Letters to the Editor
-
ezhik2
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.