A more likely scenario for a third trimester abortion is a fetus that is severely malformed, and will not live after birth.  And you can imagine that while there may not be a medical reason to terminate this pregnancy, it can be very disturbing for a woman to carry to term and deliver in this case.  And you would think it would be her decision, along with her doctors decision, and that they could decide how to handle this.  Considering that there is always risk to the mother in childbirth, and in some cases there is also a risk to her future fertility.  But it seems that Obama thinks it’s up to him to decide in a case like this, that it should be legally required for the woman to labor and give birth.

Looks like we’ll have to learn to shut up and put up, since he’s our only choice.

My reaction to this is the same as my reaction to the whole FISA affair.

The solution to bad politics is a better electorate. The distressing part of this whole affair is that it probably IS necessary in order to get elected on a national stage.

The real problem is that people just don’t respect the concept of rights. To them, rights are an entitlement. Something they get. Not a responsibility, something that they also have to give. Be it allowing people to speak their mind, or have privacy over their own words and bodies. It’s the core difference of a Bill of Rights that only outlines citizen/government interaction, and not citizen/citizen interaction.

That’s the wall that needs to be knocked down, and IMO expecting politicians to knock it down is expecting too much.

I think that fetal abnormalities are the most common reason for medically necessary abortions after a certain period of time, but there are occasionally cases, bunny, where you’ll have a very young rape victim who has concealed her pregnancy out of shame or ignorance until it’s too late for a regular abortion.  It’s these sorts of situations that anti-choicers would have you believe are women trying to weasel out of their due punishment of childbirth, which is an opinion I hope most hold out of ignorance, or else I fear for their daughters.

The abortion issue is a million scenarios too often reduced to “choice” or “life”. And I agree with Karmakin that a better electorate would be nice.

But a bad candidate pandering to a bad electorate compounds the problem.

The majority of people will respond reasonably to a well articulated position. So the desire to forsake that articulation for a sound bite, or the inability to articulate it at all, is the sole responsibility of the candidate.

And in the case of a presidential hopeful, if you’re not helping to solve a problem, you’re part of the problem.

Is the McCain campaign paying you by the letter or what?

Wow, Obama’s really batting a thousand this week. It’s not like I wouldn’t be cringing similarly if Hilary had won...we all know she panders too. But still, with FISA and this and Yay! Religion!, ugh.

And the only thing that will really ever help is if we get rid of the (&()^*%^ Electoral College so we can have more choices than Politician A: Crazy Wingnut or Politician B, Pandering Dem.  Won’t solve all our problems, but might keep the Dems from feeling they can throw so many of us under the bus because we have nowhere else to go. Grrr.

Excellent point.  That’s really why you have to pander to people’s ignorance like this.  And ignorance is what’s really going on.  Right wingers have a lot more control of public opinion in rural areas because there’s limits on the amount of media in these areas.  Fewer TV stations, fewer newspapers, fewer radio stations.  Much easier to get erroneous beliefs---like that abortion isn’t already tightly regulated after the first trimester---into people’s heads.

I’d love it if Democrats corrected misinformation when presented with it, instead of playing along like this.  In fact, one reason I was impressed by Obama was that he was far more willing than other candidates to correct journalists who asked him loaded questions based on misinformation.  The trouble you run into when you do that, though, is you cause your audience to experience cognitive dissonance, which can make them dislike you.  I get that he has to pick his battles.  But he could have pandered more effectively on this issue.

Obama’s already backpedaling/clarifying his position.

Whoops. Let’s try that link again.

http://tinyurl.com/6qdmla

Not offering this as an excuse but…

One should recognize that Obama said it in the context of yet more chain emails.  He was already in a preexisting “frame”.

Now, he might have busted it, denied it, or does something else instead of saying what he did…

He’s not really backpedaling, just providing the full statement.

Obama’s already backpedaling/clarifying his position.
While this is better than the alternative, he’s still bringing attention to the most “controversial” 1% of abortions.

Wrong, Jesse:  Obama’s new words--that a mental condition is sorta-kinda okay if it’s truly clinical and not just a mood swing or whatever--did not appear in the original statement, in which the Senator spoke 100% dismissively of mental conditions as a reason for a late-term abortion.

Still, I’m grateful for what he said.  It was an acknowledgment.  A crumb from him is more nourishing than no crumb.

Amanda, reading my comment, I agree it was a bit protracted, but I was agreeing fully with your premise.

But my conclusion was that Obama disappoints doubly here. He not only panders to the right, he fails to take the opportunity to advance any helpful dialog that might be had on this issue. But maybe that was your point as well.

I supported Hillary because her campaign was about the issues which she articulated brilliantly. For almost two years Obama was long on speeches but short on substance. In fact I haven’t seen any evidence he’s ever taken a stand on the tough issues before now. And look what’s happening.

So I’m afraid if you’re expecting any better from him in the future, you’re in for a long election season.

Yet another bit of ammo for the McCain trolls.

See you in McCain’s America.

And here I was hoping that I would be actually voting *for* someone come November.  With Obama’s full on sprint to the right, now I’m back to voting *against* McCain.

More fool, me. I actually did think Obama was different, that he was going to look to some different approach to governing. But no. Just another politician listening to the DLC for the quickest way to lose a federal election. :::sigh:::

\"But my conclusion was that Obama disappoints doubly here. He not only panders to the right, he fails to take the opportunity to advance any helpful dialog that might be had on this issue. But maybe that was your point as well.
I supported Hillary because her campaign was about the issues which she articulated brilliantly.
me in gold country on 07/05 at 08:29 PM\”

When in Hillary campaign she \"articulates\" her stand in 3rd trimester stand upon direct questioning in regard to \"mental distress\”? Show me that. because I am certain there should be a record.

even in general abortion question Hillary swerves and provide lengthy vague answer.

This is the same as \"FISA\" yipp-yipp. all these supposedly Hillary supporter suddenly \"now\" getting loud abut FISA, but was completely awol during February/March fight. (even now, half of them don\’t have a clue what is the key issue and passages. But ready to yell about anything.)

Here’s Squashed again inventing with yet another name in the hope of not being banned.  How ‘bout a li’l STFU, dude?

The solution to bad politics is a better electorate. The distressing part of this whole affair is that it probably IS necessary in order to get elected on a national stage.

In fact, one reason I was impressed by Obama was that he was far more willing than other candidates to correct journalists who asked him loaded questions based on misinformation.

Agreed on both points, but I think the pandering reinforces the bad electorate. I think there are ways to do that without introducing too much cognitive dissonance. Obama basically blew a dog whistle here - there is this meme on the right that exceptions for the “mother’s health” are a cover for something like just feeling a bit out of sorts, as opposed to serious mental health issues. And he could have said something like “I understand there is a fear that women can have abortions even at very late dates for reasons that many consider frivolous. I think it’s important to remember that these abortions occur only under very extreme circumstances and the existing restrictions ensure that the women who get these abortions are the women who need them.” That would be a way of saying basically the same thing to the same audience without reinforcing the idea that any 8-month pregnant woman could waddle into any old abortion clinic and get an abortion.

On the political, as opposed the policy, question, I think Obama faces a lot of pressure going into the general to act more and more like a typical politician, and if anything could undo him at this point, I worry that it would be this. He doesn’t have tons of experience. He is a bit of an unknown. His popularity depends on his promise to be a better, different sort of politician, and he panders at his peril.

He talked about mental distress because he was asked about emails that talk about mental distress:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama’s response is “Please don’t believe the emails. ... I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother.” Now, I haven’t read these emails, but I can guess what they say: “OMGZ0rz, Obama thinks feeling sad should be enough to get someone a partial-birth abortion exemption!” (Only with more vivid baby-killing imagery.) And of course he doesn’t think that; nobody thinks that, as you point out. He was asked about the emails; he dismissed the false implication; he went on to restate a position which is exactly in line with the way abortions are currently handled. And, predictably, the left exploded in a flaming ball of candidangst, because Obama’s a flip-flopper now, and by golly we’re gonna help him get elected by pushing that Republican frame.

How ‘bout a li’l STFU, dude?
Unree on 07/05 at 09:39 PM”

How about you stfu and stop with all the hypocrisy.

Hillary started out her primary with center right talking point and strategy (flag burning, gun, massive war mongering, pro corporate, Bush talking point, fear mongering, FISA, moralism)

Now suddenly we have bunch of Hillary supporters acting like they can’t accept the fact that Obama needs to move the talking point to get the center right/moderate voters?

More importantly: these fakers keep screaming “I’ll stay home or vote McCain” (well how do people suppose to take your selective outrage? McCain or staying home is suppose to be better?)

“Obama’s response is “Please don’t believe the emails. ... I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother.” Now, I haven’t read these emails, but I can guess what they say: “OMGZ0rz, Obama thinks feeling sad should be enough to get someone a partial-birth abortion exemption!” (Only with more vivid baby-killing imagery.) And of course he doesn’t think that; nobody thinks that, as you point out. He was asked about the emails; he dismissed the false implication; he went on to restate a position which is exactly in line with the way abortions are currently handled. And, predictably, the left exploded in a flaming ball of candidangst, because Obama’s a flip-flopper now, and by golly we’re gonna help him get elected by pushing that Republican frame.
jere7my on 07/05 at 10:07 PM”

The email is design exactly for this moment, to make Obama say something so the hillary4McCain PUMA’s can keep their outrage.

There will be plenty of this in the coming week. This should be a very predictable Rovian trick to suppress and prevent consolidation of votes inside democratic party. It’s not that terribly hard to keep some section of pro hillary voters keep running in circle. It’s the biggest Rove asset right now to keep the margin within 5%.

Expect more of this stuff. And watch puma type becoming major concern troll. (followed by the usual: can we stay home/vote green/vote McCain-I won’t vote him-but will push his talking point)

Someone really needs to take the abortion debate to a new level and ask people who support abortion if they are willing to support other infringements on bodily autonomy like;

Mandatory organ harvesting
Mandatory blood donation
Cloning people for organs
Keeping people as organ farms

And if not why not? Children with cancer are just as precious as fetuses!

Frankly the right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life, in all circumstances. It’s time we started asserting that.

I forgot to add that we should also start asserting the consequences of the other view as well.

“Obama basically blew a dog whistle here - there is this meme on the right that exceptions for the “mother’s health” are a cover for something like just feeling a bit out of sorts, as opposed to serious mental health issues.
chingona on 07/05 at 09:46 PM”

True, it definitely makes me cringe. I am still ambivalent, but I think such move is fairly important to retain the margin in some states. This is about Hillary’s “hard working white americans” voters. It’s all about Gun, God and Glory.

Hi, squashed, how many names are you up to now?

Mental health has been used as an excuse to get abortions in countries where most abortions are illegal.  In Spain, for instance, women can go doctor shopping until they find one willing to give them an exception to Spain’s abortion ban.  To that end, some sort of vague exception for “emotional distress” for third trimester abortions effectively amount to no restrictions on third term abortions, which even the most hard-core abortion rights supporter would hardly embrace.

But I don’t get this:

I don’t think that it takes much work to imagine some of the horror stories that land women (or more commonly, girls) in Kansas or Colorado to get an abortion---being raped by relatives, suicide attempts, strenuous attempts at self-aborting that put them in danger of killing themselves.

And what would prevent those women and girls from getting abortions in their first or second trimesters?

And what would prevent those women and girls from getting abortions in their first or second trimesters?
Shame and fear, often. When teenage girls get pregnant (whether through consensual sex or rape) they have been known to try and hide it in the hope that it will just go away. Eventually someone notices.

And what would prevent those women and girls from getting abortions in their first or second trimesters?

Waiting periods.  Parental notification laws.  Lack of abortion facilities in 80% of the counties in the US.

You know, all those “reasonable” restrictions.

some sort of vague exception for “emotional distress” for third trimester abortions effectively amount to no restrictions on third term abortions, which even the most hard-core abortion rights supporter would hardly embrace

I would embrace it.  I would be perfectly happy to see no restrictions on third term abortions, because I have yet to be convinced that any are necessary.

A woman who has thus far been content with a pregnancy is not going to just randomly decide “hey, an abortion sounds like a fun way to spend a weekend!” in her third trimester.  Women who need abortions at that time are either dealing with a major health problem or some other equally extreme situation, or they wanted an abortion all along but couldn’t get one.  If it’s the latter, then we need to be addressing those barriers rather than penalizing the women for encountering them.

“any 8-month pregnant woman could waddle into any old abortion clinic”

unless you have waddled around as an 8 month pregnant woman, I think you should shut the fuck up.

unless you have waddled around as an 8 month pregnant woman, I think you should shut the fuck up.
bunny on 07/06 at 02:06 AM

Since you said you are going to vote green, and declared a member of PUMA/protest vote.  I suggest you don’t try to act like you are in higher moral ground. (that on top of I doubt you ever waddled around as an 8 months pregnant woman.) so maybe you should take your own advice and stfu?

I would embrace it.  I would be perfectly happy to see no restrictions on third term abortions, because I have yet to be convinced that any are necessary.

Amen to that.  Abortion should come down to what the patient and doctor decide to be in the best interests of the patient.  Period.  I can’t think of many people- in the patient OR doctor category- who would initiate a 3rd trimester abortion on a whim.

Also, what is up with all of the hatey-hate “I’m a better liberal than you” stuff in the comments?

Since you said you are going to vote green, and declared a member of PUMA/protest vote.  I suggest you don’t try to act like you are in higher moral ground.

Since when is it immoral to vote Green?  One of the problems I have with the Reichwing is this whole “join or die” mentality they have going on.  Shut up and march with the jackbooters, or else. So if I decide to vote Green, I no longer have a right to comment on any other issue? I don’t necessarily endorse “Bunny’s” politics, but the comment about the “waddling pregnant woman” was out of line, and derserved to be taken to task. And, since the post itself is critical of Obama, why would “Bunny” or anyone else be seen as unreasonable because they post comments about why they are leery of Obama as a candidate?

First, just because politicians (Sen. Obama and company included) think facts are irrelevant, we shouldn’t.  While the reporter asked Sen. Obama specifically about his position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions, Sen. Obama’s answer talks about late-term abortions.

Late-term (includes late 2nd term and third term) and third term abortions are not one and the same thing. [And, needles to say, “partial-birth” abortions are a propaganda gimmick. A bit OT, but I do wonder if a politician would spontaneously combust if s/he points out this simple fact to a reporter.]

Lumping 2nd and 3rd trim abortions together is inaccurate because, overall, the indications for having the procedure (as well as the numbers) differ. The main indication for a 3rd trim abortion is medical, usually a catastrophic fetal defect (or FDIU). [The defect isn’t usually diagnosed until the 2nd trim, hence the delay in having the procedure.] Also, 3rd trim abortions are already regulated by the State. [It’s possible to have an elective 2nd trim abortion; not so with a 3rd trim one.]

Now, as far as the numbers go, late-term abortions are on the order of ~10,000/yr; 3rd trim ones are ~1,000/yr. [Solid numbers, when you consider that public discourse and policy of medical matters must always be based on the exceptions to the rule, no?]

Second, the Senator’s stated position:

I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

State interference in pregnant women’s medical decisions--check. Requirement for serious physical distress as a precondition for access to proper medical care--check. Definition of what constitutes serious distress left at the mercy of politicians, manly men, and assorted strangers--check.

And the Senator’s policy plan for a reduction in the number of abortion: education and abstinence education; emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior; encouraging adoptions; and, of course, a role for government interference. [I don’t know about you, but I for one fully intend to apply for a job with the new Department for Sexual Sacredness in the upcoming administration.]

Third, the clarification:

I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case.

It’s not enough just to be a little anemic. You better be hemorrhaging from every orifice, or no abortion for you. And why exactly should the standard of care for pregnant women be based on the fears of strangers?

My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue.

If only Sen. Obama were aware that there’s no such thing as a “partial-birth” abortion, he could avoid making idiotic statements about it. For most 3rd trim abortions, the reality isn’t feeling blue because you’re dealing with an unintended pregnancy. It’s agonizing over the fact that you have a dead or severely malformed fetus, and dealing with terminating a planned/very much desired pregnancy. Requiring a full-blown mental break down as a prerequisite to allowing a woman who, for example, doesn’t want to carry a dead fetus to term is despicable.

In any case, it’s most reassuring to know that Sen. Obama, in his benevolence, is fully prepared to get rigorous with pregnant women’s mental health.

[sorry for the length of the comment]

Dmitriev, have you ever waddled around with an 8 month old fetus in you?  because I have.  And unless you have almost died trying to get a person out of you, then you are not like me.

And I will vote for anyone I goddamned choose to vote for.  Is that clear?

And you could talk to the person who was inside me, who I chose to risk my life to give birth to.

And if you don’t know what that’s like, and if you will never make that choice, then really, shut the fuck up.

It’s the elite strategy for managing the electorate.  Hope and change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZuHAqjI3CY

“Dmitriev, have you ever waddled around with an 8 month old fetus in you?  because I have.  And unless you have almost died trying to get a person out of you, then you are not like me.
And I will vote for anyone I goddamned choose to vote for.  Is that clear?
bunny on 07/06 at 03:47 AM “

A PUMA who is voting green and pushing McCain talking point.

Sure you can vote whoever you want, being stupid is not a crime yet. But stop whining if nobody takes you seriously. This is ‘Confluence’ level of wackiness. Proud to be stupid.

Next thing we know you are a creationist.  ... jebus, this is amazing.

“It’s the elite strategy for managing the electorate.  Hope and change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZuHAqjI3CY
bunny on 07/06 at 04:33 AM”

and you are the cynical operator for the status quo to maintain atomization. Congratulation PUMA.

The excuses here for Obama are pathetic.  Really pathetic.  “Well, he said it, but he must not really mean it because monkey gumbo sunshine!” Just accept that your chosen candidate won’t actually support any progressive positions.  If you still think you should vote for him because he’ll be incrimentally better than McCain (a position with which I agree, btw) then great.  But stop making excuses.  Just stop.

This is the stupidest post I’ve read on the subject so far.  The degree to which you are willing to protect your candidate is astounding.  Instead of making excuses for him, criticize him, strongly, so that he becomes a better, more principled candidate, not the crass opportunist he so shamelessly has become.  Otherwise, bring Hillary or Edwards back during the convention:  this guy’s not our official nominee yet. 

It’s a sad day to be a Democrat, much less a progressive.

McCain is the best! All PUMA should support McCain instead of Obama.

Hillary Clinton calls pro-choice voters lazy

JC: Next subject: abortion. Some women feel that your language is becoming much more moderate on the issue. What do you say to reassure them?

HC: I’ve been saying the same thing for as long as I can remember: I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I do think women should have a choice but also that women should be making responsible decisions. I think people who have been pro-choice have basically gotten lazy about it. There will be a concerted effort by the Supreme Court to try to push as far as they possibly can [last spring, the court upheld a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions], and if they go all the way and either repeal or overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will become a political issue again in the legislatures of every state, and people will find themselves having to be politically active. When you’re part of a group that cares deeply — as the anti-choice people do — you get organized, and you vote on that issue, whereas people who are pro-choice vote on a lot of different issues. I bet a lot of people among your readers voted for George W. Bush because they concluded that he was more likeable or whatever. But if [abortion rights] is the most important issue to any of your readers, then it has to become a voting issue.

http://iamthelizardqueen.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/hillary-clinton-calls-pro-choice-voters-lazy/

Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk
Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?

LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it infanticide.  Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.

CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

McCain in 1999: repeal Roe v. Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqtsdIjSEQ4

McCain : Overturning Roe v. Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXNSa_xCpzk

NARAL, Sen. Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2elXcVySElc

----------

Hillary Clinton all primary whopper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxyrWRUfe1c

John McCain Lying his ass off, debates himself on supporting bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg

McCain is the best!

Maybe if you’re a misogynist, homophobic, racist, anti-worker, pro-war, pro-torture, incompetent fool.

Are we going to have to deal with all this trollage all the way up through November?  I’m not sure I can deal with that.

Are we going to have to deal with all this trollage all the way up through November?  I’m not sure I can deal with that.

I’ve been to the subway. There are a lot of rats to fuck. We’re going to be dealing with a lot.

unless you have waddled around as an 8 month pregnant woman, I think you should shut the fuck up.

Oooh.  Bunny gets bitchy!

Ema: Obama was asked about third-term and partial-birth abortion, and, yes, his response used the term “late-term”. Late-term is not well-defined; it can mean anything from 12 weeks to 27 weeks (including in medical journals).

The interviewer asks,

there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Then Obama responds:

… I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.

In other words, the interviewer asked “What’s your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions?” and Obama responded “Here’s my position on late-term abortions.” Basic reading comprehension suggests he’s using “late-term” here as a catch-all for both third-trimester and partial-birth, since that’s what he was asked about (and since that’s one medically accepted use of an ill-defined term). Obama’s position is no different than Clinton’s, unless you squint so hard at his words your eyes close.

Ugly in Pink, I’m not sure insulting people who disagree with you is the best way to convince anyone. Obama is our candidate. Consider, for a moment, that you’re buying into a media narrative that’s being pushed by the Right. Apart from FISA (which I’m not thrilled about), Obama’s positions haven’t changed since he became the nominee. For instance, on Iraq:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07/03/obama_has_consistently_said_he.php

The Right loves to find hairline cracks and slip wedges into them. They pull on words like taffy, push out-of-context quotes front-and-center in the media, until we’re all running around the barnyard like decapitated chickens. This abortion foofaraw is a hairline crack, but because we’re so eager to be played it’s turned into a chasm. And Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove are chortling away.

Don’t let them do it.

Wrong is wrong.  Obama is not perfect and should not be the nominee.  He is woefully inexperienced but people support him no matter what and will clearly attack a person for not “getting in line.”

I can’t vote for him because he hasn’t earned my vote.  He makes an idiotic policy statement everyday of this campaign and gets a free ride for it.  He isn’t accountable he is anointed. 

The completely unsympathetic positions he takes with regard to the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and now women’s equality--you can’t be equal if you can’t control your own body--isn’t any different than a Republican. 

I don’t need him and it is obvious he is oblivious to me.

Perhaps if he didn’t assume that everyone was behind him, he might discover he isn’t much of a leader.

No, but y’all just had to have him and just had to get Hillary out of the way.  She would not have gone down this partial birth abortion road. 

Don’t let these men tell you that you should stop putting your needs ahead of the country.  C’mon women.  Abortion isn’t that big of a deal. 

What would be a big deal to you?

The Opoponax,

there is an oddly theatrical quality to all of it.

The Right loves to find hairline cracks and slip wedges into them.

That’s a really, really bad reason to ignore and excuse your candidate’s flaws.  For one, it means the democratic party no longer has the advantage of being, you know, intellectually honest.  Which given how our causes get routinely ignored or outright repudiated by our supposed candidates, was really the only reason left to vote for them.

<i>I’m not sure insulting people who disagree with you is the best way to convince anyone. Obama is our candidate.>/i>

Also, this sort of sentiment is fucking scary.  Not kidding.  The “you’re so RUUUDE” response instead of addressing my point (usually seen by antifeminist trolls - great company you’re keeping there) combined with the blind loyalty of the authoritarian follower.  Yeah, that’s certainly a real alternative to the present administration you’re offering there pal.

-you can’t be equal if you can’t control your own body

ZOMG you’re totally right.  The gubmit should have no right whatsoever to restrict anything that anyone wants to do with their body, ever, for any reason.  There should be no regulation on anything, ever, for reasons of BODILY AUTONOMY, yo. 

I’m prochoice and all, and in fact I think that late-term abortions are probably overregulated (mega-agree with what someone said upthread about making access easier in the first trimester rather than penalizing women who fall through the cracks), but seriously?  Our government regulates a lot of things.  Mostly things you don’t even think about day to day, like how wide sidewalks should be (OSHA) or where it’s OK to live vs. where it’s OK to open a fume-spewing noxious factory (local zoning laws).  Plenty of those regulations take away a little of our freedom, sometimes even our freedom to do perfectly harmless things like convert an old warehouse into a loft or bring that fabulous asparagus you had in Belgium back home to share with your friends. 

There was a time I thought all that was just ridiculous hoo-ha from The Man, trying to take away our human autonomy (I was an anarchist, then).  As I grow up, though, I’m kind of happy that cars have safety features and when I open a can of tomatoes I can be pretty sure I won’t find either a thumb or hydrochloric acid in it. 

Similarly, I guess I’m also pretty much OK with the idea that, if I were to need an abortion in my third trimester, there would be somebody out there looking out for me and making sure I’m not an abused teenager, in need of serious psychiatric help, or dying of a fatal illness that could be cured if only I knew about it.  Or, for that matter, that there would be someone there to tell me there were treatment options for my soon-to-be child’s horrible birth defect, welfare programs to help out now that my husband had been disfiguringly injured on the job, etc. etc. etc.  Yes of course in the end it should be my decision.  But if we’re going to take an interest in making sure the world is wheelchair accessible, I’d like to think we’d also take an interest in giving people good medical care.  And if regulation is what it takes to do those things, so be it.

Ugly in Pink:

Really? Suggesting we debate this politely is “fucking scary”? It’s better to call each other “pathetic”? Um...sure! There’s no way personal insults will distract us from the substance of the discussion we’re trying to have! I should have addressed your point instead, which was...um..."just accept your candidate isn’t a progressive and stop making excuses! Monkey gumbo sunshine!” (Insofar as that was a point, I think I did address it.)

I never suggested we ignore Obama’s flaws. He was wrong on FISA, for instance, and we should call him on it. But there’s a difference between pointing out flaws and buying into somebody else’s false narrative.  It is our job to push back against the narratives the media imposes, with actual facts, by looking at actual statements and records. Right now, the media narrative says that Obama flip-flopped on Iraq — despite the fact that Samantha Power, back in March, said (on Obama’s behalf) exactly what Obama is saying now, about listening to the generals when scheduling the withdrawal. The Right is going to reinforce that narrative, publicly, through press releases and statements, and sneakily, by stirring shit up on progressive blogs. It is in our best interest to look at what Obama has actually said, not sit around with our mouths open like baby birds, ready to snap at whatever bait is dangled above us. If we start out with the preconceived notion that Obama is a flip-flopper, then everything we see is going to feed into that narrative. We should be better than that — we should, as you say, be the intellectually honest side.

(To put it another way, don’t reinforce the myths.)

Wrong is wrong.  Obama is not perfect and should not be the nominee.

If that’s the standard, we should disband as a party at once, because we’ll never run another candidate.

None of the candidates was perfect. Certainly Dodd (the candidate I originally preferred) wasn’t. Nor were Clinton, or Obama, or Gore, or Feingold, or anyone else in the party. Obama strikes me as a pretty typical Democrat positionally. He’s not as liberal as I might like, and he has the usual dismaying Democratic tendency to try to phrase liberal positions in ways that give too much rhetorical cover to conservatives, but he doesn’t strike me as any more or less objectionable than Clinton or Edwards.

Any of our candidates would have pulled the country to the left (of its current position, not in any absolute scale—we’d need to tack left for years to get back to the middle). Compared to McCain, they’re all patron saints of liberalism.

Obama’s latest comments on abortion sound like a straightforward restatement of the usual Democratic pro-choice position. They’re mushier than they should be—but so were Clinton’s, frankly. They’re certainly many steps saner than McCain’s by-the-numbers anti-choice position.

unless you have waddled around as an 8 month pregnant woman, I think you should shut the fuck up.

And indeed I have, bunny, so I guess I’ll take your comment as an invitation to carry on. I’m not quite sure what offense you took from my comment, so I don’t know how to reassure you it was not mean-spirited. If you care to elaborate, I will as well.

Bunny is precisely correct in citing Chomsky re: America’s “fake democracy.” No doubt most of the media brain-washed, government-school-indoctrinated sheeple are going to vote for one of the Ruling Elite’s candidates.

Americans had the chance to “Break the Matrix” by supporting Ron Paul, but chose to settle for a fascist, war-mongering Republican (McNasty) and a psuedo-Marxist statist like Barack Hussein Obama

As stated previously:

“Between their constant flip-flopping, pandering, and double-talking I really can’t tell which one of McBama is the most cynical, disgusting, dishonest, pathethically craven political whore.

Really, they are both such horrendously bad, anti-freedom, pro-government (i. e. pro-fascist police state) it’s astounding.”

I’m writing in Ron Paul or voting for Chuck Baldwin:

http://www.baldwin08.com/

Americans had the chance to “Break the Matrix” by supporting Ron Paul, but chose to settle for a fascist, war-mongering Republican (McNasty) and a psuedo-Marxist statist like Barack Hussein Obama

OK, nevermind about the above comment.  My butt is firmly planted in my seat, popcorn in one hand and soda in the other, waiting for the curtain to rise on Series Of Tube Political Landscape Theatre 3000.

*rubs hands together*

This is gonna be good…

Americans had the chance to “Break the Matrix” by supporting Ron Paul, but chose to settle for a fascist, war-mongering Republican (McNasty) and a psuedo-Marxist statist like Barack Hussein Obama

Meh. I just can’t be bothered to take Ron Paul sycophants seriously. The only substantive difference between Paul and the rest of the Republican party is that Paul would prefer we be a republic of 50 separate fascist states, rather than one big federal one.

No, but y’all just had to have him and just had to get Hillary out of the way.  She would not have gone down this partial birth abortion road.

Actually, she did go down the same path.  As with so many of these issues, Clinton has said and done the exact same things about abortion that Obama has.

What, you thought that Clinton was a supporter of a woman’s absolute freedom to get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy?  You might need to look at the actual Hillary Clinton and not the one you’ve created in your head.

Also, this sort of sentiment is fucking scary.  Not kidding.  The “you’re so RUUUDE” response instead of addressing my point (usually seen by antifeminist trolls - great company you’re keeping there) combined with the blind loyalty of the authoritarian follower.

Uh, I thought your point was that we’re all pathetic brainwashed Obamabots.  Did you have another point?

Jeremy - Yeah, your first post did say that, that Obama didn’t really mean it and it was phrased badly, responding to charges in smear-y emails.  That’s a fair argument, and one I should have addressed right off.  Regardless of the reasoning, and regardless of what he meant to say, the actual words he said meant that he thinks it is ok to force a woman (for WHATEVER reason) to finish a pregnancy and bear a child.  He sees limits to bodily autonomy for women.  It’s not a progressive sentiment, and saying “weeell, he didn’t really mean it and McCain is worse” does nothing to advance our goals. 

As to “respectful politeness,” blogs are notorious for plain speaking and rudeness.  When Amanda is rude in her articles it doesn’t distract from her point.  My point is that you should not make excuses for un-progressive actions by your chosen candidate if you don’t wish to lose the one advantage you have over the republicans - actual principles.

Mmem - I would have thought better of you.  Unqualified support for any political candidate (as exemplified by his comment where he said Obama is our candidate and we must support him no matter what he does) is stupid.  Ok?  Not scary.  Stupid.  Is that better?

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

In other words, there are some times when it’s ok to force you to give birth against your will.

Why should we make excuses for comments like these ("pandering" etc.)?

Regardless of the reasoning, and regardless of what he meant to say, the actual words he said meant that he thinks it is ok to force a woman (for WHATEVER reason) to finish a pregnancy and bear a child.  He sees limits to bodily autonomy for women.

Hillary Clinton sees those same limits and has said so publicly and in speeches.  That’s why it’s hard for me to get completely bent out of shape when Obama words something clumsily while responding to e-mail rumors.  This is starting to remind me of the whole “women should have some control” brouhaha that turned out to be nothing.

Ok?  Not scary.  Stupid.  Is that better?

Yes, that’s better, because I was starting to think you were buying into the “OMG Obama is going to form a fascist state and become a dictator!” meme that’s been floating around lefty blogs lately.  Go back a few days to look at Jesse’s commentary about the posts that Arthur Silber has been doing—Silber really, genuinely believes that Obama is just like Hitler and that the US will become as repressive as Nazi Germany shortly after Obama is sworn in.  Heck, you can go to the post about the people running the Democratic convention considering moving his speech to a larger venue and see all of the freaks on parade.

Hillary Clinton sees those same limits and has said so publicly and in speeches.

So?  I’m not a Hillary supporter. 

Go back a few days to look at Jesse’s commentary about the posts that Arthur Silber has been doing—Silber really, genuinely believes that Obama is just like Hitler and that the US will become as repressive as Nazi Germany shortly after Obama is sworn in.

I also read Silber’s actual pieces, where he doesn’t say that.  He says the unswerving loyalty is common to both, and so it’s something to be leery of.  The fact that people jumped all over him for saying it doesn’t make him wrong, and it doesn’t equate him with Jonah Goldberg.

“The “you’re so RUUUDE” response instead of addressing my point (usually seen by antifeminist trolls - great company you’re keeping there) combined with the blind loyalty of the authoritarian follower. 
Ugly in Pink on 07/06 at 01:59 PM”

It would be great if you actually have a point. So far yer just ranting. And your complains are very much old news. All of them are documented. (Why do you think Hillary didn’t get the nom.?)

You want to complain about Obama? I give you some: 1) organizationally still weak against the media. These last bruhaha clearly is an attempt to call Obama flip-flopper. 2) need effective method to consolidate the wackier of hillary voters. 3) need to start attacking McCain in consistent manner. He is cruising.

He says the unswerving loyalty is common to both, and so it’s something to be leery of. The fact that people jumped all over him for saying it doesn’t make him wrong, and it doesn’t equate him with Jonah Goldberg.

If all it took for a nation to descend into gibbering fascism was a bit of unswerving loyalty, then we’d all have been subjugated by armies of uniformly tie-dyed Grateful Dead fans decades ago.

Silber’s argument is self-evidently stupid, and so is anyone who thinks it’s valid.

Chernavsky - Well, I consider “not holding progressive positions on many key issues” one of those flaws.  How many times do I have to say I AM NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER - NEVER WAS before you get it through your thick heads?  I am most certainly ranting - suddenly it’s a warmongering creep with D after his name and everything we’ve been shouting against for the past seven years is totally a-ok or not that bad really.  I’m not even attacking Obama.  We’d be having this same argument no matter who the Dem candidate was.  This one just ALSO happens to inspire blind loyalty of the sort that we all found kinda creepy when it was Bush, and yet it’s all ok now.  Damn right i’m ranting.  I’m angry.

Dan - if all you can muster are outraged strawmans you should just give it the fuck up and start listening to Rush Limbaugh.  No it’s not the ONLY thing, but believing in what your politician does, right or wrong, is just as bad when it’s a Democrat as when it’s a Republican, your lofty assertions notwithstanding.

Look, i’m not asking you to stop supporting Obama.  I’m not asking you to stop donating money, convincing people to vote for him.  I’m not asking any of that.  I’m asking that when he says grossly immoral shit like this, or like this:

“As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table.”

YOU CALL HIM ON IT.  No “but"s, no pitiful excuses that he’s pandering to this coalition of lunatics or that one (as if that’s acceptable or even particularly politically advantageous - over 3/4 of Americans don’t want any part of a new war with Iran), just say he’s wrong to say that, that that is a wrong position to take.  THEN STOP.  Is that really so much to ask?

chingona, I can see that you meant no offense, I’m just getting sick of the patronizing tone of a lot of the discussion about pregnant women who have to make hard decisions about their bodies.  If they are abused teens, women with non viable fetuses, or in other painful, dire circumstances, it really is offensive to have a bunch of people who may never be in that situation sitting around judging them.  If you have had to make that choice, and you didn’t mean to be flippant, that’s fine.  But I think there should be more respect for these women.

Mnemosyne, is this the quote you are using to say the HRC’s position is the same as BO’s?

CLINTON: “My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.”

Because if it is, then no, they are not the same.  She is not parsing out the difference between mental and physical health, the way he is.  She is saying the woman can choose and decide if her health is at stake, that it is her decision.  HRC is very good at sticking to her guns when it becomes critical.  She can be vague and canny, as any politician who wants to win will be, but she protects the bottom line.  I wish we could say the same about Obama.

What? another “PUMA/hillary4McCain/I am not a Hillary supporter”? So you are a rightwing tourist then? How curious. So what exactly IS “progressive cause” that you champion?  (this gonna get hilarious.)

PS. your other option is “bomb, bomb, bomb” or “Obliterate”. And stop the pathetic spiele already, you can’t even pull a coherent agitprop.

Neo-con Hillary Clinton Threatens To “obliterate” Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz6X7x_-y7E

McCain: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

How about you figure out what you want, before you demand everybody do this or that about Obama. You can’t even do negative attack properly.

...

Hey, normal people?  This kind of mentality is what you’re defending?  I must be in the tank for someone!  I just must! 

I want politicians who actually stand for progressive principles, and for people not to make excuses for them when they don’t, as it moves the Overton Window even farther away from sane.

Progressive principles such as:

No more resource-grabbing/contractor enrichment wars
Full Abortion Rights
Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, and lower the income tax on people making 50k a month or under, and raise the capital gains tax
National Healthcare
Investment in Alternative Energy

and many more.

And yes, I am VERY ANGRY when the candidate I am smugly informed I have no choice but to vote for repudiates any of these principles.  You should be too, for the ones you support.

Because if it is, then no, they are not the same.  She is not parsing out the difference between mental and physical health, the way he is. 
bunny on 07/06 at 08:20 PM ”

So now we moved from “if there is a limit to late term abortion” to… Hillary’s limitation is better than Obama’s limitation.

GET REAL ... You were demanding people to stop spinning. now you are spinning and backtracking yourself. ZERO credibility.

Let me quote your own statement, “Considering that there is always risk to the mother in childbirth, and in some cases there is also a risk to her future fertility.  But it seems that Obama thinks it’s up to him to decide in a case like this, that it should be legally required for the woman to labor and give birth. Looks like we’ll have to learn to shut up and put up, since he’s our only choice.  at 06:11 PM”

This is what you quoted. you seems rather firm against the sort of bargaining Hillary was doing.

“We are not your bitches, that is not a leash in your hand. Our bodily integrity is not a choke chain you may use to threaten us. If you think it is, you are no better than the Republicans.  And yes, the “But! But! But!” Roe stick is just that - a threat. bunny on 07/03 at 01:45 AM”

You were complaining when Obama did exact form of parsing as Hillary. Not on type, but on any form of restriction.

“But now, he thinks women shouldn’t be able to choose to have an abortion, that they should legally be required to carry the pregnancy to term.

After all, they are ok trusting Obama, and if they are in that situation, they should just get over it.  He knows best, his Obama bully blogger boys know best, and she’s a feminist after all.  It’s her choice to vote for someone who won’t let her make decisions about her own body. bunny on 07/05 at 05:56 PM”

----------------

You have no credibility left. Lying as much as Hillary.

No more resource-grabbing/contractor enrichment wars
Full Abortion Rights
Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, and lower the income tax on people making 50k a month or under, and raise the capital gains tax
National Healthcare
Investment in Alternative Energy
Ugly in Pink on 07/06 at 08:29 PM

Then clearly you spout out without researching first. Because Hillary are either the same or worst in all those items.

You haven’t read a word, have you Sokolov?

I was an Edwards supporter first, then Obama.  Got that?  Never Hillary.  And no that does NOT mean I have to just shut up and accept it when my candidate does something wrong.

The endless stream of idiots whose brains read two words critical of Obama and click into assuming that the poster is a mythical (EXPOSED AS MYTHICAL ON THIS WEBSITE FOR GOD’S SAKE) “PUMA” without bothering to read the rest is revolting and astounding.  Talk about buying into right wing frames.  You guys are coming off not so much as wanting to avoid the lies and delusions of the right wing media as being pissed you’re not as good at it as they are.

Anyway, i’m out for the night.  God help us all.

or FSM, depending on your preferred blank-filling deity. 

oh another edward supporters. (and a PUMA, not hillary4McCain, I am not a Hillary supporter, I am not McCain supporter. I vote green)… or something. Do you really think this is ‘Confluence’ thread level of hackery?

And PS. Edward endorsed Obama.

HRC is not my dream candidate, but she is light years better than BO in the area of women’s issues and reproductive rights.  She has actual accomplishments and has offered us more protection.  I don’t trust him as much as I trust her, for good reason.  But then it hardly matters if she was better at this point, does it?

If all it took for a nation to descend into gibbering fascism was a bit of unswerving loyalty, then we’d all have been subjugated by armies of uniformly tie-dyed Grateful Dead fans decades ago.

Didn’t you hear of the horrible World War of Fandom, wherein the Star Wars fans rid themselves of the Trekkies during the Knight of the Long Sabers, only to have war declared on them by the Whovians, who were about to go back in time to prevent Lucas from finishing film school, until a sneak attack by Otaku united the fandoms of Oceania against the fandoms of Eastasia?

Oh, I mean, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

But then it hardly matters if she was better at this point, does it?
bunny on 07/06 at 09:12 PM

wtf, puma? just wtf…

Ugly in Pink:

I want politicians who actually stand for progressive principles,

Well, I want a never-ending pan of cheesecake, and I’m going to pitch a fit about any refrigerator that doesn’t come with one built in.

I also read Silber’s actual pieces, where he doesn’t say that.  He says the unswerving loyalty is common to both, and so it’s something to be leery of.

And, as I said, if Silber thinks there is any commonality between Hitler’s followers and Obama’s followers, all he’s managed to do is expose his complete ignorance of German and Nazi history.  Because if you’re convinced that Obama is going to carry out massacres of his fellow Democrats after his inauguration, you’re either a fucking moron or completely insane.

You can stomp your feet and wish for more progressive candidates all you want, but the country is too far to the right for a truly progressive candidate to have a chance in hell of being elected.  All I’m hoping for this election is to start tugging the country back to the left and away from its extreme right-wing turn.

Ugly in Pink:

OK, thanks for the expansion of your points. I think we actually agree more than I thought we did; I’d like Obama to be more of a peacenik than he is, for instance.

yes, Glinka, it doesn’t matter because the Democrats are stuck with Obama.  They swiftboated the better candidate, rigged the nomination, and now they will have to suffer the consequence.

They swiftboated the better candidate, rigged the nomination, and now they will have to suffer the consequence.

*giggle*

If you think it’s funny to have a candidate who claimed to be progressive turn his back on every principle he’s supposed to stand for, who won’t act for us, who will make people lose faith and give up on trying, then just keep on snickering, you twit.

bunny on 07/06 at 10:27 PM

PUMAs Roar!
now back to myspace!

And, Krylov, there is a world of difference between HRC and Obama on this issue.  Nobody wants to get a third term abortion.  Nobody thinks it is a great thing to do, nobody sets out to do this on purpose, it’s a difficult, painful decision.  But HRC believes it is a decision that a woman can make to protect her mental health, and Obama doesn’t think a woman is qualified to decide that for herself.  The exception in the case of mental distress makes all the difference, and that’s why HRC is right on this and Obama is not.

Obama can’t support Roe vs. Wade and maintain his position, he is contradicting himself if he claims that he can.

From Shakesville:

This has been a central battleground issue in the Supreme Court going back 35 years, to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, when the Court ruled a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. The decisions said state’s can ban all abortions after the fetus is viable—but that any restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman’s physical and emotional health.

In the years since, anti-abortion groups have fought hard against mental health exceptions, arguing that they create giant loopholes that make abortion bans meaningless. Doctors, they argue, can always find a “mental health” exception. But abortion rights groups just as strongly argue the mental health exception is critical to preserving a woman’s right to an abortion—and that the woman and her doctor must be allowed to make those decisions about her health without government interference.

In 1973, when the Court issued Roe and Doe — on the same day — it sided with the abortion rights groups and said states could not interfere with a doctor’s medical judgment on whether an abortion was necessary.

“[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional , psychological, familial, and the woman’s age--relevant to the well- being of the patient,” said the Supreme Court in Doe, which was a companion case to Roe. “All these factors may relate to health . This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

Obama’s comments that he does not support mental health exceptions in so-called post-viability abortions (after 22 weeks) is squarely at odds with that holding, which remains the law of the land today.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

bunny:

They swiftboated the better candidate, rigged the nomination, and now they will have to suffer the consequence.

Nothing says “I’m a credible, objective observer” like a wackadoo paranoid conspiracy theory.

Obama attacked HRC’s character, it was a careful plan to discredit her and play on the underlying misogyny that was rampant in the main stream media and on the blogs.  People who claimed to be liberals used all the discredited right wing smears from the past against her and talked as though they were credible.  They called her a whore, a bitch and a monster.

The DNC took votes and delegates away from her.  There are many careful, reasonable articles written explaining why the DNC was wrong to hand Obama the nomination.

You don’t have to agree with any of this, but it’s not an extreme position, and your failure to accept that many people do agree just shows your own refusal to face reality

great. now shakes is a supreme court commentator. They can’t even observe the primary without messing it up.

Obama attacked HRC’s character, it was a careful plan to discredit her and play on the underlying misogyny that was rampant in the main stream media and on the blogs.  People who claimed to be liberals used all the discredited right wing smears from the past against her and talked as though they were credible.  They called her a whore, a bitch and a monster.

I didn’t realize that Obama controls the media and all of the blogs in addition to all of those deluded people who actually voted and caucused for him.  My God, he is a monster!

Hillary the progressive

----------------
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-left-nips-at-hillary-after-her-move-to-the-right-2005-09-28.html
09/28/05
Right after Election Day in November 2004, Bill and Hillary Clinton seemed to have reached certain conclusions.

They appear to have decided that Hillary needed to stress religious values, hew to a hawkish position on the war on terrorism, remain steadfast in her support for the Iraq war and move to the center on a variety of issues, painting herself as a moderate.

But circumstances have changed, and there is increasing evidence that the Clintons are realizing that they miscalculated in their November decisions. The George Bush of 41 percent approval in September 2005 is a far cry from the man who was reelected with more than 51 percent of the vote 10 months earlier. The endless casualties in Iraq, the inability to stop terrorist attacks in cities such as London and the high price of gasoline have all contributed to a swing to the left among the electorate and, especially, within the Democratic Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300542.html
June 13, 2006
Clinton has been seen as the early favorite among potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008, but she is increasingly at odds with anti-war liberals over her past vote and current position on Iraq.

After addressing Iraq, Clinton quickly turned to the 2006 election, saying her party needs to speak to middle-class Americans and overcome disagreements.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php
September 26, 2007
The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment—which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops—just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22.

Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. On the GOP side, John McCain missed the vote.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html
March 27, 2006
This advice was proffered on the morning of Jan. 18. By that evening, when Hillary gave her scheduled speech at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, it had clearly been taken to heart: “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran,” she averred. Accusing the White House of choosing to “downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,” she disdained Team Bush for “standing on the sidelines.”

Just to be clear, bunny:

We don’t think you’re a whackadoodle because you’re upset about the huge amount of sexism Hillary Clinton had to deal with from the media and some blogs.  We think you’re a whackadoodle because you’ve decided that Barack Obama is personally responsible for that sexism and so therefore he shouldn’t be the Democratic candidate.

Obama is about as responsible for the sexism of the media as Clinton was for the racism of the media towards Obama.  You can take that any way you like.

Sure, Obama won because the DNC gave him delegates from a discredited primary. It wasn’t anything to do with Clinton’s war vote, corporatist allies, Mark Penn, hard working white people, snipers in Bosnia,…

OK, snipers in Bosnia were hopelessly overblown, but for a lot of people on the left, the reason they could never accept her was that AUMF vote. That’s not misogyny at work - it’s an unwillingness to empower someone who got the foreign policy issue of the DECADE badly wrong.

IMO, they should never have allowed ANY delegates from Michigan and Florida. Doing so disenfranchises all the citizens of MI and FL who decided not to take time out from work for something that wouldn’t count. The right thing to do was redo the primary but no-one would pay for it.

He won by exploiting that sexism.  His plan was to attack her character, using slurs that capitalized on typical misogynist themes.

He won by exploiting that sexism.  His plan was to attack her character, using slurs that capitalized on typical misogynist themes.

He won because he ran a better campaign.  Given what we know happened in New Hampshire, it’s extremely likely that the sexism of the media actually kept Clinton’s campaign alive much longer than it ordinarily would have.  If not for the sexism of the media, she may have had to concede after Super Tuesday, because Mark Penn didn’t have a strategy beyond it.

Again, you can complain all you like about the sexism of media morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.  I’ll join you in that.  But I can’t agree that the sexism lost her the nomination—she did that all on her own.

bunny:

Obama attacked HRC’s character,

Ah. I didn’t realize that Obama was the first ever candidate in the entire history of everything to attack his opponent’s character. I also didn’t realize that Clinton has never, ever said a negative word about anyone in her entire life.

it was a careful plan to discredit her and play on the underlying misogyny that was rampant in the main stream media and on the blogs.

Whereas Clinton’s careful plan to discredit Obama and play on the underlying racism that was (and remains) rampant in American culture in general was what? An accident? A quotation out of context?

People who claimed to be liberals used all the discredited right wing smears from the past against her and talked as though they were credible. They called her a whore, a bitch and a monster.

If you get to hold Obama personally responsible for that, then I get to hold Clinton personally responsible for all those racist hicks in Pennsylvania and West Virginia who openly declared that they just plain old didn’t like the thought of a darkie in the Oval Office. And there are a lot more of them than there are dickhead lefty bloggers.

The DNC took votes and delegates away from her. There are many careful, reasonable articles written explaining why the DNC was wrong to hand Obama the nomination.

Yeah, that’s the wackadoo paranoid conspiracy theory part I was talking about.

You don’t have to agree with any of this, but it’s not an extreme position, and your failure to accept that many people do agree just shows your own refusal to face reality.

Many people agree that they’ve been abducted by aliens, too. There’s a reason that argument from popularity is a formal fallacy.

Sure, Obama won because the DNC gave him delegates from a discredited primary

Both candidates received delegates estimated on an unofficial straw poll. there was no primary, and there were no delegates to take away.

IT WAS THE FREEMASONS!

If you don’t believe zuzu at Shakesville (because you disagree with her on one other totally different issue), try the Guttmacher Institute.  I don’t suppose they were PUMA’s back in 1999.

The analytical process she uses is brain damage. It’s one tune banjo with the shakes. Everything is about sexism or misogyny.

from the pdf. The article itself admits it’s an idea that still need to be promoted. (ie. not widely accepted yet politically. And further political discussion is needed) You want to cite research paper on new idea, I can cite even more research paper painting whatever I want it to be.

You want to run that sort of political talking point. Try it on Hillary. (oh that’s right, she fucks up everything. And now her supporters are about to fucks up everything even more.)

I can’t say I’m surprised. Now that he has the party’s nom, he can shift his tactics to the age-old Democratic losing strategy of alienating his base so that he can court people who would never in a million years support him. We’re already voting Obama because he’s “not McCain” because of FISA, but the more he does this sort of shit, the less energized we’ll be. We’re at least political enough to know better than to flush the whole country down the toilet, but not everyone is going to have our energy. If Obama doesn’t wake the fuck up and realize that anti-choicers are never going to vote for him, and his base responds enthusiastically when he actually talks about defending women’s rights, we’ll have McCain this fall.

zuzu Yesterday 01:08 PM
The sad thing is, he *does* have an opportunity to talk about choice, and meaningful choice in a different way *because* of his experiences in the black political, social and religious community, and yet still hold the line on the idea that in all cases, it’s the woman’s choice. But he’s just not doing that; he’s trying to appeal not to the mushy middle but to the hard-line anti-choicers, probably figuring the pro-choicers have nowhere else to go. But I think he doesn’t realize that if he’s not going to stand up for choice, then he can’t count on voters to stand up for him. “

Take that comment. This is coming from somebody who support race baiting campaign and has given ZERO talk on large issue. (eg. where is the big speech on woman and equality? Nevermind difficult issue like late term abortion.)

now she is demanding “Obama” not “he’s trying to appeal not to the mushy middle”

NEWSFLASH: Hillary RUN her entire campaign to appeal on wingnut brigade (zionist crowd, hicksville crowd, pro-corporatist crowd, etc) She can’t even balance her campaign budget, nevermind pushing complicated politically complicated idea.

quarterbacking inside a highly moderated blog is easy. One is only talking to bunch of B-list dittoheads. Try going out and meet the public.  (let me guess: the public are sexist and misogyny… whining, whining, whining… waa waa waa.... bunch of pampered fuckers.)

“when he actually talks about defending women’s rights, we’ll have McCain this fall.
Mighty Ponygirl on 07/07 at 08:30 AM”

By now the so called Hillary-feminists/puma should be categorized as a threat to progressive cause. As the past several thread shows, these fuckers have no clue what they want, how to get it, or even what they are saying. It’s a cult members gone berserk that their figure didn’t get to rule the world. It has nothing to do with issue, mechanics of election, practical look at how far various issue can be presented at campaign setting, etc. There is no willingness nor capability to see anything beyond “Hillry wuzz robbed”. Even Hillary or Edward campaign have no say over them.

For all practical purposes these group of people are a threat and cannot be distinguished from McCain campaign.

Great, Hillary is about to export her corrupt money politics into Obama organization. These people are beyond redeemable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121539354782631403.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Some leading Clinton supporters are starting new Web sites or political action committees aimed at prodding Sen. Obama on issues or pressuring him to give Sen. Clinton a big role in the general-election campaign. People familiar with the matter say the effort involves dozens of the roughly 300 Clinton “Hillraisers,” individuals who raised at least $100,000 apiece for her campaign.
[Money Makers]

The Clinton holdouts are typically most angry about what they say was the media’s sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton during the campaign. And though few, if any, blame Sen. Obama directly, they fault the Illinois senator and other party leaders for what they say was failing to do enough to stop it.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a Hillraiser from San Francisco, said, “What really hurt women the most was to look back and see all this gender bias.” Ms. Buell said she hasn’t decided whether to vote for Sen. Obama and plans to skip the August Democratic convention.

Medtner, if I were talking PUMA, you would have a point. But it’s possible that with shit like this and FISA that Obama’s alienating his base all by himself, with nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I originally supported Hillary.

you never have a point, except being bitter about Hillary not getting the seat.  And this seems to be general pattern among who is left inside Hillary campaign.

Most want “seat” and part of the pie inside Obama campaign by using Hillary failed campaign.

nah, these is just bunch of uptown twitts getting upset they are not part of the game anymore. Power and greed. Fuck ‘em. Progressive cause my foot.

-------------------

One new Web site challenging Sen. Obama, Together4us.com, declares on its home page: “We are being asked to embrace Party Unity without the fair representation of Hillary Clinton” and the roughly 18 million people who voted for her during the primaries.

The site was organized by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a businesswoman and Hillraiser who says: “There are thousands, probably millions, of women and men who aren’t happy with the way the Democratic Party conducted the primaries, or with the result.” Ms. de Rothschild says some 60 other Democratic activists, many of them Hillraisers, are providing advice or other help to the new Web site. Some 3,000 people have already signed up, she says.

Like some other Clintonites, Ms. de Rothschild said she is unhappy enough with Sen. Obama that she isn’t ruling out voting for Sen. McCain. While her new Web site has a link to the Obama campaign’s site, it also includes one for Sen. McCain.

But it’s possible that with shit like this and FISA that Obama’s alienating his base all by himself, with nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I originally supported Hillary.

It’s funny that it mainly seems to be the folks who still haven’t gotten over Hillary’s loss who seem to be the ones who just cannot get on board with Obama , and will find any reason they can to buy into the Republican talking points about him.

All of these recent flip-floppings?  Even if you buy them as real changes of opinion and not right-wing constructions, all Obama has really done is come closer into alignment with the positions held by Teh Dream Candidate To End All Dream Candidates, Our Beloved Hillary Clinton.  Clinton is against late-term abortions (and, I believe, voted for the famously bullshit “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” a few years ago), hawkish on Iran, against pulling out of Iraq (and criticized Obama in early debates for being too hasty in setting a date for bringing home the troops), and while I don’t recall her exact opinion on the wiretapping issues I have no real reason to think she would be taking a radically different position from Obama were she in his place.  I am also not sure she would have a substantively different platform on faith-based nonprofit funding, considering that she’s never come out against it and her husband’s administration was happy to support that. 

Obama’s changes of opinion, if indeed they are real changes, bring him closer to Hillary.  Therefore former Hillary supporters should be really excited that Obama is finally coming around to their way of seeing things. 

So why is it that, almost as a rule, they seem to have the mistaken notion that Hillary’s platform was a collaboration between Noam Chomsky and Andrea Dworkin?  What planet have you people been living on for the last year and a half or so?

The Opoponax—I’m not defending Hillary—I’m talking about Obama. Could we talk about Obama, instead of