It’s awesome that these messages are out there, now—that McCain is so interested in maintaining men’s control over women that he opposes contraception and that Obama has actually made contraception access a policy, and not a narrow pander.

Why do you think we’re so inclined to believe the media narratives about candidates being “the same” on an issue that we know poses a stark difference between the parties at the national level? Is it that media outlets are too afraid to point it out? Is it that we’re not trained to look into these things?

I also bought the Clinton-driven narrative that while Obama is spotlessly pro-choice in every way, he doesn’t consider the issue a priority.  What I found was that’s not true at all.  Obama doesn’t just sign off on pro-choice legislation, but he actively introduces it.  He’s introduced the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, and was a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which reads like a wish list of pro-choice policy items.

You’re eliding two separate issues.  The “Clinton-driven narrative” back in the primary was correct and remains correct.  I agree that the Prevention First Act is an excellent piece of legislation and very pro-choice in its effects—but it contains nothing to refute Obama’s past noises about how you should ask your pastor before you get your abortion and you can’t have one on a whim simply because you’re feeling blue.  A person who would make such remarks REPEATEDLY doesn’t get the concept of No Forced Birth, however much he wants to spend on preventing pregnancy.

Unree, give it up. Both of those statements are out-of-context bullshit and you know it. The man fucking spoke at a Planned Parenthood fundraised, OK? (I know, because I was there.) He openly *thanked* the organization for its years of tireless service in the fight for womens’ full autonomy. He praised it for offering the counseling and advice that many women can’t find in their personal lives (uh, that is, in “your family and pastor”).

He’s not a fucking Reichwinger because he acknowledges that few women choose abortion in a vacuum. That would be called “addressing reality.”

uh, “fundraiser,” sorry.

Tell me about the “context” that makes those vile statements acceptable.  A politician who supports abortion rights (I’ve never denied that) wishes to have it both ways by pandering to the other side, and we who are thrown under the bus should understand that a man has needs?

Unree, I put a lot more stock in Obama’s voting and legislation record than in his campaign speaking record. When he is NOT campaigning, it sounds like he puts his mouth where his money is, when he is campaigning, it sounds like they go to slightly different places. That’s annoying, but the most important thing is where the money is, and that has always been to the right place. Frankly, I think that he could get away with being a lot more vocally pro-choice, and it’s annoying that he’s made statements that are inconsistent, but the evidence that really MATTERS says that he is every bit as much on your side as Clinton. Come on, do you believe McCain when he says that he supports the middle class? Or do you believe his voting record, which suggests the opposite? One of these things has the capacity to actually effect your life. One does not.

GAH. “Affect your life.” Damn native language that I cannot use…

Tell me about the “context” that makes those vile statements acceptable.

How about the fact that Obama made the “pastor” comment in an interview with a Christian magazine? 

I’m always surprised by people who think that women never, ever consult the important people in their lives when they have to make a big decision—and, yes, for many Christian women “important people in their lives” would include their pastor.  Why is it so very bizarre to mention to a Christian magazine that a woman might consult her pastor when making her decision?

If the past 8 years have taught me nothing else, they’ve taught me to look at what people DO, not what they SAY.  Plenty of politicians pay great lip service to reproductive rights but never lift a finger to actually do anything.  Obama may have said something stupid about “feeling blue,” but he has ALWAYS acted to protect and extend reproductive rights.

If you want someone who’s going to say all the pretty words you want to hear in the right order and don’t care if they actually do anything, that’s fine, but I’d rather have someone who makes an effort to get the legislation passed that we need even if he does say stupid things sometimes.

And Senator McCain’s rude remark is going to be his undoing, McCain’s Macaca Moment of 2008 … probably not the October Surprise McCain was planning ...

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

The problem with the statement is not that Obama said they could.  Who said they couldn’t, or even shouldn’t?  Did he not say that they SHOULD discuss such things with their pastor, not that they could?

Did he not say that they SHOULD discuss such things with their pastor, not that they could?

No, he did not.  Here’s the quote:

I don’t know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it’s very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.

I’m still not getting him saying there should be a legal requirement for women to consult their pastors before they have an abortion, just that women often consult their pastors—can you please translate?

Mnemosyne, the reason you don’t find Obama calling for a legal requirement for women to consult with their pastors before having an abortion in that statement is that it’s not there.  Nothing in that statement could even be twisted, except by the most desperate and straw clutching minds, into a call for legislation.  Taking a few words out of context and harping on them, twisting the meaning and insisting that the speaker means something he clearly didn’t say is typical of Rovian Republican rhetoric. 

Certainly women are capable of making the decision to have an abortion or have a baby on their own, but what is wrong with them seeking input if they want too?

I seem to recall that Hillary Clinton got a world of shit from feminists for saying abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”, before she ran for President and became The Only Politician Who Supports Abortion Rights, Ever.

The truth is that politicians often say things that sound iffy to feminists because they are NOT TALKING TO US. They are talking to the approximately 60% of the population that holds pro-choice ideals, but aren’t radicalized about it. The people who think that abortion is, objectively, a bad thing, but it would be a worse thing if women didn’t have access to it. Those are the people a politician needs to talk to.

So when Obama says that no one should get an abortion just because she’s feeling blue that day, he’s not *talking* to the people who know damn well that actually, no one *does* get an abortion because she’s feeling blue that day. He’s talking to the people who think it’s important to allow women to get abortions, but maybe some women get abortions for frivolous reasons and *that’s* bad. The “No abortions for women who are just in a bad mood” meme is just the same as “safe, legal and rare”—it says to the majority of American women, “I agree with you that abortion is a bad thing but the alternative of making it illegal is worse.” Saying such things assures the pro-choice-but-doesn’t-know-it-is majority that Obama is reasonable, and that’s important, as the anti-choice brigade is busily telling the world that Obama supports the murder of born babies, and that all abortion rights supporters would rather eat a baby for lunch than actually give birth to and raise one.

It isn’t a politician’s job to change the public discourse so people can acknowledge that maybe abortion is a neutral thing, not a bad thing. It’s a politician’s job to get elected so they have the power to actually affect people’s access to abortion. Or, to get elected so they can have a bully pulpit to talk about these things without it threatening their power to do something about it.  A politician can much more safely work on changing the discourse when they are safely elected, not when they’re actively campaigning for a position.

As for the pastor thing, that was *always* blown out of proportion by the pro-Clinton brigade. As the quote demonstrates, Obama never said that women should consult their pastors; he said that many of them *do*. Part of what he was trying to do was to imply that good, religious Christian women get abortions too, which is a pretty important meme to get out there. And feminism as a whole totally missed the point, because the comment was spun as “Obama says women *should* consult their pastors”.

Unree=Violet Socks, still seriously unhinged about Clinton’s loss.

Mnemosyne, the reason you don’t find Obama calling for a legal requirement for women to consult with their pastors before having an abortion in that statement is that it’s not there.

Hey, if she could just point out where Obama says that women “should” consult their pastor, that would make me happy.  But he never did, and I’m pretty tired of the urban legend that’s grown up around that interview.

No, Violet Socks isn’t pro-choice any more.

I seem to recall that Hillary Clinton got a world of shit from feminists for saying abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”, before she ran for President and became The Only Politician Who Supports Abortion Rights, Ever.

Certainly that was one of the reasons I wasn’t so keen on her in the primary.  I still hadn’t quite forgiven her for that “every abortion is a tragedy” speech she gave in 2005.

Tell me about the “context” that makes those vile statements acceptable.

By that you mean your lies and slanders, Unree?

Hillary lost, and didn’t want the veep position. She didn’t get what she wanted, but she will have POWER as the senator from a very big state with a solid majority and a democratic president. 

Grow the fuck up and give it the fuck up already.

Argh. I withdrew a job application recently because of stress. Both the stress I was being put through as part of the process (Sheriff’s records clerk, very personal, intrusive questions), and concerns that the job would be more stressful than I’d initially thought, too.

But before I withdrew, I consulted with my husband, who is also doing temp work while searching for a real job; and with my parents, who are helping us with our bills for the time being.

I felt it was wise and important to discuss the matter with the people who would be directly impacted by my decision, and who had more life experience than me. Nevertheless, I did not feel it was mandatory, nor would I ever agree to legislation that would make it mandatory.

Which is where Obama stands; he can say that a person would do well to consult with people they trust before making a big decision without in any way meaning they are required to. Furthermore, Obama’s one of the few politicians who has spoken respectfully of atheists, which means he is aware not all women have pastors.

Mnemosyne,

You are mixing me up with the person you are arguing with.  Again.  You make a habit of that.

I asked a question.  When this whole thing came up, I was working 12-16 hour days in construction so missed seeing it myself, and google, yahoo, etc serches only brought up talk about what was said, not the actual quote.  Thanks for that by the way.

I think what he said is put poorly, as it infers everyone has a pastor and would trust that pastor with such things.  Even when I did, I didn’t.  It also suggests he believes all women would find this a wrenching choice.  I might, but I would not suggest all women would, especially not those who consult with their doctors is basically pregnancy will kill them.  Still, the audience should be taken into account, I suppose.

Honestly, as Democratic pandering goes, I didn’t think the pastor line was that bad.  And I think the “wrenching choice” line is meant to reassure voters who fear women are going to the abortion clinic for fun.  I wish these ideas didn’t have such currency, but they do.

The “feeling blue” line sucked, though.

You are mixing me up with the person you are arguing with.  Again.  You make a habit of that.

Helen, I checked back and you are the person I was arguing with, because you’re the one who claimed that Obama said women “should” consult with their pastors.  He did not, and I gave you the quote showing that he did not.

When this whole thing came up, I was working 12-16 hour days in construction so missed seeing it myself, and google, yahoo, etc serches only brought up talk about what was said, not the actual quote.  Thanks for that by the way.

I’m not surprised that it was tough to Google, because there were a lot of people who had (and still have) a lot invested in trying to pretend that Obama is some kind of under-the-radar pro-life freak who’s no different from McCain so they have an excuse not to vote for him, so they weren’t linking to the original interview.  A lot of people online have spent a lot of time pretending he said something he clearly did not, so I’m not surprised they’ve managed to mislead people who didn’t have the time or the right keywords to look it up for themselves.  Heck, they managed to half-convince Amanda of that, and she spends way more time looking into these things than us random commenters do.

I think what he said is put poorly, as it infers everyone has a pastor and would trust that pastor with such things.

Here’s what you’re still missing:  the people who read Christianity Today are the kind of people who are going to have a pastor.  You’re not going to get very many atheists reading Christianity Today.  So it makes perfect sense that Obama would tailor his remarks to that audience and point out that you can have a pastor, be a good Christian, and still get an abortion, despite what the right wing tells people.  If he had made the “pastor” remark to the New York Times, that would be a little weird, but mentioning that the readers of Christianity Today are the kind of people who would consult their pastor is like mentioning the infield fly rule when you’re interviewed by Baseball Weekly.  It’s something that audience is going to understand, even if it doesn’t apply to the rest of us.

I will fully admit that the “feeling blue” statement was a forehead-slapping moment, but based on his record I’m willing to look at it as election pandering gone wrong than a revealing statement of his “true” beliefs.