Letters to the Editor
-
Still haging in there
So Obama is showing some "experience" at manipulating the system because he know how it works? Single issue lobby groups aren't particularly loyal?
What news.
Still hanging in there with Obama.
-
In the end, it doesn't really matter
Obama voted "present" instead of being a strong voice for reproductive rights. Clinton speaks a rhetoric of loss/sadness in one social setting, and a rhetoric of proudly supporting a woman's choice in another. Both are politicians, doing what politicians do: trying to play all sides to the maximum extent possible without losing their core constituents. In the end, it doesn't matter: both would put pro-reproductive rights judges into the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court. It may frustrate those of us who believe that access to abortion is not only legally necessary, but also ethically necessary, to have a leader unwilling to simply stand up and treat reproductive rights as human rights. But in the end politically posturing doesn't matter much, what matters is what executive decisions Clinton or Obama makes in office, and both will further reproductive rights after an eight year siege.
-
NOW's strategy was . . . what, exactly?
NOW raises a really good point: what Obama should have done is pursued a strategy that could have failed simply for the symbolic importance of his vote, instead of having pursued a strategy that worked. Because, really, it's much, much more important to lose and be right. The women whose abortions could have been denied would definitely have appreciated that failing strategy!
Planned Parenthood cares about family planning options and the right to choose. The spokespeople for NOW care about . . . well, it's not really clear what they care about. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be success.
-
This is a gigantic flap about nothing
No one can seriously doubt Obama supports reproductive choice. I do have to say, though, that (as John Edwards pointed out in the South Carolina debate) if Obama is going to lambaste other candidates for their various votes, then he has to defend his own. And I also think he has to come up with a better explanation for the "present" votes than the weird hemming and hawing he stammered out in Myrtle Beach.
-
A troubling pattern
The problem with these votes is that they are part of a troubling pattern with Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too. He has repeatedly hit Clinton how she voted on bills he conveniently did not cast a vote for at all, either because he wasn't in the senate at the time, or he was "campaigning". When he has had a chance to take a outline Policy he generally takes the middle road such as not advocating for true universal health care, leaving up to 25 million americans without healthcare, because it is potentially politically unpopular.
-
Did you actually read the article perigee_apogee?
Voting present was a strategy cooked up by Planned Parenthood to ensure the measure didn't pass. It's not that he doesn't stand strong on reproductive rights, it's that he listened to the people who actually provide abortion about the way they should handle the legislation. Not to NOW, whose agenda is more about electing Clinton than telling the whole truth about the situation.
Jeez.
-
A Present Vote's Better Than A No Vote
Seriously, good for Obama for not voting no. What's wrong with not voting against a live-birth abortion ban? That's about the only good thing I've heard about Obama's record yet. Of course, if elected he'll nominate some Roe v. Wade-supporting idiot, but still, a present vote's better than a no vote in this case.
-
a pox on her house
This (along with her campaign's push to seat the MI and FL delegates after-the-fact) is ultimately why I do not support Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and will hold my nose for her in the general election should she get the Democratic nod.
I could live with her high negatives, with the irrational Clinton-haters, with her weak defenses of her indefensible stance on the war, with her toadying to corporate power, and so on. Even with those, she's still light years better than the Republican candidates (Even McCain. His nose isn't browned from Dubya's sphincter for nothing, folks!).
But her campaign (and her campaign's backers) making up a fake controversy over these "present" votes (which were a pretty astute political ploy, by the way) is beyond the pale. It seeks to confuse the facts surrounding a crucial women's issue (an issue where one could argue that Obama could considered her better).
It's straight out of the Rove playbook, and it cheapens her and insults the intelligence of the electorate. And it should give every Democrat pause, regardless of what combination of chromosomes you have.
-
This is at least the second time . . .
This is at least the second time the Clintons and their proxies have criticized Obama for being insufficiently liberal when, in fact, he was doing what was in the best interest of the party. Bill has called Obama's opposition to the Iraq war a fairy-tale because Obama declined to criticise John Kerry during the 2004 election. NOW is calling Obama weak on abortion because he provided cover for pro-choice Democrats from moderate districts to vote against anti-choice legislation without attracting attention from anti-choice radicals in their home districts.
There are a ton of valid criticisms to give to Obama, but Bill Clinton and NOW know that these particular smears are false.
-
Gutless Obama
There has never been a legislative bill that was perfect in all aspects.
To vote "present", instead of voting yes or no; shows someone who cannot or will not stand up for what he or she believes. IMO, that is a poor excuse for someone, who calls themselves a leader.
Spineless is the word that comes to my mind.
Is this what we can expect on the issue of universal health care, when all of the experts say that his plan will not work.
We need a president is who progressive and has the guts to stand up for what he or she believes in, in addition to working politically to make it happen.
Obama does not meet this test.
-
I dunno.
Doesn't pass the smell test, for me. Sounds like so much revisionist history. Which tarnishes Obama on two sides, one for the vote and the other for the phoney-baloney "explanation."
And I just voted for the man, so don't think I'm a Hillary shill.