Thank-you for writing back. I had written to Joan Walsh earlier in the month asking for clarification on the "not present" issue, but you're right that other media did cover it, and I see your point in why you're writing this today instead of yesterday.

You write, "Also, in NOW's defense: Regardless of what one may think of Illinois NOW's handling of this particular issue, I do think that there's a case to be made for the approach of not compromising on fundamental issues, even in the name of enlightened pragmatism. It's the "accept an inch and they'll NEVER give us a yard" theory; it's why some gay rights may advocates oppose civil unions, for example. (Of course, you might say that Illinois NOW lost their no-compromise credibility when they lter endorsed Obama in spite of these votes. But still.) Again, agree with it or not, but it is, in principle, a defensible strategy."

But I'm not sure that I agree with you that it is a defensible strategy that (timing wise) they first apparently agreed with this strategy, and then--when the candidate is involved in a fierce Presidential race--to disagree with it. The fact that they have changed their mind about this after the fact is difficult to understand, other than the less admirable possibility that because a woman is running against Obama in this race, and some members are motivated to help her cause by taking a hard line against this strategy--after the fact. (It would be interesting to see whether they have hit up other candidates who used the "present" vote in Illinois in a similar way).

Clinton's campaign has caused me to question my own "feminist" credentials. A roommate and I talked a long time ago about when "feminism" would be overtaken by the larger term, "humanism", and in this case, in this campaign I feel like I have been changed--for better or worse--from a feminist into a humanist (maybe a femi-humanist). I believe in justice for women. But it bothers me to think of humans, male or female, being treated unfairly, and when I read about the Clinton mailer in New Hampshire claiming that Obama is not a champion of women's right to choose (although he has been) I felt myself take another step backward from this sort of "feminism."

A strategy difference is a strategy difference. But questioning Obama's fundamental commitment to women's rights (when he had the approval to begin with from NOW) during a fierce campaign like this--just strikes me as striking below the belt. And not a great moment for women.

It was the timing I questioned. Again, if they had a problem with his "present" voting, I think the time to say so would have been before giving him the go-ahead.

As as for questioning his fundamental commitment--if he were a female candidate would they still question it--assuming that he had acted precisely the same? And are they questioning other Illinois legislators who have done the same? Dick Durbin maybe?

There comes a point where feminist apologism can become too muddled for its own good. I think AKA Smith arguing for a special exception that he should have used a different strategy on one particular rule doesn't strike me as making sense either. If this is the strategy, then it is the strategy. He wasn't using it only on bills he "sort of" cared about.

There's this to throw into the mix too for anyone who cares:

"Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said."

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

In other words abortion was being used to throw out legislators. I'm sure that you Clinton "purists" would have wanted him to be thrown out by Illinois Right-to-Lifers who wer on the attack, but it strikes me that the "present" vote both provided adequate opposition (since it was not a yes vote) and strategy (so he would not lose his place in government to keep on not voting yes on bills like these).

And as for evidence of his stance on the issue:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

and

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

The sad thing is that the squabbling going on right now is only going to guarantee that the people who get sick of the arguing will go with McCain.

By all means, feminists should "get" Obama--but it should be for something real. Railroading him because he's a man and therefore must not be "really" pro-choice is childish, untrue, unfair, and the kind of icky politicking that is hurting the Democratic Party's clear important chance at the white house.