home

Obama Explains Why Pro-Life Dems Support Him

Obama spoke in Indiana today. Here's what he had to say about abortion and the pro-life Dems rhat are supporting him:

Barack Obama said anti-abortion Democrats are backing him because they feel he respects their opinion on the issue despite disagreement on it. ...."It may be that those who have opposed abortion get a sense that I'm listening to them and respect their position even though where we finally come down may be different," he told reporters at a news conference.

"The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

"Most Americans recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, having to make this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion, abortion is never a good thing."

Update: Comments Over 200, thread now closed.

< Obama's Response to His Gaffe | Late Night: Small Town (2004 DNC) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Mistake: (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:54:19 PM EST
    Well, this is the way I feel about his statement:  The pro-choice people make "mistakes", the others don't.  In one day the uniter manages to slap in the face every American.  What is his problem?  

    posted in anger... (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    Like pro choice people have no values and no consideration for the difficult decision.  What a piece of work this chump is.  

    Parent
    No kidding. (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST
     While he's reaching out to the pro-life people, he's pretty much taking the pro-choicers for granted.  It would be nice for him to at least acknowledge that contraception and education are key to helping women "avoid" abortions.  

    Parent
    And the Thing Is... (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    Not only is he demeaning pro-choice people by implying we don't know how difficult a decision this is, he also seems to imply that whole Anti-Choice thing that we are Pro-ABORTION rather than Pro- CHOICE.  There is a HUGE difference between the two.  I really resent BOTH, frankly!

    I don't trust him with Roe v. Wade or LGBT issues, either.  (On that note, Clinton has a new 71 memebr LGBT steering committee in PA - I love that woman.

    Parent

    As a gay voter... (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    Clinton is the only candidate I trust on LGBT issues.  Bar none.  That's great to hear out of PA.

    Parent
    Right There (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    With ya.  Clinton has CONSISTENTLY supported the LGBT community - for YEARS now.  Like what she told the Philadelphia Gay News when they asked if she would talk to them as the nominee, "I'll talk to you as president."  And she WILL!

    Oh - Carson Kressley is one of the members of the committee!!  (I think the notice is in her Press Release section.)

    Parent

    LOL! Yay for Queer Eye! (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    See?  The gays love the Hillary!

    I just read that Advocate piece with Obama, and shook my head.  It also came across that he kept cutting the interviewer off.  And then the sanctimonious "I'm doing more for gays because I bring them up in my public speeches!" nonsense makes my head spin.

    I am confident that Hillary can be tactical and progressive on gay issues, such as removing the Federal Ban plank of DOMA.  I don't think Obama would touch it with a 4325 foot pole.

    BUT!  I feel I'm getting off topic with this gay rights talk, even though it's refreshing! ;)

    Parent

    I Know... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:28:49 PM EST
    Sorry to be O/T - can't believe Obama even DID an interview with the Advocate - he has shunned other requests!

    I agree completely - the gays DO love Hillary, and with good reason - NYC, btw, DOES have the largest LGBT pop. in the COUNTRY.  I trust she will do what she has SAID she will do on ENDA, DOMA, Don't Ask...

    OK - shutting up abt this now...

    Parent

    Has he been to any gay sponsored fund raisers? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    I know Hillary has here in NYC. I almost went, but it conflicted with my sched :(

    Parent
    Don't Know... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    I DO know that he would not allow Gavin Newsom to have any photos taken with him at an Obama fundraiser in San. Fran.

    Good question.  Given his connections to James Meeks and Donnie McClurkin, I'm going to say, probably not...

    Parent

    Yeah, I'm guessing he hasn't either (4.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    and of course Clinton will get out there and march in the parade  ;)

    Parent
    No Doubt! (3.00 / 1) (#71)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:14:09 PM EST
    :-D

    Parent
    I think he was at a gay fundraiser (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    here in NYC just a week or two ago.  

    Parent
    Uh.... (3.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    ...have we forgotten how Don't Ask-Don't Tell resulted in more gay Americans being thrown out of the military than before the policy was introduced? ...  And of course DOMA was a great step towards gay marriage?

    Parent
    Oh, Dear... (5.00 / 12) (#52)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    Goddess - at the risk of being COMPLETELY O/T:

    First of all, Hillary hsa said for MONTHS that she would get rid of Don't Ask; Don't Tell.  So, there's that.

    Second of all, people always forget two things: PRIOR to that act, LGB could be COURT MARITALED for being homosexual, and were often FORCED to testify against other homosexuals with threats of incarceration or dishonorable discharges.  So, Don't Ask was SUPPOSED to be a way for them to serve proudly without anyone going after them.

    Third of all, when this act passed, remember it was a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!!!!!!!!

    Fourth of all, Colin Powell stabbed Bill in the back on this, assuring him that people would be able to serve with no fear of reprisal.  That ended QUICKLY.

    History is an important context for issues like this.  No, Don't Ask was not a great act, but it was MUCH better than what we had befoe that.  And now, when Hillary is president, she will remove it altogether.  She often quotes Barry GOldwater: "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight!"

    Amen to that!

    Parent

    Goldwater Girl. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:26:40 PM EST
    Nothing wrong with that, says I.  Barry was a great voice during the Reaganization of Republicanism.  His stance on gays in his older years still amazes me for that time.

    Great point on DADT.  But I'd like to add that without DOMA, we probably already would have a Federal, Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

    Both DADT and DOMA are incredibly flawed policies, and both were very much timely policies.  As far as DOMA, I feel it was a necessary evil.  A strong executive and Democratic Congress removing the federal block to State-sanctioned marriages is the best I can hope for out of the two branches.

    The rest of it, short of a miracle, will ONLY be struck down by the courts via "full faith and credit," which I don't see happening within the next 8 years.  So I'd prefer full rights (including Federal) via select States' rights than, worst case scenario, Federal ban.

    Parent

    Amen to that... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:06:44 PM EST
    And you know Clinton was on Ellen the other day.  She said she would support FULL federal benefits for same-sex couples.  It's on youtube.com, actually.  I love this woman.

    And yes - for the TIMES, they were abt the best to be expected, and now it is time to fix them.  Can you just imagine Obama removing DADT???  With the comments he has made JUST TODAY, he has demonstrated - again - that he will throw ANYONE under the bus if he thinks it will move him along.  I don't think the LGBT community has that far to be thrown by him as it is...

    Parent

    I don't think anyone has (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    forgotten. Although as you know Hillary Clinton was not President at the time. You are aware of that right?

    She has been solidly behind the gay community.  Obama not so much. Between refusing the interview w/the Philadelphia Gay News, the Newsom snub and McClurkin...I really don't think he is.

    Parent

    AGAIN, just like (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    with healthcare using Republican framing of the issues. Pro-abortion is a right-wing term. It's disgusting that he feels the need to adopt it.

    Parent
    he feels the need to adopt it (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    because he is one of them -- this statement of his on the "pro-abortion" crowd confirms it for me and no amount of WORM can convince me otherwise.  As someone up thread said, NO ONE who is pro-choice actively encourages abortions.  We DO know how difficult a decision it is for a woman faced with that choice, that is EXACTLY why we don't think old men in DC should be the ones MAKING that choice for her.  

    Parent
    well, you know (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    he knows that Clinton's pro-choice voters will vote for him.  He's not so sure his pro-choice voters will vote for her.

    What a gobsmacking arrogant a-hole.  I have been saying this for WEEKS: He will throw choice away with the garbage the first chance he gets.

    Reproductive rights are one of the strongest planks in the democratic platform.  How many more core values does he have to toss away before we lose them all?

    God, I cannot STAND this arrogant...stuff Jeralyn won't let me say.

    F!

    Parent

    It is just a variation of (2.00 / 1) (#215)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    safe, legal and rare.....

    You should see what they say about Obama on RedState and Obama's opposition to a ban on late term abortions....He is more for infanticide than even Hillary, they say.

    Parent

    No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:50:00 AM EST
    Safe Legal and Rare doesn't prop up the misconception that liberals refuse to acknowledge the difficulty of the decision.

    But I'm beginning to realize the maybe some liberals do refuse to acknowledge the difficulty of the decision.

    Dig deeper into this thread and Obama and his supporters might start having a point.


    Parent

    Someone once tried to steer up controversy on DK (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:07:43 PM EST
    taking Hillary's quote out of context.  Hillary had said, "abortion should be safe, rare, and legal." It was the same as what Bill had said before too.  The person on DK was saying that meant Hillary wasn't pro-choice enough!    

    Clinton worked with Tom Delay to make adoption and foster care easier.  She always talks about reducing pregnancies, making adoption easier.  

    Next time a person talks about sanctity of life, suggest they are right, and health care should be free for pregnant women, mothers with small children, and that all children should have free healthcare.  Dare them to promote that.  

    But make no mistake.  The MSM will now treat this as Obama was the first person to unify everyone, break barriers, be a visionary, dare to venture where no one would have, .... yada yada ...

    Hillary has always been pro-choice.  Bill too.  They both have also acknowledged the difficulty of the decision for the woman involved.


    Parent

    Hillary's stance (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    on abortion has been the approach that is working. Keeping it SAFE, RARE & LEGAL. It is why the abortion rate is at a 30 year low now. But to negotiate with the crowd that believes that one abortion is one too many is non-sensical. It's their way or the highway.

    He has the same position on gay rights. He talks about equality and then in the next breath he tells me that I have to listen to the other side. Really? No I won't listen to James Dobson or the FRC or whomever he thinks I have to listen to. My human rights are not up for discussion.

    Parent

    And (4.85 / 7) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:58:09 PM EST
    do you have any confidence he'd protect Roe v Wade?  I don't.

    Parent
    Nope... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    cmon, get used to him (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    he is ineb---inebi--inebitable (Team America, eff yeah).

    He isn't a typical candidate...his wife is allowed to make her own choices (to raise the kids while BO does the 'hard work').  He is a tireless supporter of community works, lifting up the poor (who are lifted up when personal friends, Rezco, make profits off of the misery of the poor).

    It is such a leap for you to assume that Obama might be against Roe v Wade just because he isn't expressly for it..its all about nuance people...he shouldn't have to say that a woman has a right to choose when he can say that "ultimately, at the end of the road, we (pro-lifers and pro-choicers) might come down on opposite sides of the fence.  If that isn't a concrete political stance I don't know what is.  

    Grasping at straws.  Grasping at straws.  Next I'll bet you are going to say that he is against the war in Iraq but that he might want to retain current troop levels if someone tells him that the troops are needed to protect the Iraqi people from evil insurgents, al Queda, and el Queso Grande.

    Wish-washy?  I think not.  New and different?  Oh yeah baby, he would not stoop to the establishment narrative of a politician kissing a baby while stealing its lollipop.  

    Parent

    Must be that (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    "May be different'. No, I do not trust him on those judges either. He will want to unite all the pregnant women and make a speech to make them feel better about their condition. Nope, today he made two goofs which only strengthens my opinion that he is not ready. We already went through this with GW. Please, not another one.

    Parent
    We're 'divisive' for inflaming the Rad Right huh? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST
    I suppose it would be too much to ask Obama to expound on why protecting neutral human rights -- for each individual to use as s/he chooses -- is a moral and ethical failure in his eyes.

    I mean, since he's busy cutting and pasting bits and bytes from civil rights speeches to claim as his own and all ...

    What an empty suit.

    Parent

    I can't even begin to express how angry (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    Obama's comments make me.

    It seems to me that what Obama is missing is that we are pro-choice precisely because we respect the difficulty, seriousness and emotional minefield that women face when dealing with pregnancy, and do not presume to be able to decide for others on the basis of our own individual beliefs.

    In fact, I would submit that people who support the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions have more respect for what is at stake, and that is why we do not impose ourselves on that decison-making process.

    How does he not get that?  Really, how?  

    It's comments like his that make me question whether he really understands what it means to be pro-choice.  And I have a viscerally negative reaction to being condescended to - again - as if being pro-choice means I haven't bothered to take the time to consider the totality of the issues.

    I've only ever been pregnant twice, and I have two wonderful 20-something daughters who make me proud every day.  I was fortunate to have been married and financially secure and healthy and to have planned both pregnancies.  I don't know that I could have had an abortion - but I could not and would not presume to impose my own feelings on any other woman.  Ever.  

    Honestly, the more I hear this man speak, the worse I feel about him.  And the more my response to him is, "Who the h*ll do you think you are?"

    I'm sorry, but I don't want a president who is that in love with himself and his inflated idea of who he is - I want a president who is in love with America and in love with us, the people.

    Oh, it just makes my blood boil!

    Parent

    RIGHT ON! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    I read your comments (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:40:18 PM EST
    and I relate to them entirely. I don't remember when it was that I could no longer stomach listening to George W. Bush but with Obama it was his long-winded victory speeches in late February (the Potomac Primaries). Now I read whatever he says. I change channels whenever there is a clip of him speaking. I just can't listen.

    Like you, he makes my blood boil.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 26) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    Back when the blogosphere disliked Obama, it was for comments much like this one.  "Democrats sometimes come across as hostile to religion," and so forth.

    Pro-choice people don't acknowledge that abortion is a difficult moral decision?  In Republican caricatures, maybe.  My personal experience is that women aren't much interested in hearing men tell them whether abortion is a morally difficult decision; indeed, they seem more than capable of figuring it out on their own!

    You hit it on the head. (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    It's that patronizing tone that does it to me.  Daddy Knows Best!

    Parent
    Counterexample, Atrios (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:25:19 PM EST
    "Abortion is 'icky'".

    But yeah, this is just like the "liberals don't understand the religious" stance that first turned me off Obama.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 13) (#48)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    The point is not that there are no people out there who feel that way.  The point is that arguing "I understand where you're coming from, unlike all those other, out-of-touch Democrats" is bad for the Democratic brand.  It's like candidates who go around boasting that they're the type of Democrat who takes national security seriously.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    That was the point of the religion comp. to me.

    Parent
    Oooh, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Oje on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    This will be good a litmus test to determine if Atrios retains his dignity and respect through this Democratic primary. Atrios is all over Lord Saletan and the Washington Monthly religious reporter, Amy Sullivan, for these kinds of statements on abortion.

    Will Atrios sully the blogger darling, remain silent, or defend Obama as somehow different than the anti-abortion hacks.

    Parent

    Hey it's a whole new world. (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    New Democrats baby.  Where anti-abortionists are okay, where the working class are sadly frustrated, where social security needs to be addressed, where healthcare should be.....you know, affordable, where every position we ever took is shaken not stirred and poured into a chalice for everyone to drink and only the most rabid of us to defend and promote when times are good and times are bad.  String me along!

    Isn't Obama basically setting us up to NOT fight for him in the GE because he dislikes fighting Dems and doesn't want to be associated with them?  You know, like the ones in CA?

    Parent

    Gee, didn't we have a president who said something (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:43:25 PM EST
    similar, in far fewer words?

    Like abortion should be safe, legal, and rare?

    A candidate and president who was unabashedly pro-choice?

    Parent

    Safe legal and rare (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    is not nearly the same as telling me that there are moral issues when being "pro-abortion"(again a RW term!).  It's what repubs have always done. Tried to moralize abortion.  Bill never ever said he was anything but pro-choice. And he never ever said that being pro choice was the same as being FOR abortion. That's the republicans' job. And now Obama's apparently.

    Parent
    I may be wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    but read somewhere that it was Hillary who came up with that wording.  

    Brilliant statement, if you ask me.  

    Parent

    As a woman (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    it's how I feel sums it up perfectly. Safe access. Legal.  And no one is wishing everyone would have more abortions. Perfect wording.

    Parent
    Obama lacks a thug machine to buttress this idiocy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    He needs backup singers if he's going to go back and forth this way in this short a period. People to bolster whatever story gets traction. He doesn't have that.

    He doesn't have the vaunted Rethuggernaut pounding on media and local partisans to support stupid statements.

    Bush is a lightweight whose every stupid statement had "support" in that the slightest critic got shredded [by phone banks, bosses at the media salt mines, party machinery donors, the character=assassinating Wurlitzer and so on.]

    Therefore Bush could walk into any Village cantina and shake his saber or spout his hooey as the buffoon at the head of the right wing and corporate phalanx.

    Obama's relying on his Charisma<sup>TM</sup>.

    Parent

    Daily BO dismantles his 'built-in' firewall (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    Anyone who hasn't been on the bandwagon / roller coaster has seen flaws in his ride of destiny.

    But TeamO can't keep relying on their usual excuse-making with their candidate screwing up this persistently with his own actions and words.

    His fans can't claim that the evil Sen. Clinton misrepresented Obama's words or put them in his mouth when they're right out there, baldly stating the latest POS he just baldly stated.

    They can't cry Leave Britneybaaaama Alonnnnnnnnne because he's being called out on his own words -- and expect, too, to be taken seriously as the leadership of Destiny and Change.

    Down the road in the GE, they can't pretend that there's "swiftboating" going on -- ie, revisionism from invention -- with all this fresh, obvious crud Obama has left in his win-ugly, scorched-earth campaign when his magical roller coaster ground to a haltto before he sealed the primary.

    He stopped passing the smell test awhile back. Now he's not even getting past the laugh test.

    Parent

    This is not true at all. (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Burned on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST
    The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

    It IS what the anti-abortionists want everyone to think. So maybe they support him because he pats them on the head and repeats that crap.

    this is my pet peeve... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    ...with how the political right has managed to frame the issue of choice, and it dismays me (as always) to see a self-styled "progressive" pursue the same line of reasoning.

    If you don't believe a 6-week zygote is a precious gift from God, there's absolutely no reason to approach abortion as a "wrenching moral issue," and to imply otherwise is as moralistic and judgmental as the rhetoric of right-to-lifers.

    Parent

    not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    all those anti-choice f*ckers who go to fertility clinics, wherein less viable eggs are tossed aside.  Then, it's medical waste.  When it's inside a host, it's a precious life (until it's 18 and commits a crime, then it should be sent to death row)

    I hate to sound like the Mighty O vis-a-vis his vaunted so-called anti-war speech, but I freaking told y'all so weeks ago.  This is the same language he used in another speech where he framed it as a "moral choice."  Ya know, to stop all those women who have third trimester abortions for birth control.  Next thing you know, he'll be using "partial birth" and other right wing hate speech in his stump.

    This is what unity is about, though--uniting disparate groups.  Rabid anti-choice bast*rds?  Welcome!  Nation of Islam?  Come on down!

    Parent

    Thank you for reason and reality (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:56 AM EST
    The whole meme of abortion being a "wrenching moral decision", a horrible tragedy! for every woman who has one, and for whom a mental breakdown is inevitable, is unbelievably patronizing and utterly out of touch.

    If he keeps this cr*p up, Obama just may lose my vote after all.

    Parent

    "Acknowledge the wrenching moral issues" (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:12:42 AM EST
    Sounds like he wants each woman getting a termination of pregnancy to make a Public Confession first. And if she doesn't show she's heart-wrenched enough, is she denied the procedure?

    Gargh. Barak, abortion is a private matter between the woman and her healthcare provider. Keep yourself out of it.

    Wonder if he's upset at the hypothetical idea that a woman might not want to carry his genetic products to term. Heh.

    Parent

    I'm trying to figure out what would (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:00:02 PM EST
    Happen on dailykos if Obama said that two years ago.


    Hmm... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:48:06 PM EST
    do a search by : Casey+Bob  They were going nuts when he was running because of his pro-life stance.

    Parent
    I was one of those unthrilled kossacks... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:56:08 PM EST
    Wouldn't matter, He is not Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    But if you look at the diary Obama wrote in 2005 over Judge Roberts and he was not welcomed with open arms, you might understand that it just does not matter. He has been sainted and can make no wrong. Are there any Pro Hillary still writing any diaries over there?

    Parent
    An attempt to change the topic (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    from his recent elitist gaffe to an even more divisive issue.

    well, no sen. obama, (5.00 / 15) (#11)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:00:27 PM EST
    has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

    we do. however, we recognize that resolving those moral issues is the province of the individual, not the the state.

    kind of goes along with that whole "separation of church and state" thing.

    are you sure this guy was a constitutional law professor, anywhere?

    okay, i get it- (5.00 / 14) (#13)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    i apologize for being a liberal.

    Earlier today I said (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    Obama is not happy if he does not slap a poor person or an old hippie (boomer) when he talks.  Today, he proved me right.  He did both.  Where is my pro Obama friend who hounded me on this comment?  

    Parent
    Did he just say (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    that I lack values for supporting my niece's (and other young women's) ability to choose should she/they be faced with this kind of decision at some point in the future?

    Parent
    i think you're okay (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    just so you acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved. if you're not wrenched, we have a problem.

    Parent
    On a lighter note (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    Watch this trailer from a Face in The Crowd, Elia Kazan movie from the 60's.  The movies already did the Obama phenom.  

    Parent
    Hmmmmm.... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    To wrench or not to wrench...

    Parent
    the last time i got wrenched, (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:54:12 PM EST
    i had to see a dr. if it's all the same to you, i'll pass.

    Parent
    So.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by carrienae on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:03:29 PM EST
    what is he going to do about it???? This is just another one of those rhetorics to the unknown...

    Generalization or not... (5.00 / 14) (#16)
    by Key on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    This guy just lost a hell of a lot of my remaining respect for him.


    The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it....

    What a naive thing to say.  I think the exact opposite is true.  Pro-choicers DO understand the wrenching moral issue involved.  We also understand that it is most wrenching for a woman who ultimately has to make the decision.

    The problem with anti-abortion people, and frankly Obama as well with this stupid comment, is that the moral issue is a personal issue, not a public one - abortion is not something that anyone should have the right to outlaw because they are opposed to it.  If you're opposed to it, then by god, don't get one if you ever are faced with a pregnancy.  But nobody has the right to deny a woman the right to make a difficult and wrenching choice.

    On abortion... (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    One of my girlfriends got pregnant at 17.  She wanted to go to college, and felt she couldn't raise her baby.  She had an abortion.

    About 4 weeks later, she had to attend a seminar on abortion, as she went to Catholic school.  She was depressed and distraught for weeks.  She said she would never do it again, and was positively beside herself for her "lack of responsibility" regardless of how much my friends and I reassured her.

    In college, she got pregnant again because the condom broke.  Whether there really was a condom or not, I have no way of knowing.  But she had her baby, and finished college as a single mom.  The dad, of course, bailed.  But she kept telling me she couldn't have an abortion a second time because she "[was] responsible."

    Purely anecdotal, but when people beat that dead horse of pro-choicers not having a moral compass or understanding or what-have-you, I think of my friend and get irate.

    Slightly OT, but...

    Parent

    I get irate too (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    I went to a Catholic hs were they drilled the "pro-life" propaganda into our heads on a daily basis. Senior year two of girls I knew got pregnant -- one kept her mouth shut & had an abortion; the other did the "right" thing.  Guess which one was shunned & had to go to a "special school" for the spring semester and guess which got to enjoy prom & graduate on stage with the rest of us? Bunch of hypocrites, ever last one of them.  

    Parent
    Obviously pro-lifers (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by badger on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    understand it's a "wrenching moral decision". That's why they picket with placards showing pictures of aborted fetuses, block women's access to clinics, try to humiliate women publicly, scam women with phony "counseling" services and when all that fails, bomb the clinic or murder the doctors.


    Parent
    Yeah, weird how that have no moral qualms about (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    killing the physicians or nurses, terrifying staffers, and prying into personal business of others.

    I recently read "A Common Secret" an autobiography, by a female physician, an OB/GYN who practiced in many small clinics, performing abortions and who would travel to clinics in rural areas. The only abortion provider available in many locales. She had several stories about the forced-labor wingnuts who would protest and threaten -- but if one of them, or their daughter got inconveniently pregnant, would have an abortion.   Highly recommended book.

    Parent

    We respect a person's right and ability to choose (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    That's the heart of every constitutional protection, and we don't regard the automatic impediment of someone else's hard line exercise of their franchise as "holier" and therefore deserving of a pass.

    Rights and protections: not only do we all DESERVE them, they're not something he can strip away to use as political capital.

    Obama is just slippery. His pattern is that whatever is right is what gets him good news coverage or transient support in his immediate fight to take down his immediate obstacle to the WH.

    Problem is, in scorching away what's in front of him he's also taking apart what'll get his back in the fight against the GOP wood chipper ahead.

    (BTW, his Advocate interview boiled down to "you're on your own". The "clinging to religion" dis on Penn voters takes an about-face here panders to the religiosity of no-choice hardliners and excuses the conservatism of his own church, and for good measure, taking an all around slap at women just generically sucks. Slippery.)

    Parent

    An Obama For Everyone! (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    As if.  Obama has already done the double-speak on gays.

    Because what he really meant by using McClurkin was for gays and blacks to have a dialogue and not be disparate and separate!

    Likewise, he's going to bring Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers together for "a more perfect union."

    Oy.  Sometimes the world just is binary on certain things.  Greyness is fine and tempered, but you cannot be a shade of grey in any and all matters on which you stand.

    That comes dangerously close... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    ...to suggesting that blacks and gays cannot, in fact, work together.  The categories are not mutually exclusive.

     

    Parent

    They are not. (none / 0) (#174)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42:24 PM EST
    But to insinuate as much from my comment is nothing but the most base and trivial of "identity politics" themed spin.

    Yes, we can see that cats and dogs can unite in harmony.  But you can't just say "I put these two groups together and... voila!  Magic!  Why, they can be inclusive!"

    A base analogy, but I find it fitting.  Obama saying "I'm bringing people together via my speeches" means nothing on the ground, whereby many poor inner city and rural African Americans are deeply homophobic, and gays and lesbians are highly skeptical.  

    Obama knew what he was doing with McClurkin, and it wasn't to bring blacks and gays together for a greater dialogue and understanding.


    Parent

    yeah, i know that eric rudolph (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by english teacher on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    and the guy that shot dr. slepian in his own home really agonized over the morality of their actions.  right.  

    If you stand for nothing (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    everyone will vote for you!
    I think I finally understand the Unity Pony theory.
    Except I believe it won't work.
    Ain't gonna happen.

    It worked for Bush (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    The first time, anyway. Of course, he had the entire right-wing slime machine behind him, but then Obama has, imo, run the dirtiest campaign by a Democrat in the last 40 years. We may have a new formula for winning: copy the Republicans.

    Parent
    He's on a roll... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    First he makes sure that he pisses off small town Pennsylvania, now he's making sure he alienates progressive and pro-choice leaners because he thinks this is how to win votes.

    It's pretty clear that knocking women and progressive off the rolls in California and his comments of today are targeted towards a very un-Democratic party voter because he thinks he's got the nomination all locked up.

    Don't forget the FP and I think there (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    were one or 2 more. He's really on a roll.

    Oy. But I must thank him for confirming my gut feeling that he's not someone I trust on women's issues.

    Parent

    I own both the South and the North Pole (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    As neither are inhabitable I believe that my ownership goes unquestioned because both regions know that I'm not going to allow either of them to become political chew toys in the global climate debate.

    Don't get me wrong, Killer Whales and Polar Bears are worried about the loss of polar ice as some of their favorite food sources love to bask in the sun on their private roving beach.  But they are smart enough to realize that I am not advocating global warming, in fact I'm against it, but that I am just aware that global warming is a necessary byproduct of industrialization.  So they may miss the ice, but they haven't called on me to return the ice...so I take that to mean that they still regard my ownership as unquestionable and that they will continue to vote for me as Polar King.

    It is so much easier dealing with the Penguins, they love their expanding waterfront properties.  Some see the loss of the Ross Ice Shelf as disastrous, my tenants see it as an opportunity to expand their property.  Now if they'd just pay the rent on time.

    I know it seems weird that I can be both for and against global warming...But I'm big tent, I agonize with environmentalists over global climate change and man's influence upon said changes.  But just as I empathize with them, so to do I have sympathy for those who choose to rape the planet and profit of Earth's misery.  People don't need oil, they Want oil..they don't need diamonds, they Want diamonds..someone has to supply the demand.

    Some call me two-faced.  I assure you that I am not.  No one can claim ownership of any side of any issue..therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can borrow any side of an issue whenever a particular side of that issue better suits one's needs.

    Ugh! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:17:24 PM EST
    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it..."

    So says Rev. Obama.

    What a load of crap.
    Who is he talking about?

    It will be a cold day in hell before we hear Obama urging the misnamed "pro-life" people to consider the inalienable right of a woman to decide what happens within her own body.

    Hillary Clinton and abortion (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by gabbyone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    Recently I worked with a group of anti abortion Catholic women
    making calls to PA for Hillary and one of the
    women mentioned that she has voted Republican because of the abortion issue but because she just couldn't vote for another
    Republican she was for Hillary.  Soon everyone joined in the converstion and basically gave the argument that Obama gives about why people support him on this issue as their reason for Hillary.  They also said that they had always been impressed with Hillary because she tried to understand both sides of the
    issue and reached out to everyone and she felt
    that as a woman, they could count on her more to
    really keeping working on making abortions fewer
    in number.  I definitely got the impression from
    them that more Catholic women are leaning towards
    Hillary on this issue.  

    She does have a decent Catholic voting block (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    And if you look at exit polls, she does well with frequent church goers. And this was before Wright.

    Parent
    RI (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    is heavily Catholic and she won that handily.  It's interesting.

    Parent
    Consultants consistently misread Catholics (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:31:11 PM EST
    This doesn't surprise me. It's probably a more accurate representation of what goes on in individual churches and even dinner tables.

    I believe the automatic awarding of Catholic support to the anti-choice column -- based on the wrong-headed mainstream tendency to run away from this "icky" issue instead of making it a cornerstone of human rights -- is a big reason the Dems consistently lose out on support.

    Being anti-abortion and pro-choice isn't uncommon among practicing -- and even practicing conservative -- Catholics. That gets yadda yadda'd a lot by numbers crunchers who stick it in the Special Interest aisle only because they don't care about it.

    Their other empty exercise of tweaking filigreed frames always comes off as patronizing and outright stupid. No one needs Democrats to tell people how to practice their reliions and save their souls.

    Hardline Republican theocrats have been carrying water for the party but the Dems aren't going to divert that force over to their side for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is, the GOP (illegally and unconstitutionally) staked out that territory first.

    Parent

    Oh jeez (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by nell on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    Why does he assume that I, as a pro-choice woman, do not understand that people grapple with the morality? I believe it is a CHOICE, and that means that I cannot tell anyone what they should or should not do. A CHOICE. I am not pro-abortion, I am not anti-abortion, and I am pro giving women the right to choose what is best for them. He is just so dismissive of all those who have come before him and actually fought these battles!

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by sas on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:53:32 PM EST
    the pro-life people USED to support him, until today, he trashed them for becoming religious as a response to being bitter about job losses. (PA)

    WOW - Obama kicks Dems AGAIN!! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    we can't take 4 more years of this!
    Wouldn't it be better to try to make a Republicrat Party - and unite the world, of course - after he becomes president?

    Nobody believes in abortion? (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Who does this guy think he is?  

    Can he speak about any issue without insulting someone?

    I'm pro-abortion (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    No, this is not snark. I think abortion is wonderful. It provides a woman with full control over her reproduction. It can save a woman's life. It can relieve a woman of the trauma of carrying a severely deformed fetus to term. I think abortion is terrific the same way I think that an appendectomy is terrific. I don't plan on having one in the near future, but I think that it's great that it's there if I need it.

    And no, it's not a "wrenching moral issue". It can be wrenching if the woman is  being forced by circumstances to abort late in her pregnancy because of health issues, but is isn't a "moral" issue. It would be a moral issue if I thought that first or second trimester fetuses were the same as babies, but if I thought that way I would have a very hard time supporting any abortion (who wants to murder babies?).  

    I really wish that progressives would stop pandering to the right on this issue. Abortion is a medical procedure. When we start to overlay moral issues on private medical decisions, things get ugly fast.

    I agree with you completely. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:42 PM EST
    Diane, I couldn't agree with you more.

    In fact, I've even said what you said about appendectomies.

    I happen to believe that a fetus becomes a baby when the mother thinks it's one.  For some it's way before the pregnancy and for others, it's never going to happen.

    AND, "I really wish that progressives would stop pandering to the right on this issue. Abortion is a medical procedure. When we start to overlay moral issues on private medical decisions, things get ugly fast. "

    Yes.

    Parent

    Abortion is not (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:51:47 PM EST
    wonderful - it's knowing it is one of the choices we women have that is the wonderful part.

    Abortion is something women do when they have no other choices, and generally, when you are at a point where you have no other choices, you are not in a very good place.

    And abortion is one of those things where, when viewed in the abstract, it seems wholly clinical - I mean, what's the big deal, right?  Collection of cells that isn't a person - might as well be a bunion - or so it seems until you are actually pregnant.

    I would never want abortion to not be an option for anyone.  And it irks me no end when men presume to want to control what our choices are.

    But - and I say this as a mother - there is a huge difference between what abortion can mean when you are not pregnant and have never been pregnant, and what it means when you are.  At least in my opinion.

    When I was pregnant with daughter #1, I first felt her move at about 15 weeks - just barely into the second trimester.  With #2, it was a week or so earlier.  Trust me when I tell you that when it moves, it's no longer an abstract, it's pretty real.  And you don't feel like you did before you got pregnant - what with all the hormones and the big b**bs and the constant nausea - so it's not like you are the same person.  It's all different.

    I don't say all this as a criticism of your opinions - just as someone who knows that feelings change - or can change - when something goes from being abstract to being real, and it's suddenly your reality, not something that concerns some faceless, nameless woman.

    As I said, above - it would have been a very difficult decision for me, had I been in a position where I had to consider it.  Not from a moral standpoint, but from the standpoint of something being lost, I guess.

    Some women become anti-choice after having children, but for me, it strengthened my feeling that no one - no one - should have the right to step in and make a decision like that for someone else.

    And Barack Obama can just bite me; he doesn't get it.

    Parent

    It's not abstract for me (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    Not even a little bit. I made a choice and have never looked back. I would love to be the kind of person who could raise a child, but I'm not, and it would be cruel to dump my genetic make-up in the lap of some unsuspecting adoption parents, even if I could stand to do it. I'm sure that having a child is a wonderful experience, and I often wish that my life could be different, but it isn't and I don't regret having an abortion and I count my blessings that I was able to. I only wish that more women could make the decision I did without guilt or fear of retribution or worry over the financial implications or the judgment of their families. I felt no grief, no guilt, no regret, except an occassional bit of "what might have been". I felt relief. Overwhelming relief.  I've heard that most women who have abortions feel that way.

    And, no, I'm not pro-choice because I've had an abortion. I was pro-choice before. But it became personal after. :-)

    Parent

    Ooooooooooo (none / 0) (#203)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:28 AM EST
    I don't agree with that.  To each their own.

    Having been there during my wife's ultrasounds, I'm not inclined to make a comparison between an appendix and what I saw.

    I reserve the right to overlay morality on a private medical decision AS LONG AS I keep that overlay to myself.

    I hope that's OK with you.

    I think you just made Obama's point for him.


    Parent

    That's it! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    I absolutely can't stand him.  I will not stand for some man who has no chance of ever becoming pregnant lining me out on the moral issues around abortion.  Kiss my a$$.  If he ever got knocked up it would have really cramped his political style, doubt he would have made it this far without a breast pump and a nanny!  Good thing he was born with that elite silver spoon in his mouth!  I absolutely cannot deal with Barack Obama anymore.  I'm so totally done with him!!!!!!!!

    Rant on Tracy. I know the feeling. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    (nodding) (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    I'm beyond upset about this.

    Especially considering the other insensitive remarks that have been exposed today.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by sas on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    WORM is turning....

    So as usual (4.92 / 13) (#8)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    the fault is all on the side of the progressives for not "acknowledging" the other side.  Just like those horrible, disruptive movements of the 60's screwed up our country more than Reagan's Morning in America.

    I'm so through with him.  Don't dangle SCOTUS in front of me to try to get my vote in November, if he's the nominee.  I've been saying it for a long time, but I don't trust him on women's issues or gay issues.  Or any issue, for that matter!

    "It may be..." "Sometimes" (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:52:27 PM EST
    I have a question.
    Does this man stand for ANYTHING?

    May be? (none / 0) (#1)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    "even though where we finally come down may be different"

    I think he's ok on this at heart, but ack.

    His heart...maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    Mine?

    The idea that he suggests I may not have a moral compass because I'm pro-choice? Meh...

    Parent

    "I think he's ok"? (none / 0) (#104)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    I would like to be a bit more certain.

    Parent
    But his brain sure sounds confused (none / 0) (#196)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:26:42 AM EST
    Brother Barack Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    Explains it all to Us!

    and with that Christopher Durang reference, I say goodnight.

    At least he doesn't use (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:33:32 PM EST
    Bush's overly enunciated style with...the significant pauses...so we can absorb the complex concepts....he is presenting to us.

    No, Obama just exudes the confidence that we'll all agree with him, because He has eloquently enlightened us.  

    Parent

    BO has been talking like this for a while (none / 0) (#58)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    Here is a link.  

      "A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School . . .

        [T]he reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:

        "I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

        Fair-minded words.

        So I looked at my website and found the offending words.  In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

        Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame.

        It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

        So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

        And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you."

    And if someone is unclear about his pro-choice record.  

    And we are supposed to believe this? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    story?  What are w morons always with the parables.  

    Parent
    Hillary doesn't smackdown Dems (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    in order to gain Repub votes.
    See the difference?

    Parent
    nice story (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    touching.  My heart fluttered...really...even though Obama's prayers are of no concern to this atheist.

    But why not read between the lines.  

    MY STAFF (it is not MY fault, once again it is my stupid idiot staffers) used the "dem boilerplate"...Guess what that boilerplate?  It is a foundation of Dem social policy:  WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

    He nuanced his position because he realized that he didn't want to be locked into one pt view when he could ride both sides of the fence.  There is NO GREY area when it comes to abortion...you have the RIGHT (to choose) or the govt gets to decide what a person does with their own body which means you have NO right.

    "Abortion is killing..we feel bad for the rape victim..but if she carries to term and delivers the constant reminder of personal violation, she'll come to love the life that her rapist forced upon her."---So says people like the SD legislature.  I disagree and for someone who is supposed to be on MY team to tell me I just don't get the moral dilemna...well he can take his condescension and go back to lifting up poor neighborhoods by partnering up with slumlords in IL.  

    'You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time...so get up...stand up...stand up for your rights".  I stand up for a woman's right to choose what is best for her physical health, her mental health...it is her choice NOT Barack Obama's, not Bill Frist's.

    You point to Obama's votes?  He voted to FUND the war...but he is AGAINST it????  He voted to continue NAFTA....but he is AGAINST it????  He votes pro-life...but I'm supposed to accept the idea that he isn't AGAINST it?  Get real.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#82)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:48:38 PM EST
    votes pro-choice...yada...against it?

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#95)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:07:39 PM EST
    I very carefully read your comment, but as I read that part I read it as "pro-choice."

    I don't know how I missed that, until you pointed it out, odd.

    Regarding your other comments I don't have a response, your opinion is not unreasonable, it's just not mine.

    Parent

    Incompetent, by his own admission (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by badger on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:37:31 PM EST
    The President is resposnsible for appointing huge numbers of government officials, from Supreme Court Justices and cabinet officials, down to some of the assistant secretary levels and even US attorneys.

    Obama, in his own words, has demonstrated time and again that he is incapable of either attracting, hiring, or managing good staff people, as shown again in this example.

    That alone should disqualify him from becoming President.

    I don't think I want to vote for a candidate who has to personally edit his own website - it's not something I picture as a Presidential duty.


    Parent

    Blame it on the staff (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:13:12 PM EST
    You know, I seem to recall him using that line once or twice before, and it sends shivers up my spine.  I have "staff" too, and if something goes out with my name on it that is wrong it is MY mistake for either (1) not reviewing it or (2) not hiring competent staff. If I told a client, etc. "Sorry about that goof up. It was my secretary's fault" I'd be laughed out of my profession.  Obama wants me to vote for him for President when he can't even run his staff? Uh, no thanks.

    Parent
    What I learn from this (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    1. Obama's staff wrote all of those lovely position statements on his web site. He didn't even bother to read them.
    2. Obama is ashamed of believing that a woman has the right to control her own body.
    3. Obama wants to be all things to all people.
    4. I can't trust this man to put a pro-choice justice on the Supreme court. He might choose somebody who was a "compromise" candidate, somebody who would please the right as much as the left.

    What in hades does Obama stand for? He's running as a Democrat, but he seems reluctant to take a stand on anything but "Unity". He, apparently, chose his church because it was politically convenient, not because it reflected his beliefs. He works for the poor, but takes money from some of the people who are benefiting most from keeping them living in poverty.  He is the candidate for "change", but I can't see how his positions differ from any other centrist Democrat in the last 40 years.

    Parent
    that is why it so damn annoying (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    when Obama or a supporter says, go look at the position paper...

    He purposely doesn't talk issues because when he does he reveals that he is what the GOP claimed Kerry was...a candidate who tries to make both sides of an issue his own.

    But how can I trust the position papers?  If someone influential enough to matter to Obama questions the position it rapidly becomes an error committed by a well meaning but errant staffer.

    Parent

    blaming his staff again (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:31 AM EST
    for the "standard Democratic boilerplate language"    Can't this guy ever stand up and take responsibility himself?

    then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded

    ...so Obama is worried about what an anti-choice guy thinks about him?

    Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame.

    Shame? At standing up for a woman's say over her own body?

    It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country.

    Uh, no, the wingnut was not looking for a "conversation about religion," he was trying to get Obama to change his stand.  And that ploy, framed as an appeal to Obama's "fair-mindedness," got to him. All things to all men.


    Parent
    This just makes his religion (none / 0) (#142)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:59:11 PM EST
    an issue for me. He grew up an atheist. His mother was not just a run of the mill non-believer but rather a "militant atheist." So my suspicion is that Obama wanting a political career decided that he needed a religious cloak as cover.

    It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

    That paragraph strikes me as full of empty platitudes. There is nothing fair-minded about those who blow abortion clinics. There is nothing fair-minded who demonized women who make tough choices. What the above shows is that he will say anything do anything to win political office. He literally sickens me. I don't anyone who opposes abortion or gay rights who wants a "deeper fuller conversation." They are out to deny rights and impose their way of life. Not on my watch.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    do they really support him?  Hillary won heavily Catholic RI.  

    Is he just getting a lot of touching emails from pro-lifers?  Is there any data to back up his assertion?

    Of course I'm sure it doesn't matter!  It's about politics after all.

    Maybe all the media attention (none / 0) (#85)
    by mg7505 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    to Obama is backfiring -- it's just more opportunities for him to make gaffes and reveal the sides of his personality we don't want to see. This happened a little to Hillary, but was exploded way out of proportion.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#101)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:14:45 PM EST
    If Obama can sell this pablum, start making a space for him on Mt. Rushmore!

    Wow (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
    You guys should win some sort of award for ridiculous extrapolation.

    I guess when you really really really want to get offended by someone you simply parse their comments to filter out the stuff that tempers the words.

    The ironic part in reading these comments is that you chastise Obama for saying that pro-choice people sometimes don't realize how deep of a moral issue is and then you guys go on various rants about how horrible pro-life people are.  

    The fact that Obama isn't willing to demonize half the country doesn't make him a bad person.

    You make some good (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    points but to me it does feel like he is demonizing half of us, my half anyway.  Every time I turn around it seems like he has sad something that makes me feel like he does not get me at all, and worse that he thinks he is better than me, waaayyyy better.

    Parent
    I can understand that (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:31:29 PM EST
    but, in my opinion, that is something that draws me to Obama in the first place.

    I remember about a year ago he was speaking in front of a bunch of evangelicals.  Tough crowd to begin with, being a Democrat.  And he said some things that they all agreed with.  But then he took them to task for some things that he disagreed with them on.  

    He is willing to say things that he knows will upset some people.  And not just people he knows will never vote for him.  

    Now before I get swarmed, I am not suggesting he is some sort of unique and special person who is above political sniping.  He is, after all, a politician.  But I think that his charisma allows him to be a bit more honest with his supporters than other politicians.

    I am the type of person who prefers honest disagreement to cordial acceptance.  


    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    he demonized OVER half the country, because by wide margins, Americans still support the right to reproductive rights.

    Your Obamablindness normally tickles me, but in this instance, it is incredibly dangerous.

    Those who have been making the argument that we must protect the sanctity of the SCOTUS and vote Obama should he win the nom (a  big if, in my opinion), feel free to stay at home.  Dems would lockstep against a conservative, anti-choice McCain nominee.  I don't feel they would be as strong against an otherwise progressive but anti-choice Obama nominee.

    With Clinton, she'd just scare the bejeezus out of them and they'd do whatever the frack she told them to do.

    Parent

    I think we just want to know (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:33:17 AM EST
    Which pro-choice forces?

    Who among us doesn't recognize the wrenching morality of abortion?

    That's all we want to know.

    Parent

    This is Obama at his worst. (none / 0) (#117)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:32:59 PM EST

    Name somebody who claims that abortion isn't a "deep moral issue".   The pro-choice postion is that the government shouldn't interfere with a woman's deep moral decision.

    And does anybody believe that pro-lifers will vote for Obama against McCain because he says he's sympathetic to their cause?

    Parent

    What Pro-Choice groups or individuals (none / 0) (#119)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    have said this isn't a tough moral choice for those contemplating it? Seems to me Obama simply created a strawman argument to score political points.

    Parent
    Well let's take (none / 0) (#131)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:46:29 PM EST
    a walk down memory lane in this very thread....

    "Will Atrios sully the blogger darling, remain silent, or defend Obama as somehow different than the anti-abortion hacks. "

    "It IS what the anti-abortionists want everyone to think. So maybe they support him because he pats them on the head and repeats that crap. "

    "all those anti-choice f*ckers who go to fertility clinics,"

    "This is what unity is about, though--uniting disparate groups.  Rabid anti-choice bast*rds?  Welcome!  Nation of Islam?  Come on down! "

    Doesn't sound like these people think it is a tough moral issue.

    And, FTR, Obama didn't say it was a tough moral choice.  He said that pro-choice people don't realize how much of a moral imperative this is for pro-life people.   And this thread underscores his point.  Most of the people here treat pro-life people with contempt and can't be bothered with even CONSIDERING the POSSIBILITY that some of them are acting on their moral convictions and trying to do what they feel is the right thing to do.

    Parent

    I for one am grateful... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    that I have Obama trying to convince me to see the 'pro-choice' side of things.

    It made everything so clear and I now can see the errors of my ways.

    I'm ready for that unity pony now.

    And I also found out that flyerhawk, knower of the feelings of the majority 'pro-choice' people don't really support Eric Rudolph.

    keep digging...

    Parent

    assumption (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    He said that pro-choice people don't realize how much of a moral imperative this is for pro-life people.   And this thread underscores his point.

    Here's the thing...regardless of how much a "moral imperative" it is for anti-choicers, their right to their moral imperative stops where my body begins. They don't get to dictate what happens between me, my family, and my doctor.

    Parent

    So I take it (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    you believe that a woman should be allowed to abort a fetus in the 36th week?  

    Parent
    for the record... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    I'm quite convinced that it should be none of your concern.

    Parent
    Well ok (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:10:33 PM EST
    that would put you at the very extreme end of the spectrum on this matter as the VAST majority of Americans do NOT believe that you should be allowed to abort a healthy late 3rd trimester fetus.

    I can see why you find Obama noxious.

    Parent

    whether I am at the extreme end of the spectrum... (none / 0) (#159)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST
    is hardly at issue.

    The issue is whether a woman has a right to choose and who and what laws are to interfere with those rights.

    I object to all attempts to legislate morality. You are acknowledging that you are comfortable with legislating morality and don't want to define the terms except in the most extreme way to prove some ethereal point. It doesn't win the point with me because I'm not buying in on any level. I am of similar opinion on things such as euthanasia.

    Obama is noxious because he is demagoguing the issue instead of leading. It is what he does.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:31:07 PM EST
    You object to legislating morality?  So you oppose laws against murder, rape, and theft?  

    Rather than give even a little ground you prefer to hold onto a rather extreme position, a position that would actually get you throw in jail for a long time if you tried to actually carry out.

    But it is Obama who is the problem because he dares offer an olive branch to the evil anti-choice people.

    Parent

    murder, rape and theft (none / 0) (#177)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    are not simply morality issues.

    Well, we agree that Obama is demagoguing the issue.

    You can celebrate it if you wish.

    Parent

    Of course you can (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
    Abortion cannot be framed as a negation of a person's rights.

    This is just a silly assertion.  If you consider the fetus a baby then you most certainly can call abortion the negation of a person's rights.  Heck if you consider a fetus a person then you can claim that it is protected under the 14th Amendment.

    You are making assertions as if they are fact when they are simply opinion.  That does nothing to further the discussion and probably just entrenches the opinions of those who disagree with you.

    Parent

    If the VAST majority of people (none / 0) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
    thought it was a great idea to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:05 PM EST
    that there are no felony laws advocating for me to jump off a cliff.  

    There ARE felony laws that will put you in jail for a very long time if you actually acted on your stated beliefs in this thread.  Aborting a healthy fetus in the 36th week is considered murder in 50 states.

    Parent

    "Healthy" is not what's going on (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:31 AM EST
    Quite the opposite, when a pregnant patient has a medically appropriate need for a termination of pregnancy late in gestation. These are rarely done procedures but there are sometimes serious life-threatening conditions which affect the pregnant woman.

    I suggest you stay out of the practice of medicine unless you are licensed.

    Parent

    What in the world are you talking about? (none / 0) (#212)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:08:25 AM EST
    I suggest you go back to school and work on your reading comprehension.

    I was not, in any way, talking about specific procedures that may or may not be necessary.  They are wholly unrelated to the point.

    Parent

    Your initial question on this... (none / 0) (#219)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:32:01 AM EST
    doesn't bring up "healthy."

    Your initial question was with regards to late term abortions...no mention of the status of the fetus...nor, for the woman.

    Somewhere in the discussion you added it. Neither LH nor I understand why you did that.

    Was it intentional to reframe the conversation to suit yourself? Or was it something else?

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
    there are laws against suicide.

    And at one point there was a judge who put a stay on the late term abortion legislation. Something about the Constitution...IIRC.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#214)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:11:09 AM EST
    There is absolutely no legislation in this country that allows for the aborting of a late term healthy fetus.  Roe v Wade was very explicit about this matter and it really hasn't changed its position over the last 35 years.

    Parent
    You've added "healthy" (none / 0) (#218)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:26:35 AM EST
    to the discussion for the second time. Why?


    Parent
    I think that's up to the woman... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    Right now, I have a sister with stage 4 breast cancer in a wheelchair because she didn't get that choice.

    She was misdiagnosed with an "infection" that metastasized and spread to her spine. The cancer was only discovered after my nephew was born.

    Parent

    excuse me? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    Doesn't sound like these people think it is a tough moral issue.

    I've got to back away from my computer now before I go Animal Kingdom on your ignorant a*s.  You are really beyond the pale.

    Parent

    Yeah ok (none / 0) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:00:36 PM EST
    Your willingness to say ANYTHING to attack Obama and his supporters really has me concerned about your views.  

    I have no idea what bizarre twisting of my comment you've chosen for this moment's outrage, but I am sure it has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    Parent

    I'm sorry I honestly don't see what your (none / 0) (#141)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
    reply has to do with my post? My question was, What group or individuals have ever said that this isn't a tough moral choice for those contemplating it? The fact that you found angry, apparently, pro-choice people, who are upset because they've been characterized as 'not acknowledging  the wrenching moral issues involved in it', doesn't seem surprising. Perhaps you might now try and demonstrate where these people have said, or implied, that it isn't a tough moral choice, which is the strawman that Obama created.

    Parent
    Uhh no (1.00 / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    He didn't reference tough moral choices.  You created that man of straw all on your own.

    Parent
    You've got to be kidding, right? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    Sorry if my substituting 'tough' for "wrenching" through you.

    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes(how many times) made in the past(when in the past), and this is a generalization(really) so it has not always been the case(when was it the case), has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.


    Parent

    Words have meaning (none / 0) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    issues and choices are 2 completely different words with completely different meanings.  

    Your desire to conflate those 2 words into one is nothing more than a willful attempt to attack Obama for something he didn't say.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, as my argument doesn't lose it's (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    meaning if I use Obama's exact words, what's your point? Obama's argument is a strawman, he creates an argument as to why "anti-abortion democrats",are there pro-abortion democrats?, support him.  So where is his support for these assertions. In what way or manner does the senator support any of his claims as to why this group of democrats support him, he doesn't, does he? He simply makes a bunch of vague statements as to their reasons for supporting him and runs with it.

    Parent
    See that isn't reasonable (none / 0) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    The VAST majority of pro-life people do NOT think that blowing up clinics and killing doctors is acceptable.  Eric Rudolph is not a hero to pro-life people.  I have NEVER met a person who thought that was acceptable.  Using the extremes to demonize the majority is nothing more than smearing.

    And while you may view their beliefs on abortion as wrong, I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss their views.  If someone were to say that they believe that a woman should be allowed to abort a baby up to the moment of birth, would you find that simply a matter of personal choice?  Or would you consider that person a murderer for killing a baby?

    This is the problem with this debate.  Virtually everyone has the same morality.  The problem is that people differ on what constitutes an organism and what constitutes a baby.  If you believed that a baby was created at conception you would be morally bankrupt if you DIDN'T try to outlaw abortion.

    DISCLAIMER: I am pro-choice but this is not a big issue for me.  In my opinion, this debate is largely becoming moot as medical advances make abortions easier and easier.

    Parent

    the vast majority... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:48:52 PM EST
    I wish I had your intimate knowledge of the vast majority of 'pro-life' people but I can tell you from the people that I know who are ardently pro-life, they do think it's acceptable. They also think that capital punishment is acceptable.

    You are also either ignorant of the facts or choose to ignore that laws such as the partial birth abortion law that was upheld recently by SCOTUS actually dictated specific procedures that were safer to not be used.

    I am also a male so in that respect, "it's not a big issue for me" except that these overreaching moralists think that they can simply legislate morality and that is offensive in every conceivable way. A woman's right to choose must not be infringed.

    I understand that there's some not very left people at TalkLeft and this is a poor excuse of a defense of one's candidate.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#130)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:43:01 PM EST
    Eric Rudolph was helped for years by people who agreed with him. Indeed, I've heard people talk about him as though he was some sort of hero.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#134)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:48:53 PM EST
    I guess you hang out with a bunch of extreme hard core Conservatives.  I have NEVER met ANYONE who has EVER supported Eric Rudolph.  

    Why don't you go over to RedState and ask their opinion of him?  

    You are trying to make to turn the pro-life people into cartoon characters.

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04:03 PM EST
    But thanks for putting words into my mouth. I simply pointed out that there are anti-choice folks out there who do not fall into your fuzzy personification of the anti-choicer.

    Maybe you missed this discussion and this stuff that happened around the time Rudolph was captured.

    Maybe you should recognize that there are lots of different folks out there who don't fit into your profile of the anti-choice advocates.

    I've walked friends through the protests. I've been elbowed in the ribs for walking those friends through the protests.

    I've had to deal with the fallout when the anti-choice folks come to campus with their 30 ft. wide poster sessions. Nothing like sitting with a student in tears because she was screamed at as she walked past the poster thing to get to class.

    I know anti-choicers who are perfectly nice. But they still don't get to tell me what to do with my body.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    Do you think that Code Pink represents most people who oppose the war in Iraq?  

    You are using the extremes to condemn the middle.  A common tactic but not very honest.

    Parent

    Where exactly did I condemn the middle? (none / 0) (#188)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    Really. I want you to tell me where I said that the middle of the anti-choice advocates were horrible. Indeed, I've pointed out the exact opposite.

    I've mentioned that there are many who are "not horrible."

    I've also pointed out where I know some "pretty nice anti-choice advocates."  One of my neighbors falls into this category.

    In fact, I mentioned those folks in the very post you just responded to. Please...go back and read it. I thought that the last sentence kinda contradicts the words you're trying to put in my mouth...again. Here they are:

    I know anti-choicers who are perfectly nice. But they still don't get to tell me what to do with my body
    .

    What I have given you are several of my own experiences when it comes to dealing with some of the more "passionate" anti-choice advocates.

    Instead of declaring people dishonest for discussing their experiences, you might consider that some of us are concerned about a candidate's implication that anti-choice folks have a stronger moral compass than those who support the right to choose.

    I don't like the insinuation that my value structure is somehow lacking...

    Parent

    That insinuation (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:26 AM EST
    is entirely of your own making.  Obama made no such value judgment.  His point was that anti-abortion people might have legitimate reasons for their beliefs and that we should respect that.  

    I am not questioning your experiences.  But you are trying to use them as examples of the norm.  I don't believe that is reasonable.

    And I believe that some of you are looking for reasons to be outraged by Obama's comments.

    Parent

    Wait a darned minute there (none / 0) (#201)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:35:45 AM EST
    "Obama made no such value judgment.  His point was that anti-abortion people might have legitimate reasons for their beliefs and that we should respect that.  "

    Why the heck should I "respect" their belief that THEY have a right to tell everyone what they should believe, huh? If I am not religious and don't believe in the magic of the soul why the heck do I have to listen to someone elses desire to save me from myself?

    Maybe you don't "get it" but one side of this debate believes it is a personal choice for each person, while the other side believes they have the RIGHT to impose their belief on everyone.

    I am sorry, there is NO UNDERSTANDING on this one. You are on the right side, or you are on the wrong side.

    Parent

    Actually I DO get it (none / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:55 AM EST
    But when you say that there is a right side of the issue and a wrong side of the issue you are exemplifying exactly what Obama was referring to, which several here claim is a myth.

    I am not in any way suggesting that being pro-choice is wrong.  Far from it.  But I can be pro-choice AND respect that for some people it is an immoral action.

    It's not about religion.  It's about defining when life begins.  And no one can definitively say that at some point human life begins.  The pro-life claim that life begins at conception has just as much logical reasoning behind it as those who say it happens sometime in the 3rd trimester.  The problem is that unless science can somehow figure this issue out there will NEVER be a right answer.  

    Parent

    Nope, still missing it (none / 0) (#210)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:05:16 AM EST
    I don't think anyone who is pro choice is arguing that no one should have any issues with abortion. Or that this is not complex. Or that science has it licked. Rather that it is a PERSONAL decision. In fact I know MANY pro-choice people who are AGAINST abortions.

    The other side, which we are supposed to "understand" says that they will decide for all of us. THERE IS NO ROOM TO PANDER OR say things like "we should respect their viewpoint." This is very different than respecting peoples personal choices.

    Parent

    Uh... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:56 AM EST
    But you are trying to use them as examples of the norm.

    Unless you mean that by pointing out that I have dealt with anti-choice people who land on lots of spaces on the spectrum from radical/extreme to moderate with regards to the anti-choice issue...no.

    The insinuation is in his words, which as you point out elsewhere...have meaning:

    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.
    My read on this is that somehow he thinks that I, and...actually you too, have not acknowledge the "wrenching moral issues" involved in having an abortion. It's almost as though we're the ones who are somehow morally deficit because we haven't acknowledged the anti-choice position. That we are the ones who've made a mistake.

    I haven't made a mistake. I've listened to what anti-choice people have said. I've heard the arguments...violent and not.

    I just don't happen to agree with them. And Roe v. Wade, a ruling that your candidate says he supports, says that the choice of an abortion is mine, not my neighbor's...not the druggist's who refuses to provide prescribed contraception.

    Parent

    Herein lies the difference. (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:40 AM EST
    My read on this is that somehow he thinks that I, and...actually you too, have not acknowledge the "wrenching moral issues" involved in having an abortion. It's almost as though we're the ones who are somehow morally deficit because we haven't acknowledged the anti-choice position. That we are the ones who've made a mistake.

    that is not what I infer from his comment AT ALL.  What I inferred was that he believed that pro-choice people don't respect the depth of conviction that many pro-life people have regarding this issue.

    They think that it is no different than killing a baby.  While I strongly disagree with that view I can see why they are so passionate about the issue.

    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM EST
    I'd suggest you go back and re-read it.

    His words state that the mistake has been on the side of pro-choicers for not understanding the depth of the anti-choicers convictions. Those convictions include the reality of denying women abortions, denying women needed contraception, denying women a choice with regards to our bodies...for our own "moral" good.

    For them, you and I are in the wrong for supporting a pro-choice position. For Obama, we've made the mistake of not respecting their convictions.

    Their convictions stop where my body begins. They quite literally do not control my choice on this. From my experience, anti-choice advocates are not interested in respecting my convictions. Indeed, quite a lot of legislation has been passed attempting to limit a woman's choice.

    They aren't interested in the dialogue. They are interested in shifting the frames to help change the legislation and overturn things like Roe v. Wade. And unfortunately, this whole "mistakes" message feeds into that.

    Parent

    Did you just skip over (none / 0) (#217)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:24:51 AM EST
    the part where he said that the pro-choice forces were the one who "in general" had made "mistakes" re: the respect meme?

    Parent
    But I will confess... (none / 0) (#205)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:47:31 AM EST
    that it's really hard to respect the opinions of people wandering around with "Save the Baby Human" bumper stickers on their cars. After all, they are soooo respectful of the pro-choice positions.

    Parent
    I don't think that anti-choice people (none / 0) (#126)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    (not gracing them with a corner on the "pro-life" market) are bad or are horrible . But they also aren't half the country.

    Last time I checked, people who supported a woman's right to choose what to do with her body were around 70% of the population. Indeed...according to the pro-choice GOP emailers I get, there's a population of Republicans out there who support a woman's right to choose.

    What I am tired of is the adoption of the "life...morality" frame as though anti-choice supporters are in the right on a personal and private situation.

    Parent

    The fact (none / 0) (#145)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:01:47 PM EST
    that Obama is not willing to fight for Democratic values is his problem with most of us.

    Parent
    This is like that game where one (none / 0) (#108)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23:23 PM EST
    person whispers in anothers persons ear and then they whisper the same words into someone elses ear and so on and so on until you have a statement that's completely different then the origonal.

    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

    First he's not talking about individuals he talking about political entitities.  And he is not wrong on the issue, I'm pro-choice but feel that at times the perception that comes across is not made in a productive way that involves the moral issues that anyone faces when making this decision.  It is a hard decision that should be free for anyone to make.  But I don't see it as a black and white as some people frame it especially the Right along with some political right activists.  If you discussed the moral reasons why you should have the decision instead of attacking anyone who has a different view then perhaps we would have a greater understanding and unity on this fundamental right.  

    none are so blind as those who refuse to see... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    You are trying to excuse the fact that he is demagoguing the issue by appealing to 'pro-life' people while trying to keep his toe in the water on the 'pro-choice' side. This is about who he is, what he considers issues that are worth fighting for.

    Anyone who is pro-choice is going to see very little difference between this and John McCain's position so why would any pro-choice voter get the feeling that the issue would matter when, if elected president, he would have a SCOTUS appointment?

    The sad truth is that this is further demonstrable proof that he equivocates on all significant issues to the point that you have to buy him on faith because you don't get any significant commitment on the major issues from his words or deeds.

    This represents a wishy washy candidate that wants to have it all ways, stands for nothing and a re-run of John Kerry and the type of candidacy that will get destroyed in November.

    Hillary has been making the point over and over again that his candidacy is simply a speech given in 2002 of his anti-war stance and since then, he has been entirely void on substantive issues.

    Parent

    But I think people just want to know (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:31:27 AM EST
    Which pro-choice forces he's talking about?

    Which ones of us have refused to acknowledge wrenching morals issues involved in it?

    Parent

    Edgar, you keep asking the same question (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:45:37 AM EST
    over and over. I'll make it easy for you. Some people consider abortion a wrenching moral decision and some don't. I don't buy into the notion that it must always be enmeshed in morality. I consider it to be a -- possibly -- difficult personal choice, depending on the circumstances, but not necessarily a difficult moral issue for every woman who has an abortion.

    If that bothers you, so sorry. Obviously, it bothers Obama to the point where he feels the need to pander to the "pro-lifers". But, frankly, I don't give a frack what he thinks of my right to make my own choices and whether morality is an issue for me. It's none of his business.  

    Parent

    Thanks for making it so easy (none / 0) (#221)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:47:15 AM EST
    For an idiot like me.


    Parent
    Further, to the specifics (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:08:32 AM EST
    of your query, I think he's referring directly to groups like NARAL -- single-issue groups that unconditionally support a woman's right to choose abortion. Maybe he's also referring to Planned Parenthood, for that matter, although PP supports and offers health information and services for all reproductive choices, including, but certainly not limited to, abortion. These groups offer medical services, not religion. Maybe that's Obama's problem. Maybe he really just wants faith-based family planning, like GWB.

    And once again, I'm not interested in his personal, political or religious problems with those groups. I don't agree with every single public statement or action NARAL makes (they have pandered too, eg. supporting Lieberman in the 2006 Conn. Senate primary). But I'd rather have NARAL in my corner than Obama. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts, I pretty much know where NARAL stands. Conversely, when it comes to my reproductive rights I don't trust Obama as far as I can spit.

    Parent

    you are blind (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    if you do not see this as pandering at best and a nod and a wink at worst to anti-choice voters.  He's letting them know that he speaks their language.  The man will say anything to get a vote, and this just proves it.

    I keep waiting for him to start talking about the 'wonder working power.'

    This is just disgusting.  (And, Stellaaa, thank you again for your insightful posts tonight)

    Parent

    I don't believe he's pandering. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    I think Obama is as pro-choice as can be.  

    What knocks me out is that he believes he can win pro-life votes by merely emphasizing that abortion is a difficult decision.   They're not that gullible.

    Parent

    what do you base this opinion on? (none / 0) (#137)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:56:46 PM EST
    just because I would like to know why you think Obama is as pro-choice as can be.

    Parent
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    ...of course, Senator Bayh supported the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Act.  His support of Senator Clinton goes unnoticed in this sphere, at least on this issue, because it is inconvenient.  Politics is politics.    

     I don't like talking about abortion.  I'll admit it.  I think that abortion is a difficult decision and one that I am thankful I never have to confront.  As a man (and especially as a gay man) I don't need to think about it on any personal level...until it affects my friends.  

     I do have friends who have had abortions.  I also have a close friend who had an abortion when we were both students in undergrad.  I think the vast majority of people who are pro-choice think it is an incredibly difficult decision.  I also have friends who are vehemently opposed to abortion.  Hell, I have friends who are opposed to gay rights.  Our friendships are not dependent on agreement, and it never stops me from trying to persuade them.

     I don't think Senator Obama was attacking pro-choice voters.  His words were carefully chosen, and this is a politician we are talking about.  He discussed pro-choice "forces," and he was certainly taking aim at some (probably not all, it was too vague) abortion rights groups.  And some of those groups do indeed downplay the struggles women have when deciding to abort, and they do so not only because of politics, because conservatives stigmatize it, but also because it is an existential decision.  And I do not believe we win the debate by running away from that.

    what the h*ll (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:37:33 PM EST
    does Bayh have to do with anything?  Clinton can't stand on her own and make her own decisions?  She's malleable to the whims of the men in her life?  Give me a break.  

    It is not the job of the person seeking the democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States to have a public, philosophical discussion on the "morality"-or lack thereof-of abortion.  He was not sipping pinot and sampling cheeses of the world with his professor friends in the front parlor of his million dollar mansion. He was delivering a speech in public to the people whose votes he seeks.  It is his job to stand up and assure all democrats that he supports a core tenet of the democratic platform, which is that women have a legal and moral right to abortion.  For such a public figure, a public representative of the democratic party, to vacillate, sends a dangerous message that we can be broken.

    If he wants to pull this equivocating, wishy washy crap, then maybe he should run as an independent or see if Nader has a VP opening.  

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    ...because presumably the job of a candidate for the presidency of the United States is to win over, and represent, people outside of their political party.  If it isn't, there is no argument to be made that electability should be the criteria.  

     Kathy, I referred to Senator Bayh because we cannot have tunnel vision during this campaign.  Senator Obama is not George Bush Jr and Senator Clinton is not Clinton Deux.  Senator Lugar is not a progressive either.

     I also resent the implication that this is about gender.  You can't play the gender card every time Senator Obama's supporters mention a male supporter of Senator Clinton.    

    Parent

    One of my problems with Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    that, for all this blather about unity and coming together, when he is talking to a specific group, he cannot seem to be able to communnicate with them without belittling or condescending or tsk-tsk-ing about the beliefs or views of some other group.

    So, when he talks to the elite, he condescends to the great unwashed, so the message to the elite is: I'm one of you.

    When he talks to those who are opposed to a woman's right to choose, he belittles those who take a pro-choice position as not being able to really understand the magnitude of it all.

    Does he think we can't hear what he's saying?  And does he think we aren't offended?  

    This man is an empty suit with an emptier soul.

    Parent

    What Pro-Choice forces (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:29:17 AM EST
    Do you think he was referring to?

    That's what I'd like to know.


    Parent

    association fallacy.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:48:00 PM EST
    Bayh|=Clinton

    Parent
    That was not... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07:14 PM EST
    ...what I was saying, and you know it.

     Please do not resort to dishonesty.  I am talking about their supporters.  I never equated the two, I said (honestly) that it was all about politics.  Your attack is unfounded.

    Parent

    Not dishonest... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    But the point you're trying to make doesn't work without the association factor.

    He supports Clinton. But that doesn't mean they agree on each and every issue. It doesn't mean that she supports his position on the so-called "partial birth" legislation.

    For all we  know, they could be polar opposites on this but completely together on the bigger picture of pro-choice for women.

    And I didn't attack you.

    Parent

    So then... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    ...you agree that Senator Obama is not opposed to abortion rights just because he reached out to pro-life groups?

     Because, after all, Senator Clinton's support from Senator Bayh does not mean she is opposed to "partial birth" abortion...right? On the record and everything?

     

    Parent

    Reaching out? (none / 0) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49:43 PM EST
    He didn't just "reach out" with this statement.

    He adopted the standard "pro-life/morality" frame that's part and parcel of the anti-choice construct and then implied that pro-choicers were somehow lacking in a moral compass because we do not "acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it."

    That's crap with intent to pander a la straw man arguments.

    What does he know about this and whether or not I have wrangled with the "moral issues" involved in abortion?

    Parent

    Hmm.ll (none / 0) (#186)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:57:46 PM EST
    Bayh supports Clinton as the GE candidate.

    Not the other way around.

    If you're looking to hang a noose around every candidate supporter I suggest you start with Donna Brazile.

    To quote Cher from Clueless:

    As if.

    Parent

    He says himself "nobody is pro-abortion" (none / 0) (#192)
    by katiebird on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:17:36 AM EST
    His statement is wrong.  Some of us are pro abortion.

    Apparently he is not.

    So is it unreasonable that some of us wonder if that statement is an early indication that he's moving toward opposition to abortion rights?

    He's the one who said it.  What did he mean?

    Parent

    I just love it when men weigh in on this issue. (none / 0) (#121)
    by vicsan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    IMCPO, if you don't have a uterus or a womb, it's none of your business what a woman CHOOSES to do with her body. Period, end of subject.

    THIS scares me to death (from above post):

    [T]he reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose."

    What is he saying here? Is he saying he WON'T fight them? This man cannot be President! I do NOT trust him.....and just for the sake of argument, Mr. Hope,  abortion is a good thing sometimes and how would YOU know it's not...being a man who would never have to have one? What a pandering, FRIGHTENING fool he is.

    I commend you on at least saying its (none / 0) (#168)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
    pandering about time people got sensible and reallized all three candidates are no greater then the others and ARE ALL just trying to get elected.  While I support Obama I never forget that the game is played this way.

    Parent
    We regular people (none / 0) (#123)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EST
    are not high enough on the evolutionary ladder to earn Obama's respect.
    He's really truly arrogant.

    I was turned off by his preaching months ago. He's a preacher who, like the pied piper, has spirited off half the progressives.

    Whoa.... didn't Obama make some (none / 0) (#164)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:29:46 PM EST
    comment a few weeks ago about how he would want his daughter to have an abortion, to avoid ruining her life? That's a very rough paraphrase, sorry.. anyone know the quote I'm thinking of?

    Is this just an admission... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    ...that abortion should be a political football, used as one likes?

     Let me be clear: You cannot condemn Senator Obama for this comment AND his comments about the pro-"life" movement.  One must choose.  This site has chosen a politically convenient position, but that is not the only one available.

    Parent

    I'm criticizing him for making BOTH, because (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49:18 PM EST
    it's going to take superhuman WORM efforts to make him appear anything but a very awkward panderer with  the conciliatory remarks about pro-life groups.

    Parent
    People are equating this statement with (none / 0) (#172)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:35:00 PM EST
    condemnation of the right to choose.  And the statement you mentioned that he has no respect for life.  You just can't please everyone especially in a Pro Clinton blog.

    Parent
    Obama sez "baby=punishment" (none / 0) (#175)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM EST
    at least where his daughter is concerned.
    Another "special" comment from Obama

    Obama's Real position on Abortion... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ytterbius on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:41 AM EST
    All of this manufactured rage against Obama because of this statement could use a bit of reference.

    Here is Obama's Record on Choice.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

    Get real, people.

    Thanks.

    While we're setting the record straight... LGBT (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ytterbius on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:27:20 AM EST
    Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church, obviously where Obama goes to church are supportive of LGBT Issues, as is Obama himself.

    http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17266

    He's at it again. (none / 0) (#208)
    by unclekracker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:06 AM EST
    He just keeps alienating more and more groups.

    Whether or not they are still going to tolerate it is the bigger question:

    http://tinyurl.com/4s5v2q

    Comments Over 200, Thread Closed (none / 0) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:58:46 AM EST


    Obama Pontificating on Abortion and more.... (none / 0) (#225)
    by SunnyLC on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/3je55z

    These have been an unsettling few days courtesy Obama's big mouth and ego.

    He started out with his pontificating on the subject of abortion. Using GOP framing, of course. This has been fully discussed over at The Confluence, so I won't rehash all the problems with Obama's statements here. But, dissing pro-choice folks by insinuating that ALL of them haven't been willing to "acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it" is completely inaccurate and demeaning. Declaring that "That nobody is pro-abortion, abortion is never a good thing" is another sweeping statement that doesn't consider the very real heath concerns of women and the tragedies played out in the deaths of women who have been denied proper medical care. I recall a friend of mine who had an ectopic pregnancy...she was rushed to the nearest hospital, which happened to be a Catholic institution. Denied care there, she was then rushed to a public hospital where she had surgery that saved her life. I'm sure she and her husband considered that procedure to be a good thing.

    MORE  
    Part of the overall assessment entitled:

    Obama: Big Ego, Big Mouth, Big Trouble = Unity Ticket??  (I'm not so sure....)
    http://tinyurl.com/3je55z