against that legislator. Hillary's vote did not defeat the amendment. The amendment never had a chance of passing while the Republcans controlled the Senate. The amendment, in short, was a grandstand manoever, designed to make its supporters look good, but never expected to become law.

But now, and, especially today, this meme is being floated all over the internet to prove Obama's moral superiority. In this instance, we have a diarist telling us that Hillary wants to kill children. That is an absurdity, and a sick and disgusting one at that. This vote didn't mean jack, and Obama voting "right" on it while Hillary voted "wrong" means even less.