Will McCain Go After Hillary's Female Voters?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake today asks whether John McCain will make a pitch for Hillary's female supporters if Obama is the nominee.

I spoke with a well-known pollster recently who said that if women think the country would be safer with McCain over Obama by 10 points on election day, she predicts that McCain will win. While it's absurd to think that McCain would be better than Obama on women's issues, these kinds of decisions are -- as Krugman says -- highly emotional. A pitch to "security moms," combined with an appeal about "elitists in the Democratic party" looking down their noses on working class women just might work.

I hope McCain fails in his bid for women voters, should Obama be the nominee. It's the last thing Hillary would want. And, Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including anti-choice Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

Any Democrat is better than what John McCain is offering. Given McCain's age, his selection of a VP candidate will be very telling. I suspect it will be someone that can bring him evangelical and ultra-conservative votes. That makes his candidacy twice as dangerous.

Yet, Jane's post is correct that Obama's nomination poses big electability challenges for Democrats in November.

The answer, to me, is simple: The nomination is still a two way race. Superdelegates can still pick the more electable Democrat among not only women voters but older, rural and blue collar voters as well. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [More...]

Jane ends with:

.... Does Obama try to go after the white male vote and shore up his military bona fides with Jim Webb? Webb's "Women Can't Fight" article will no doubt be resurrected. Does Obama try to help himself with Latino voters by picking Bill Richardson? Well, Richardson has notorious women problems (most recently his "Whizzer White" gaffe) that will come back to haunt him. Either choice leaves a huge opening for McCain to make a move.

Hell, if Obama can go after fundamentalist voters, there's no reason for McCain not to court the ladies.

There are commenters here who say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I think they are wrong, and I hope they change their mind if Hillary is not the nominee. For every minute spent unproductively insulting Obama or vowing to support McCain, they could be writing about why Florida and Michigan need to count or helping Hillary make phone calls in MT, SD or promoting her efforts in Puerto Rico or letting superdelegates know why they think Hillary has a better chance in November.

The race isn't over. Let's stop the post-mortem and like Hillary, see it through. An uphill battle does not mean defeat. It means you try harder.

Comments now closed.

< Castro Criticizes Obama's Planned Cuba Policy | More On Unity, Krugman, Obama And FL/MI >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I just hope HIllary takes it all the way to (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    the convention because those SD can change their minds up until then....

    Yes, she can! (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    And, hey, Jeralyn, some of us can multi-task.  I complain about Obama while I call PR, MT and SD, just like I complained about him while I called all the other states.  I also managed to rail on about FL and MI in the meantime.

    But, the important message here is that Clinton is still in it to win it.  This thing is not over--that is why I spend as much time a day as I can calling for our girl and sending hate mail to Howard Dean.


    I am tired of being told that the blood (5.00 / 23) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    of our nation will be on MY hands if I don't suport Obama.

    Here's my take:  "We're not buying it. YOU all have a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate.  But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.

    So if there's any blood on anyone's hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.

    I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney's BTW...but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day...again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again.  AND IT'S NOT BARACK OBAMA.

    You still have a choice and a chance.  Take it.  Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009."

    Me too, sick to death of it (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    What the heck, half of Obama's supporters told me that my family eats Iraqi blood for breakfast everyday - even though their boy didn't do anything "real" about ending the Iraq War either.  It's all my fault.  I might as well have some of the blood of my nation on my hands too and have that be all my fault too.  What difference does any of it make anymore?  It's just more bull.

    Yes, please stop trying to take my rights (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    hostage.  I hate the armegeddon arguments because I feel they are perilously close to the threats of BO supporters to riot at the convention.  It does not persuade me in the least.

    I won't vote for McCain because he's antichoice and that's a threshold issue for me.  However, I was reading up on McCain's bio the other day, and it impresses me (note I say bio, not policies).

    Although this argues against my own interests, I think McCain stands a decent chance to win over a lot of women.  Many women care about reproductive rights but it's not their primary issue.  Obama can't play the victim card because being tortured wins over 'Hillary called me a bad name".  McCain has served his country, Obama has not.  

    The Republicans will trot out the tax and spend liberal thing again (I didn't think it would work in 2004, it's such a tired scheme but it did) against Obama and he little to fight it with.  When the economy gets bad, people get scared, and promises of tax cuts, however bad in the long term, sound very attractive in the short term.


    I also truly resent BO's "Sweetie" (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    comment - A LOT.

    He was smary.  It rolled off his tongue too easily.  It was demeaning.  And he even admits that "he has to work on that" a bit.

    But that's not good enough for me...apparently he promised his wife he would stop smoking but it was reported yesterday that he reeked of smoke when he rolled off a campaign bus the other day in PR.

    IMHO, he reeks from a lot more than the smell of smoke.


    Yes...his saying "Sweetie" ... (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    was a mistake.  But not enough of one to not vote for him...unless you are looking for an excuse.

    Add it to everything else and it becomes (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    a tipping point.

    Tipping Point? (none / 0) (#246)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    None of the flock that descended on TL starting around February have tipped. All were well tipped when they arrived and have rhythmically fainted in unison at every perceived slight.

    I have to laugh when one of them says, now I really am never going to vote for Obama, as if that were somehow different from the first comments they ever wrote here.


    Guilty, as charged (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:25:14 PM EST
    I came to this site at a point where I thought I was going insane because of all the overtly misogynist stuff that was going on. And nobody seemed to see it.

    So I am grateful to TL.

    I also hope to be weaning myself away from it.

    Since it's clear to me, anyway, that BHO will be the candidate, regardless of the will-of-the-people or anything else, I'm going to sit out the next few elections.  

    Time to return to my own rather interesting life -- interesting, especially, for someone the BHO afficionados have discarded as a whore, a biddy, a frightened old woman, etc.


    I'm shaking the magic eightball and......... (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    it says "of course".  Easy pickins after this media mysogyny carnival.

    i agree with you and i agree with jane (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    that obama has serious electability problems, and i agree with you that for all his shortcomings there is no comparison between obama and mccain on the issues. i presume most hillary supporters prefer her because of her more substantive, wonkier focus on issues. but anyone focused on issues has to understand that there is no comparison between obama and mccain. it is imperative that we elect a democrat to the white house, this november. where i disagree with you is on hillary's viability for the nomination. i agree with most of your arguments about why the superdelegates should consider her, but i no longer think it plausible that enough will.

    Here's (5.00 / 10) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    the problem a lot of us have with voting for Obama: It would be validating the sleaze that has oozed from his campaign.

    Besides, I'm at the point that it's obvious Obama has severe electability problems and is very likely to lose in Nov. If the DNC and the superdelegates don't care enough about these issues to put up a candidate who has a chance against McCain why should I? I really think that the DNC doesn't want to win this election. Truly.


    How on earth can you tell (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    where Obama stands on the issues?  His basic are a secret, as far as I can tell.  What issues will he stand and fight for?  How do you know?

    The issues that there is evidence about, such as his energy policies and his attitudes toward social programs, I find his views extremely troubling to me.


    Sorry, that should have been (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    his basic principles are secret.

    I have problems (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    with this too.  I really don't know what he stands for.  His positions change with the wind.  

    But my number one reason I can't bring myself to vote for him is his inexperience.  Even now, we don't really have much of a voting record to look at, even if you consider all the times he voted "Present."  

    McCain does have a long and respectable bio and I trust he would never do anything to harm his country.  With a Democratic House and Senate, I'd expect to see more bipartisan issues taken care of on his watch.  


    "Imperative" that we elect a Democrat? (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    What if that Democrat was Joe Lieberman?  Or Zell Miller?  

     I'm sorry, but I no longer buy this argument that we "have" to elect a Democrat NO MATTER WHO the Democrat happens to be.

    BO is still a blank slate, an inexperienced empty suit.  I'm not AT ALL convinced that he would be better for the country than McCain, and I'm not going to vote for BO simply because he has a (D) after his name.

    I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that Hillary Clinton would be better for the country than McCain, and will vote accordingly.


    Except...Joe Lieberman is an Independent... (none / 0) (#185)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    Not a Democrat.

    Well said (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    The race isn't over. Let's stop the post-mortem and like Hillary, see it through. An uphill battle does not mean defeat. It means you try harder.

    Paradox (5.00 / 14) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    There is a paradox, there are so many in this election that I cannot handle them all.  This paradox usually goes like this:  Gender should not be an issue and you should not vote on gender lines.  But, when it comes to the GE, you must vote for Obama cause you women, have no choice.  Do, people understand how that is bothersome?  

    Well, then it means that the Democratic majority in Congress will have to earn their keep.  

    and we are to assume because obama has (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    the democratic mantle that he will support women? his record on judges isn't stellar. what has he done for women? vote for me because i am not bush won't win the election.

    it is a sorry state we have allowed ourselves to get into. we need to thank the dnc, pelsoi, dean, and brazile for their help by booting them out of leadership positions. there is a reason why the democratic congress has lower approval ratings than bush. we elected them to help us. have they?


    I absolutely (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Claw on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    See how the mention of the threat to Roe is bothersome, annoying, and seems like blackmail.  The thing is that Roe is just one of many, many decisions that would be overturned or harmed by a republican president.  We JUST WANT A DEMOCRAT.  And I'm afraid that those of us who think Obama is the better GE candidate use Roe as an unfortunate shorthand for the disaster that would be 12 more years of a republican whitehouse.  We shouldn't do it.  It is insulting and it isn't what the vast majority of us mean when we bring up Roe.  What we mean is that we're in very deep trouble if McCain wins.  
    And I wouldn't count on congress to do their jobs--if president McCain nominates an extremely conservative justice, they'll confirm him.  He, like Clarence Thomas, won't have formed an opinion on Roe and won't want to discuss things like the abrogation of the 4th amendment (in the unlikely event it's even brought up) for fear of effecting future cases brought before him.

    Thank you (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    At least you are sensitive to how outrageously insulting the Roe vote bullying is, unlike some of the other a**holes on this thread.

    And I agree with you - personally, I find there are lots of other issues to worry about with a highly conservative supreme court - like environmental regulation, privacy, worker's rights, etc.

    That does not mean I will vote for Obama, btw, but at least you get that women are not going to fall into line and vote for someone they don't trust JUST BECAUSE OF BUNCH OF GUYS THREATEN THEM WITH ROE.


    Really. When did he say that voters should not... (none / 0) (#64)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    cling to a specific value?  If you are referring to the comments he made in SF, he was talking about voting patterns.  To suggest otherwise is disengenuous.

    So a woman who is pro-choice... (none / 0) (#126)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    Would never vote against her own interests and pull the lever for an anti-choice candidate?  I mean, that is part of her value system, right?

    I think his point was right on, that the Republicans were able to use wedge issues (guns, immigration, religion), by putting these issues on the ballot or pushing them.  So, you have an economically depressed group voting against their wallet, but for a hot-button wedge issue.


    I can't believe that (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    this clown told you to go to Obama's website.  Jeez, we gotta get better.

    You seem to NOT understand the group he was (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:12:08 PM EST
    denigrating vote Democratic.  PA is blue. Why would he say D's are voting against their economic self-interest?  He was making excuses on why they weren't voting for him.  

    They were NOT voting against their wallet. Or at least they haven't, but if Obama is the nom, you never know.


    No, he never said voters "should" or... (none / 0) (#191)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    Should not "cling" to an issue.  Just that voters have been pushed in a direction by the GOP using wedge issues.  

    And yes, women can have many interest/issues, and if they are smart they will (like all voters) educate themselves on the candidates positions.  My suggestion is that you go to Sen Obama's website and see how his allign with yours.  They aren't that much different from Sen Clintons, BTW.


    thanks but i'll check his votes (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    and treatment of hillary out for a real indication of his positions and attitudes toward women. i suggest you do that also.

    I guess that her ill treatment of him... (none / 0) (#221)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    Makes her attitudes towards men negative?  Please tell me some votes of his that have shown a poor attitude towards women.

    first of all she hasn't mistreated him. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    go do your own homework.

    Sure she hasn't... (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM EST
    "As far as I know".

    Using Republican talking points calling him elitist after the SF fundraiser...

    Not the best way to set up a fellow Dem who will be the nominee.


    your hypocrisy leaves me breathless. (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    ahem.... (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    His vote for Thomas B Griffith.  Hello? hello?

    A few posters on here are not... (none / 0) (#225)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:29:15 PM EST
    The "Obama Camp".  Believe me, I don't have such an inflated sense of importance.

    I understand not wanting to see abortion as a wedge issue, I don't think he has.  But the folks who have concerns about it think it is important; I know I do.


    If in fact McCain wins the GE, (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    won't a Dem controlled Congress, in numbers higher than today, make his Presidency impotent?  And how does that effect 2012?

    Great question. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    A democratic congress with (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    McCain as President might work out well, if the Dems stand up to him.

    Yeah, that's a joke.


    Your point is well taken. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    Dems received a mandate in '06 and did NOTHING!  Well, with more numbers, maybe there's hope.

    I expect McCain to be more (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    bipartisan and cooperative than Bush, although that's not saying much

    There's a campaign slogan for him (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    Vote for Obama cause the Dems in Congress are cowardly weasels

    That would be a big seller  :-)


    We really need to make sure (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    Pelosi is not put back in the Speaker position.

    It isn't just the office... (none / 0) (#52)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    If a Republican gets elected to the White House, all of the Bush/Cheney imperial presidential powers (to ignore congress, to violate the constitution, to be unbelievably secretive) will become established precedent.

    I prefer Clinton, but that's one potential advantage to Obama--he would probably lose many of the claimed presidential authorities that Bush/Cheney have, and cede them back to Congress (and the Courts).


    I disagree with you, but (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    what makes you think he will?

    I doubt it (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    It is very, very difficult for someone in power, even someone with real integrity, to give up any part of that power voluntarily.

    I have seen nothing in Obama that would indicate he's a person of integrity.

    Heck, even Bill Clinton (who I love) didn't voluntarily hand back the power that shifted to the Executive in the previous 12 years, for the most part.  I'm not even sure Hillary (also love) would do it, I just believe, based on her actions, she would use it wisely.  Obama doesn't have a similarly positive record on that score.


    McCain started talking about (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    restoring the balance of powers.  He's already said he would not issue any "signing statements" because they are an attempt to overturn the will of the congress.  From a balance of powers standpoint, I don't see much wrong with him other than in the realm of foreign policy where he seems to hold to the GOP line of presidential prerogative.

    Obama Is Trying To Consolidate All Dem Funds (4.60 / 10) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    under his brand and is trying to dry up the funds to outside activist groups. If he controls the money and the message, he can use this additional power for good or ill as he choses. If he is trying to gain this much power over the Dem money and organization, why should I just assume that he will relinquish any executive powers?

    Who cares about Obama's $$$$? (none / 0) (#114)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    Hillary is still winning votes despite the $$$.  McCain won his nomination despite the $$$.  Tell Obama to give some to Kenya.

    Kenya? (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    I guess it's time for racial/ethnic slurs.

    Thay may have been a bit rude, (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    but you get my point.

    Well, except for appointing all the new (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    Fed judges.  Do those have to meet congressional approval or does he just get to have it his way?

    Advice and consent of the Senate. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    California in June weather (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:25:45 PM EST
     well, the fog has started here in the Bay Area.  Rats.  
    Story for you to feed my, California not so sure theory.  Today, a young person I know his grandpa, 90+ years never voted for a Republican in his life, will vote for one this time.  Why?  Cause the MSM and everyone are picking on his people from Appalachia and the other places they came from.  This is the California everyone is taking for granted.  Yep, Grapes of Wrath people are here and they have an allegiance.  

    i just asked the question what has the (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    dem congress done for us. i have very real concerns they won't be that much help to us no matter who is president. sad to say

    No (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    A Democratic controlled Congress will not stop a doggedly persistent right-wing ideologue.

    Because the presidency has a huge amount of power, and the media and Congress have to be willing to take enormous risks to stop a determined president from using that power.

    For example, why has a Democratic Congress not been able to defund the war?

    Why did the press willingly spread blatant lies in order to aid Bush's march to war against Iraq?

    So I think it's an extremely important elections and that is why I am so disheartened by the primary process and Obama's tin-ear when it comes to issues like seating FL and MI and reaching, if not to Hillary, at the very least to Hillary's constituency.


    Losing Democratic "Security Moms" (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Exeter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    to Bush in 2004 cost Kerry the election in 2004.

    I knew we were doomed... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    ... in 2004 when the Beslan (sp?) happend.

    I'm a member of a few email lists, about 100-150 women total, all mothers, from various backgrounds etc.

    I saw women who voted for Gore in 00 move towards Bush after September 11th, but there was still some residual loyalty towards Dems that would have been votes for Kerry had not Beslan happened. These are the Dem security moms and it was so crystal clear even as it was happening (as opposed to hindsight). Women who really thought that Bush would keep their children safe from something like that.

    What is sad is that those women are not coming back, over all. They still worry about choice, but less than about security.

    Obama will not get those women. Clinton might, based on what I'm hearing, in large part because they all did trust Bill Clinton, but also because she is a woman. Obama? Ain't gonna happen.


    and winning security moms back in 06 (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    by running Blue Dogs is what got a Democratic majority back in Congress. So why does it make sense to turn their backs on them now? I don't get it.

    McCain will definitely win security moms (and dads) this fall, especially if Olbermann treats us to one of his classic, "You, madams and sirs, are racists!" rants.

    Seriously, McCain has a great story, a long history of distinguished service, and a wealth of practical political experience. I'm sure we've all heard people of various ideologies in our lives say this: "Well, if McCain wins, I won't be so upset; at least he's not one of those crazy Republicans."

    That's the perception out there. And that perception is going to translate into more votes for the experienced old guy over the young, inexperienced guy with some very questionable associations and close connections to classic "America-hating" leftists. That's just reality.

    If Obama is the nominee, McCain will be the next president. I cannot believe that the DNC doesn't know this.


    i don't look for the things that got out (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    in this campaign sort of like pandora's box to go quietly back. the groups that want theirs won't be quiet. don't count on it. that is not going to help. you have groups threatening to riot in denver. that didn't help in 68. there will be a lot of division that will turn any voters off and part of that group are the women voters. as i said already it is his job to win us back if he can. i personally don't think he will try that hard. we have already been told we aren't needed as you recall.

    Frankly, I don't see female Hillary supporters (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    falling all over each other to vote obama.  Many will vote downticket and leave top spot blank.  In my estimation, obama cannot be trusted.  If we have a large majority in congress, we can dilute McCain's power.

    let's not set it up to beat up on hillary and (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    women if obama loses. he will lose based on his abililities. it has been his to lose and frankly many decisons his campaign has made says "i don't care about you" to me. bitters, we don't need or want you. blah, blah, blah! this is obama's problem. it is his job TO CONVINCE US AND NOT FOR OTHERS TO TELL US WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

    It's already set up that way (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    They are doing it every day on the news--Clinton and her stupid women supporters.  "What can you do about them?"  We are going to be ridiculed and vilified after an Obama loss because it will clearly be all our fault.  Which raises the question: can someone name me anything that has ever been Obama's fault?  The man is pretty perfect.  I just can't understand why McCain hasn't already dropped out.

    Thank God Clinton is still in.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!  We need you!


    Big deal (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by hlr on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    We are going to be ridiculed and vilified after an Obama loss

    I dare, no, double dare, the next Dem nominee to be part of the ridiculing and vilifying.


    Anti-McCain argument isn't enough (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    I won't vote for McCain under any circumstances. But my vote isn't the issue. I know plenty of women who have been disaffected by the process and vow not to vote for Obama.

    The one thing that could hold their vote is Obama inviting Clinton to join the ticket in the VP slot.

    Women, older women especially, and a portion of non-African American working class whites have felt disempowered and disenfranchised by the way the primary season has been handled by the Democratic leadership.

    Especially here in MA, where our two senators have been strong Obama backers, but the primary vote went heavily in favor of Clinton.

    Obama and the Democratic leadership must offer some incentive and invitation to this group of voters--a significant portion of the Democratic base--to assure a victory in November.

    So far I see much more divisive behavior and rhetoric on their part than unifying. If this doesn't change quickly, the Democrats are in danger of losing the presidency.

    So threats of Supreme Court nominations are just not enough.

    What is Obama going to DO for these voters, beyond being the not-McCain? That is the question I'd like to see answered.

    Good point (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    On one hand we have a person who is arguably the most prepared to be president in modern American history.

    On the other hand we have... someone who MAY not overturn roe vs. Wade (if his assistants tell him not to vote for a right wing judge at the last minute, that is).

    What is wrong with people???

    I don't know if I won't vote for Obama... it depends on his cabinet now. I've said before, If I see a room full of Daschles in there, there's no way he's getting my vote.

    Sometime incompetence can be worse than being evil.


    Obama's first general election mistake... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:32:15 PM EST
    ...would be to snub Clinton (assuming he gets the nomination).

    Once Edwards dropped out, I though a Clinton/Obama ticket would be very strong.  Clinton's experience would get a broken government back in line, and VP Obama would get valuable experience to succeed Clinton.  That's 16 years of democratic leadership...WITH congress too!

    Still, Obama/Clinton would be alright.

    Clinton is smart and strong.  If she doesn't get the nomination, and doesn't get something (VP, senate majority, who knows), then I'll be convinced she got screwed by the party.


    I'm already convinced of that. (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    then I'll be convinced she got screwed by the party.

    I don't think this is exactly fair. (5.00 / 17) (#20)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    I won't vote for McCain, but I have all but lost my alligiance for the Dem Party.  Here's why.  Here is the first viable women for the Presidency ever.  And, while the media and often Obama himself used gender against her, the DNC and Dem leaders were silent.  This isn't just voting for Kerry becuase he's better than the alternative.  This is a lot of women who feel A)Hillary is best qualified by far to be President, and B)Hillary has been the recipient of unvarnished sexism from all corners while the Party stood by largely silent, except to insist she should quit.

    And a lot of men! (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    Not only is Hillary viable, she's qualified.  Is Barack?

    bingo! (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    that's the big question for the voters.

    Men too! (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    This is a lot of women who feel A)Hillary is best qualified by far to be President, and B)Hillary has been the recipient of unvarnished sexism from all corners while the Party stood by largely silent, except to insist she should quit.

    Even hampered by our more limited abilities to perceive such nuances, some of us men feel the same way.  



    McCain is already wooring (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    CLinton supporters.  He is the one defending her against Obama campaign tactics.

    Yeah, why is McCain wooing (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    Clinton supporters while Obama continues to dismiss and ignore them?

    It is almost as if Obama wants to lose the general election.


    Its not spite (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    It will be fear that causes people to vote for McCain rather than Obama. I am a man. I've listened to Obama long enough to know that he isn't proposing anything but a sing-a-long. Thats a very dangerous place to be when our country is faced with so many very complex problems. I heard Obama praising Donald Rumsfield before that video was disappeared. How's that for judgement. Its the old Chicago olitics that I'm familiar with that really scares the bejeezus out of me though and Obama is a product of that. As for John McCain. He is an American patriot that will put our country and its people first and he is not a puppet of the far right although he may use them to get elected, he would do what's right for the country. This is not the time for an experiment although GE (MSNBC/NBC)(war profiteer) would love for us to continue as-is.

    The Best I Can Do At The Moment (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    is I'll see. I know McCain will try and put a conservative justice on the SCOTUS. I am just not convinced that Obama will put a pro-life justice on the court. If McCain nominates a conservative justice there is a slim chance that the Dems will block the nomination. OTOH if Obama nominates a pro-life candidate, the Dems will approve the nomination.

    Obama has from now until November to provide detailed information on what he will do if he obtains the WH.  Bloggers or other politicians won't convince me that he has a commitment to issues I care about. He will have to do it.

    Sandra Day Obama (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    That's pretty much what / who he is to corporate media interests. Just as Reagan thought that nominating a conservative judge who was a woman would bypass a lot of otherwise skeptical criticism, so too the corporate media believes that having a person who will not stand in their way be TEH FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT OMG will be as disarming.

    Figurehead. Trojan Horse. Puppet. Call it what you will. There will be a lot of disappointed people in Obama by 2010, moreso than would be disappointed in a November loss.


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    HE will have to do it.  Women are now a special interest group in the election; he needs to come out hard with the Dem stances that make us vote Dem, and he also needs to show he understands how frustrating this election has been for women.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if McCain did overtly go after women voters; how would the Obama campaign respond?  Would they run an attack ad?  What would they do?


    Whew...I couldn't make it all the way through (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    the comments. I used to love FDL. Those posters think Sebelious is all Obama has to do to satisfy the Clinton supporters. That would only make it worse.

    Tokenism won't work. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    Gosh, are the posters there women?

    Some say they are "feminists" and don't (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:28:29 PM EST
    understand why women see Hillary as deserving of that title.

    Sorry for the spelling of Sebelius. That would anger me beyond control. I don't really want to see Hillary as VP but I don't want to see the first female in that position do nothing to earn it. Plus, she's not my kind of Democrat. I'd take her here in Tennessee but we don't have to settle for that nationally.


    Cnn called her the (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    "darling of the dem party" another ugh!

    I for one will (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by camellia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    have to think very hard before I will vote for Obama--the abuse that has come from his supporters against Hillary and anyone who supports her could have been stopped by him at any point.  Silence gives consent, it is said.

    And I do NOT think that she should accept the VP slot on the ticket.  She would be signing on for four years of humiliation, not to mention the vituperation that would come from his ratpack.  But -- as a Virginia resident who worked very hard to get Jim Webb into the Senate, I sincerely hope he doesn't take our Dem senator away from us.

    disagree about VP (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    Clinton could be an important VP.  Just look at the Cheney/Bush dynamic.

    Granted, I'd rather she get the President position, but Clinton is good enough and connected enough to push through a large agenda.


    A small anecdote. (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    I'll fast forward through the family history of Dad being less than the perfect father and husband.  We'll just go to one Christmas.  Dad was working an extra part time job and was supposed to come home Christmas Morning after a third shift at a gas station.  He didn't show.  We were supposed to go to his father's house for Christmas Dinner that afternoon.  We did, without him.  He arrived an hour late - he had gone to dinner with his extramarital girl friend at her parents.

    My mother was upset, to put it mildly.  While she sat in the kitchen being consoled by her sisters-in-law, her father-in-law came in and told her that she should forgive his son because it was her duty as a wife.  It was the perfect illustration of what women are expected to do.  Not only was she expected to accept a multitude of insults and humiliations quietly, but to forgive the transgressor without even the courtesy of an apology.  

    That's where I am coming from.  Women demand so little.  Acknowledge our particular issues.  Make those issues a national priority.  Treat us with respect and dignity.  If you disrespect us, apologize.  Do not take us for granted.  Do not expect us to submit quietly out of some sense of duty.


    had to talk him out of it because it might not look so good if he ran for, you know, President.

    He wants women to talk to their families and their pastors about choice, not trusting them to make up their silly little heads by themselves.

    Besides all the rest of the things that are wrong with him, this guy is no friend to women.

    I'd love to be able to vote Dem. I always have.  I thought I always would.

    But the more his supporters try to use Roe v. Wade to bludgeon me into submission, the more I want to take my car keys, some money, and escape just as fast as I can.

    [I just got back from FDL -- I couldn't believe the tone there. Feh.  This is not a party I am part of anymore.]

    McCain VP (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    Also important is that McCain's VP may end up serving out a term for him. McCain has both known health problems, probable health problems due to his captivity, and his age. I suspect his VP may be very important in that he may be running the show.

    It is a shame that our likely nominee is so unqualified and that misogyny is alive and well in the blogosphere and the DNC and media. Not what I hoped for in our country.

    Or she. He could run with Kay Bailey. (none / 0) (#47)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    Hey - maybe McCain will pick Hillary. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    He certainly seems to have more respect for her.

    HA, then McCain and Obama have something (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    in common. The only way I'd ever vote for either of them is if Hillary is on the ticket.

    McCain doesn't scare me. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    Not with a Dem controlled Congress.  Obama scares me.  I think of Carter and how long it took for Dems to win the Presidency afterward.

    the Carter analogy haunts me. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    Carter is a great individual, but was a lousy president.  He was elected in the wake of Watergate and Republican self-destruction.

    Carter was elected as an agent of change (sound familiar), but it takes more than something new to actually get change done.

    (besides, the first Clinton was real change...away from Reagan/Bush...Iran/Contra...trickle-down economics...record deficit.   I'd like some more of THAT kind of change!)


    obama scares me also. (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    there was so much more that has come out from rev wright, rezki. michelle's attitude that leave me asking "just who is this man"? if i feel that way, rest assured others do also.

    now that would be interesting. (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    i look for the gov of louisana to get serious consideration.

    The weird thing is, (none / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    in SUSA polls, McCain vastly improves his performance mainly with Huckabee.  


    McCain:  39  Obama:  48  
    McCain/Huck:  39  Obama/Edwards:  51  
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Sebelius:  42
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Rendell:  40
    (and this is the most amusing:)
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Hagel:  41

    Ya don't beat a Republican with a Republican.

    Ohio Polls

    Apparently, the thought Huckabee could be President does not actually scare the sh*t out of people the way I would HOPE.  What is the deal here?  Is it base motivation, or what?  Obviously, the number of undecided voters is great in all these polls.


    The problem. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    It's not going to be good enough for Obama, or anyone else, to simply state that he, Obama, is not McCain, that argument alone wont hold water. Obama is going to have to come up with some very good reasons as to why people should vote for him. Those arguments better not be of  the "be afraid" if I don't win variety either.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    unfortunately, (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    your position on McCain vs Obama is not helped by people who say they despise (former) democrats who plan to sit out this election.  Democracy trumps the DNC for some people.  Besides, I'm one of those racists folks from Appalachia, you know.  (And anyone who knows Appalachia knows we don't take kindly to threats.)

    I disagree with (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:31:41 PM EST
    And, Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including pro-life Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

    First "revenge" would have very little to do with those Democrats that will not vote Obama.

    Second the SCOTUS issue has been used over and over by both parties as a wrench to threaten voters. But things are not so simple and that argument won't work.

    The SCOTUS confirmation is up to Congress and for once we should make Congress accountable and demand they do their jobs. Yes the Pres. nominates but it is  Congress responsability who gets confirmed. Remember Robert Bork?

    Democrats voters will vote Dems for Congress and ensure a majority.

    The US Presidency is a different issue.

    Besides (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    Obama's "heart" was with the confirmation of John Roberts. I have little faith in him on this issue.

    Kudos to Jane (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:06 PM EST
    for asking these questions, even though as some people do here, there might be those that accuse her of OMG HELPING REPUBLICANS.  And kudos to Jeralyn for her last two paragraphs.

    IMO, Obama shouldn't have problems with female voters if he makes a concerted effort to understand women of all ages and the issues that concern them.  In the GE, if he moves from rallies to townhalls, to the smaller venues that Hillary is more comfortable in, he might have more success in connecting with these people.  He needs to identify issues women care about and stick up for them.  Making 'security moms' an issue again would be McCain doing just that - identifying what women care about, safety for their families (just one of many issues) and politicizing it.  And of course if Obama is percieved as sidelining Hillary, then he will be working on thin ice with a lot of women angry at the media coverage.

    Off topic, but why did my comment... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST

    It was related to this topic, that the Obama supporters who feign hope will drive away women who see the hate expressed for Clinton.

    Because unlike (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    what you just wrote, you phrased it in site-violating manner.

    Violating how? (none / 0) (#152)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    I am serious.  I see comments that are much worse in terms of depicting Obama and others.

    All I said is that the disconnect between those who say they believe in hope, yet treat people with disdain could drive women away from Obama toward McCain.

    I believe that such conduct constitutes hatemongering in the context of the campaign.

    Sorry, but I strongly dispute that I have violated any of the rules here, and I treat people with respect.


    Hunh? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    "where the Security/Soccer moms were hiding. "

    Yes, we're all quivering in the kitchen, asking all the clever well-educated hopeful change-empowered Obamites to hit us, hit us again, for it is all our fault for being so stupid as not to toe the party line, and for burning The Chosen One's dinner.

    No, you're right, we're so wrong.  We're sorry.  We won't look at another guy.  Ever again. Promise.


    a big part of the problem (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by english teacher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    seems to me is that not all of the women who are going to vote for clinton are democrats.  i expect many women who voted for bush would vote for clinton over mccain, but not obama.  electoral politics are fought on the margins.  if mccain keeps all the women who went for bush and obama somehow manages to get all the women who went for kerry, that still does not mean an obama win.  

    so the problem is not necessarily or entirely democratic women per se.  hillary would get the votes of many women who went for bush.  obama, most likely, would not.  

    The last 2 paragraphs (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    There are commenters here who say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I think they are wrong, and I hope they change their mind if Hillary is not the nominee. For every minute spent unproductively insulting Obama or vowing to support McCain, they could be writing about why Florida and Michigan need to count or helping Hillary make phone calls in MT, SD or promoting her efforts in Puerto Rico or letting superdelegates know why they think Hillary has a better chance in November.

    The race isn't over. Let's stop the post-mortem and like Hillary, see it through. An uphill battle does not mean defeat. It means you try harder.

    of this post are excellent. I agree 100% as I continue working as much as I can for HRC's nomination.

    There's a strategy failure with Obama (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by wurman on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    It seems very clear that Sen. Obama has set out to run on his personality, character & some amorphous set of values.

    In any values contest between the Sen. Obama & the GOoPerz, the republikons generally win because USA voters are not all that anxious to support gun control, separation of church & state, and gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered civil rights.  Sen. Obama seems to be reasonably fuzzy on the 3 core issues--2 of which he very notoriously "bad-mouthed" in San Francisco.

    Often, the average USA voter will let those issues slide if other "stuff" is more important, clearly policy oriented & precisely focused on the issues--NOT the values.

    "Somebody" waves the red flag of supreme court justices.  Most observors seem to think that Sen. Obama will "keep his powder dry."  [Just exactly who keeps "threatening" the women voters, Obama supporters???]

    As crude oil climbs toward $200 a barrel, the US & world economies will go in the tank--in fact, are going in the tank.  Somebody should get Pres. Clinton's sign ["It's the economy, stupid!] & give it to Sen. Obama if he's the nominee.

    Hilary is connecting with working class voters for that reason, but seems not to articulate her focus on economic issues precisely by that name.

    So . . . Sen. Obama wants a values campaign.  He will lose.

    If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, almost all of her policy positions are supportive of a newly invigorated economy & she would let Sen. McCain blather on about "values" to his 26% of the electorate & she will win.

    I'm over the Issue of Roe v. Wade. (5.00 / 12) (#82)
    by vicsan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    I just don't care anymore. Know why I don't care anymore? Because I don't have to care. I say let the 20 something Obama supporters worry about that. It's not my problem anymore and I'm sick and tired of the wedge issues being used as leverage for getting my vote. I am so OVER that stuff.

    The way I look at this now is if women were so concerned about Roe v. Wade, they would have supported the FOR SURE CANDIDATE, the one who can actually beat McCain in November, HILLARY, but many women have turned their backs on her for whatever reason. SO, guess what? I'm too old to care/worry about Roe v. Wade. If it's overturned because McCain appoints strict constructionist Judges to the SCOTUS, perhaps the Obama women will wake up. Apparently, the issue just isn't that important to them. They had a chance to elect the first ever PRO-CHOICE woman to be the President of the United States, and they instead chose an unknown, unqualified MAN. Nope...I just don't give a hoot anymore. The 20-somethings made their bed, now they can sleep in it. Enjoy. They won't get any sympathy from this older feminist.

    I'm writing in Hillary's name if she's not the nominee. OR, if it's close, I will vote for McCain. It will be the first time in my life that I will vote for a Republican President.

    I'm with you vicsan, exactly (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    Furthermore, I REALLY wish people here would stop trying to tell people how to vote. It's extremely insulting, especially when they try to bully the vote out of you by dangling reproductive rights. It just sends me running even further the other way. Men in power have been treating women like children forever by threatening with Roe v. Wade and other issues. Screw 'em. I've had it with that issue being used as a threat.

    I hope everyone votes their conscience, period, and doesn't listen to anyone else about it, especially those trying to cynically scare votes out of people.


    when roe v. wade is used as a threat (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by pukemoana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    to push Hillary-supporting women into supporting Obama, what it looks like is women are being told they can have power over their bodies (access to termination) at the expense of political power (choice re potus).  It shouldn't be an either-or situation.

    Good for You! (2.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    Isn't cynicism liberating? If Clinton were the nominee, I would write in Obama. But if it were close I would never consider voting for McCain. I might even swallow my anger and vote for Clinton. But vote for McCain if it makes you feel better. You'll show them, won't you?

    Yes, I will show them. (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by vicsan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    I'm finished with the Democratic Party. At this point, I really don't care what happens to it. I do know that I'm no longer falling for their idiotic wedge issues. I don't care if Roe v. Wade is overturned and I'm NOT voting for BO. The 20 something BO supporters can fight that battle...I'm FINISHED with it.

    BTW, I live in Illinois, so I honestly doubt that any election between BO (should he be allowed to steal the nomination) and McCain will be close here, but if it was, McCain would get my vote.

    This "typical, bitter white woman" is going Independent.


    "Highly emotional"?! (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Lora on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    As if women can't use their brains and logic to assess which candidate would serve them and our country better.

    These "kinds of decisions" -- for women, right? are "highly emotional?

    I am disgusted.

    Know your place, sweetie (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    When women voters support Sen. Obama, it's because of their maternal instincts and inherent desire to nurture and make peace.  It's proof that women are the most wonderful creatures on Earth, far more advanced than their idiot male counterparts.

    But when women voters don't go for Obama, it's because they're "highly emotional."  They're "scared" and "insecure."

    Are Obama's supporters really going to go into the general election insulting every group that won't vote for him?  Yes, they can!


    Maybe Obama should ignore women (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:40:49 PM EST
    I'm wondering if he hasn't already lost so many women that, strategically, he should concentrate on trying to win over some other demographic group.

    I'm not sure what that group would be, however.

    excuse there are no more groups! (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    the repubs for a day won't vote him. he has issues with women voters. he has the aa block. the latinos are very questionable. men are leaving the voting block. so twisting like a pretzel and threats or insults to other groups like women won't work. why doesn't he do something really different. you know like GET OUT THERE AND WORK FOR IT. MEET PEOPLE, SHAKE THEIR HAND AND STOP TALKING DOWN TO US. i am sick of it.

    Pro-Life (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by DavMD on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    I know that the thrust of this website is, currently, primarily the promotion of HRC's candidacy, but it strikes me as absurd that self-proclaimed progressives would use the term "pro-life" to describe anti-abortion activism (especially coming from a lawyer).  By doing so, you are basically embracing the opponents' position, i.e. that you are "anti-life".  We progressives call ourselves "pro-choice", since we believe that the other side is "anti-choice"; I do not think that they themselves would deny that they are against a woman's right to choose an abortion when the need may arise.  If "anti-choice" is offensive, and in my humble opinion it is not, why not "anti-abortion"?  But by referring to them as "pro-life", you are surrendering the debate and becoming the "anti-life" right there.  Please see Professor Chemerinsky's debate on this.  Thank you.

    ok, I'll change it to (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:52:10 PM EST

    There's a reason (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    far more associated with this site to use the words "pro-life." It's because those who oppose abortion are not really pro-life, they are hypocrites about it. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty. I've written about that several times here.

    I agree ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by DavMD on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    There's a reason far more associated with this site to use the words "pro-life."  ... I assume you meant "not use".  

    I completely agree with you on this point.  They are "pro-life", but they commonly support war and bloodshed and have no "life"-saving scruples about the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, Vietnamese, Afghans, ...  They do not protest the use of DU ammunition, leading to 600% increases in pediatric leukemias in Iraq, or ...


    no, I meant "to use" (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST
    to show the hypocrisy,

    I am one of those (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    who say that I would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    And I do things that are proactive to help Hillary, the fight against the disenfranchisement of FL and MI.  I bought a ticket to fly to DC this coming weekend to be there to protest.

    I have also pleaded with Jerome Segovia-Wiley, a former colleague, who is a Super Delegate and a member of the Rules Committee on the DNC, to do the right thing and seat MI and FL.

    I don't know how much more I can help, but I will.  But I take exception when anyone says that it is worse to vote McCain than Obama.

    As a gay man, his association quite frankly scares me when it comes to Donnie McClurkin. Obama was going for Justice Roberts before he was told not to.  Obama is NOT qualified for the POTUS. I wouldn't KNOWINGLY vote for someone who I know is the Democratic version of George W Bush.


    Don't be so sure Obama is pro-choice (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    Prof. Kmiec has endorsed Obama.  He is absolutely pro life.

    For those unfamiliar with Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune. I know of no other link to Obama.

    IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama's positon on abortion as:
    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

    Note, one COULD view Obama's personal position on abortion as influencing his "present" votes on a woman's right to choose while an IL state senator.

    Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
    "[B]ut here's the question: Does Obama's thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step?  I am inclined to think so . . ."  
    Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it.

    He doesn't want his daughter's punished (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:23 PM EST
    with a baby.

    That was an interesting townhall...Obama ran from corner to corner, Avenue to Blvd trying to hit every possible opinion one could imagine.

    We can't be sure of Obama's stand on anything.


    HRC nets 110 pledged delegates via FL + MI (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    Do not believe the Russert-Matthews-Olbermann hype.  HRC may net at least 110 delegates from the as-of-yet unallocated pledged delegates of FL + MI.  With these delegates and the popular vote, she can still win!  Keep fighting.
    Jeralyn, please read the article by Lanny Davis at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10614.html

    Hillary is not my chosen candidate because (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    she is a woman. It's because she is the most qualified candidate in the race.

    The anger women have toward Obama and his advisers/strategists, and the media includes their blatant and vile sexism and disrespect for a woman who deserves so much better. But, it's not confined to just that.

    It's his arrogance, his side's antics at the caucuses, maybe in some primaries, his snubbing of FL, MI, PR and the working class, his inability to convince us he is in this race for anyone besides himself, and so on.

    These are not behaviors that McCain has so far exhibited. Obama needs to spend the summer in charm school and tolerance training.

    Dem, get out of my pap smear, law appt and temple (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including pro-life Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

    As if Dems fought at all to prevent Roberts and scAlito from getting greased onto the SCOTUS. I know you did a great job blogging it, BTD, to no avail. Dems did their usual mass cave-in spelunking behind the scenes -- 19 Dems needlessly got on board to grease scAlito onto the bench -- but posed as usual for Oh No!! kabuki for news cameras.

    Dems should stop extorting women about this, and Roe as a "woman's issue". Medical privacy, moral choice, and the right not to be persecuted extra judicially are human rights, not "just" women's issues.

    Shame on anyone who doesn't see that. If abortion counseling, related medical services and getting an abortion are criminal, arrest and try those involved or leave them the f*ck alone.

    The suffering, disease and death related to the conceit of everyone looking the other way except when holier than moi jackwads want to drag NARAL out for its ritual whipping is grotesque.

    Dems have had, well, my ENTIRE FRACKIN' LIFETIME to smack down right wing abuse of this and they haven't. They have no right to attempt to guilt women on this.

    I could care less about SCOTUS on this particular issue. It's legally more efficient and medically more possible to make illegal abortion safer.

    Wile E Coyote Super Genius Persuaders should look elsewhere for leverage or perhaps get that immobile beached whale carcass of a useless party up and at'em on this for a change.

    Really, over thirty years and plenty of opportunities to worry about this besides shrieking about it every time they need money or support from women.

    Next time they call to wonder why my usual money isn't headed their way, I'm going to say I'm spening it to have one of GWB's Famous Frozen Snowflake Embryos implanted in myself JUST to have an illegal abortion.

    Re: Dem. get out of my pap smear (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    I could not agree with you more!!  I will not be blackmailed with Roe v. Wade. I never was a one trick pony anyway.  NO guarantee with Obama anyway.  He agrees with every position and takes none. He does not have the experience to be POTUS, nor the character.  His coterie of "associates" scares me.  I would take McCain over Obama, if Hillary is not the Dem nominee. I would not give it a second's hesitation.  

    I was a DU member when Alito (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by vicsan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    and Roberts hearings were held and I spent DAYS phoning and emailing the Senators and members of the Judiciary Committee. They just IGNORED me and the THOUSANDS (literally) of DUers who made their voices heard. They DO NOT CARE WHAT WE THINK. They never have and they never will and this Primary season has sent that message home to me, LOUD and CLEAR. The DC elites will do what THEY want to do and THE PEOPLE, who pay their salaries, can take a hike. We are nothing to them.

    GREAT post, BTW.:)


    Right on Ellie! (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    You smacked that one right out of the ballpark!  Someone on this thread said they would drive women to Canada to have an abortion if they needed to.

    Count me in on that.  I have taken 2 girlfriends for procedures.  Women have ENOUGH to deal with within their own conscience without being made to feel guilty about family planning.

    FTR, I don't use the word "choice".  I use pro-family. I was asked by a Republican if I was pro life or pro choice.  I said I was pro-family.  He asked, "what does that mean?"  I said it means if one wants to have a family they can, if they don't, they don't.


    'Pro'-Life could be about fingernail trimmings (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    Pro-family, Pro-Rights, Pro-Freedom.

    I always tell surveyors who use wording with intent to defraud that I'm PRO-LIVES and then inform them that the 'pro'-life stance markedly increases mortality among women, children and young people.

    It's obscene, like bombs are being dropped domestically and no one's noticing.

    Mr. Pro-Life grandstander Tom DeLay actually publicly argued in front of the Young Repugs convention that forced childbirth instead of abortion and contraception would "solve" the "illegal" immigration problem by creating a race of indentured servants to do those icky jobs important people didn't want. (Presumably, they'd be busy bossing and overseeing stuff.)

    The outrage from librul short pants and long pants media on this? Nothing. However, objective, super-rational brainiacs like Stay At Home Librul Mommies and Daddies Who Blog Against Choice will bounce off walls complaining about NARAL in a weird cyber ritual of circadian fauxgressive hormonal distress.


    It is't just roe v Wade (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by Foxx on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    of course. The court has made some other horrible decisions lately, and if it is more conservative it will erode our freedoms even further.

    So why don't Obama and his "progressives" care enough about the supreme court to have respected Hillary and women from the beginning? THEY are the ones who have endangered it by their persistent misogyny.

    It's likely (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    that McCain would get those votes. I predicted that an Obama vs. McCain election would hinge on national security not the economy. A Clinton vs. McCain election would be about the economy. IIRC, McCain has a 35 pt. advantage on Obama in the area of national security and has successfully been slapping down Obama in that area.

    The get in line "sweetie" or "you stupid woman" argument really ticks me off. Obama has done absolutely nothing during the primary to try to get women voters and I think that strong arm tactics are all that he will try.

    McCain is already reaching out to Hillary's voters more so than Obama. McCain is asking for our votes while Obama expects them.

    In the end, it won't matter what I do since I live in GA and Obama is currently polling at 3% of the vote. He's unlikely to get much more and it's doubtful that he'll even break 40% of the vote here.

    i have already said that i don't think (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:46:31 PM EST
    obama will reach out to the clinton women supporters. i would be happy to be proven wrong by his campaign.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    he hasn't done it thus far has he? And lately all he's been giving is the condescending lecture. His last little attempted smear did it for me.

    yeah me too! if wants to change minds and (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    hearts he'll have to do a 180, and i don't expect to see that.

    Of course they will reach out to women (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by DaleA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM EST
    Over at IGF there are gay men arguing for McCain. Looks like there is an effort by the McCain campaign to reach out to gays and lesbians, a group that is very proHillary. Schwartzenegger has taken a stand on behalf of the same sex marriage ruling and vows to block or defeat any referendum on it. Plus the argument is that with over 80% of our vote, Dems ignore our concerns. Time to let the Dems know we are not a sewn up group but one that can support reasonable Repubs. Hillary is very good on gl issues; Obama is sort of flakey and erratic.

    If they can reach out to gays and lesbians, you can be sure they will reach out to women. No doubt there is already a list of the wildest mysoginistic postings from DK in McCain campaigns hands.

    Here is another reason anyone (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    considering enabling John McCain to become President should seriously consider:

    "For him to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we're succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable," said McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times, most recently in March.
     {Excerpt from AP interview.)

    In fact, how dare Jane. Oh Jane admitted (5.00 / 4) (#239)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    early on that she saw the sexism hoisted at Hillary but didn't want to defend her becuase she feared bloggers would think she was...oh noes...supporting Hillary.  Honestly, this is just ticking me off.  Hillary is the most ardently pro-choice viable candidate to ever run for office, and aside from a few scant bloggers,  bloggers never defended Hillary in any way from the sexist attacks on her character.  Now women are fools not to support Obama?  Please.  I don't think Obama has ever done anything to merit the offie of the Presidency.  

    Jeralyn has succintly stated why (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:54:27 PM EST
    I will vote for the Dem. nominee:

    I hope McCain fails in his bid for women voters, should Obama be the nominee. It's the last thing Hillary would want. And, Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including anti-choice Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

    However, as strongly as I agree with Jeralyn, as often as I have tried to emphasize the same point here, it is obvious to me no hearts and minds are being changed.  Jeralyn's statement is kinder and gentlre than BTD's, but the bottom line is the same for each:  I'll vote for the Dem. nominee. Me too.    

    What's with the numbering system? (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    1. What

    2. A

    3. Crock

    I don't trust Obama on policy: (4.66 / 12) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:11:30 PM EST
    Not on SS, not on health care, and especially not on energy/global warming.
    Not that McCain is a prize in those areas, but Obama will need a much stronger affirmative case to win in November.

    Any female Democrat (3.83 / 6) (#2)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:50:57 PM EST
    who switches to McCain is unclear on the concept.

    The man is 100% anti-choice.  He thinks the government should put doctors in jail and tell women what to do with their bodies.

    With the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, a vote for McCain is a true death wish.

    Count me out.

    With all the women (and men) (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    who fought for choice, we are now being threatened if we vote for Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama's stance on this issue is very, very muddled and therefore no guarantee that women's repoductive rights will be saved. Hillary's choice has never waivered. At least if Sen. McCain tries to get my vote, I will believe he really wants it.

    If McCain has a strong lead in the polls (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    close to election day, we'll just have to work hard to make sure we concentrate on the downticket races and increase the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate so he can't accomplish anything before we can vote him back out.

    What would Obama do?? (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    He can't take a stance on anything. I do not have a clear view of his policies at all.

    Obama United with the right wing on this (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    He asked his supporters to stop supporting "issues" groups (like NARAL) to thug the nat'l office into endorsing him at the horror of state chapters.

    Obama's BFF Casey is a no-choice deadbeat who has politicized women's reproductive related medical services, and vowed to use his office to make fertilized embryos given full human rights.

    After thugging NARAL, Obama ran off to make a big play and Unite with no-choice televangelists.

    Obama will not liberalize the courts.


    Congress (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    confirms the nominees. Vote Dems for Congress.

    I walked with my friends collecting signatures to stop Robert Bork.  

    Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan but the Senate did its job and rejected his nomination.

    Don't forget that. It is not "just" up to the President.

    The Dems in Congress need to have some spine !


    That is a bold lie (1.50 / 2) (#227)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    His position is not muddled at all.  There are some reasons to support one candidate over the other, but the right to choose is not one of them.

    Muddled? (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Please explain.

    I always thought he was firmly pro-choice.  If this isn't so,  then why did the NARAL PAC endorse him recently?  


    Do some (none / 0) (#218)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    research. Do you know what his position was vis a vis Roberts? Not how he finally voted; but he believed in "his heart".

    should read (none / 0) (#219)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    "but what he..."

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#235)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    That's why I asked the question.
    Thanks for the help.

    You could have a point (5.00 / 11) (#26)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    if one assumed that women were only packaging for a uterus.  However, since that is not the case, this SC argument will probably fail this time.  I will take more than that this election cycle.

    From a man's perspective at any rate.  If I believe what I read here, and I do, that dog won't hunt.


    The country won't stand for the overturning of (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Roe vs. Wade.  What may happen is SCOTUS eroding protections, but not outlawing it.  Well, that's already happened/happening.  I should vote for POTUS to effect SCOTUS?

    My question is what billy club is going to be (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    used on Democrats that aren't pro-choice to begin with? That threat isn't going to work with them.  I would guess there are a whole bunch of those.

     Being a Democrat does not equal being pro-choice.


    Correct (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    Bob Casey Jr is Pro-Lifer, who is a bit smitten with Obama.

    The whole Supreme Court (4.50 / 8) (#59)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    Roe vs Wade abolishment issue is Fear Mongering true and true.

    It won't work this time round, like many other have stated.

    I also agree with others that the threat of a McCain SC will not wipe out Roe vs Wade, they may make it harder, but 100% abolishment.... no gonna happen, I mean really, think about it for second.

    Hell, if abortion does get banned, I'll be happy to drive women up to Canada for treatment -- that is nothing than the threat of an Obama presidency IMO.

    It's just another tactic in forcing Obama down peoples throats.


    btw... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    I apologise in advance if my comments come across as insensitive.

    Yes I'm male, so I can only imagine what it's like to have the threat of women not being able to be incontrol of their own bodies.

    Ok, so how about his point. Aren't the Drug Companies (remember then) part of this issue too? Don't they sell the "Morning After Pill" and other abortion type medications? Are we to believe that these companies will be banned for selling their products? Aren't the Drug Companies HUGE lobbyists?

    I can't see a case in which the Federal Government knocks of the Drug Companies' doors and start telling to stop selling a perfecting safe, PROFITable drug.

    Speaking for myself, and myself only :)


    Funny you mention that (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:49:58 PM EST
    Since the Bush admin manages to block release of Plan B, drug companies be damned, until Clinton forced the FDA to approve it.

    It goes along with Jeralyn's and Shainzona's points -- there's still time to make Clinton the nominee.  Let's use it to put the person in place who we know will fight for the right thing, not the person whose 'fight' is at best questionable.


    Portugal (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    outlawed abortion this way: it is an illegal medical procedure.  They don't send the "poor, deranged" women to jail.  They send the doctors to jail.  Most docs in Portugal are men.  Most docs here in a few years will be women.  I wonder how we'll handle sending women docs to prison.  Surely, they'll be vilified as monsters.  Let's call it the "Clinton Pattern" wherein they are denigrated as witches.

    We saw this same model used with third trimester abortions (less than 1%, and only ever performed when medically necessary, but spun by the right wing into millions of women having them every day just for the fun of it).  What's next--pharmacies raided for morning after pills? Pharmacists put in jail for filling scripts for chemical abortions?

    We need strong legislatures-state and fed-to stop the stringent regulation of abortion that will eventually drive it out of existence.  Look at the SCOTUS now.  They have enough folk to outlaw abortion with the right case.  Roe is painfully thin.  People who are sounding the alarm about this: where were you four years ago?  If keeping our reproductive rights is your number one goal, then why are you not fighting for the candidate who has a strong record of doing so: Hillary Clinton.


    And your data is from where? (none / 0) (#148)
    by DavMD on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    "Most docs here in a few years will be women" ... ACGME and RRC data for 2006 (last year available) show that 61% of physicians in residency training are male.  A much larger proportion of female medical school graduates do not pursue residency, or go into family practice or primary care; this may be due to the desire (or perhaps pressure) to start a family, and the infamous "biological clock" issue.  I am not dicussing issues of fairness here at all.  Yet, your assertion is wrong, and not supported by the evidence.  We should not throw out factoids like that unless they have a decent (even if disputed) base in reality, or we will start to live in a "last throes"-style alternate universe.

    We will not loose abortion rights with McCain (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by hedyanne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    The Obama camp wants you to believe that we will loose abortion rights but it will never happen. Just like we all should have shouted out when NAREL endoresed Obama now what has he ever done for women.  Hillary has fought so hard for womens rights and has been stabed in the back.

    McCain Is Against Choice (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    Many Republican voters, however, seem to believe, incorrectly, that the current Republican front-runner, Arizona Sen. John McCain, supports abortion rights, too.

    The misperception is interesting, considering that McCain has not attempted to keep his pro-life views a secret. Here's how he put it on an appearance last year on NBC's Meet the Press:

    "I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman -- the rights of the unborn -- that I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career," McCain said. "To me, it's an issue of human rights and human dignity."


    "He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances -- that was about violence against women in clinics," Keenan says, adding, "He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme."



    With a Dem controlled Congress, (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    in numbers greater than today, who cares what McCains view is?  He won't get a mandate.

    Supreme Court has... (1.00 / 2) (#175)
    by EddieInCA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    ...nothing to do with Congress.

    If McCain becomes president and has to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, or Kennedy, goodbye Roe.

    Back to the states.


    IF Maccain becomes President (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by indy woman on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    he will most likely have to deal with a Democratic Majority in COngress.  THat will significantly reduce his chances of getting an ultraconservative judge nominated to the bench

    Say what? (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    Congress confirms !!

    The President nominates but it is Congress the one that either rejects or approves a nominee.

    The Senate has the responsibility here.


    I lived before abortion rights existed and (5.00 / 5) (#222)
    by derridog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    abortions were readily available.  Abortions have been performed throughout human existence on this planet.   The problem is safety for women, particularly poor women, who can't afford to pay the doctor on Fifth Avenue who meets you after hours at the risk of being prosecuted and therefore wants to be amply remunerated for his trouble.

    Women and the poor always catch the brunt of atrocious legal decisions made by wealthy white men who aren't affected by the punitive laws they make.  However, we already have a Supreme Court that could easily be divided 5 to 4 or even greater on any abortion decision.   Why do we have that? Because the Dems laid down and let it happen.

    Do I trust them to put the brakes on any of John McCain's efforts to stack the court with more atrocious judges? No.  But I also don't trust Obama to stand up for me on this issue.  He thought there was nothing wrong in voting for Roberts. He said so on his own website.  He didn't want to keep a president from having his choice of SC members just for something so minor as "ideology."  The only reason he didn't vote for Roberts is that his political advisors told him it would be a bad idea if he wanted to run for President.

    What does this tell me?  1) Obama will not stand up for women  whether it's abortion rights or just their right not to be called "f...ing wh...res."  2) Obama has no real principles at all. He identifies with the president and wants to be a president at all costs.

    I'm voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee and I've been voting and working for Democrats for over 40 years.   It doesn't matter whether we have McCain or Obama. We will have a Republican.  The difference is that McCain won't have taken over the Democratic Party.


    Well, go right ahead (1.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    and vote for McCain.

    And good luck to you.


    huh? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    First off. Roe does not equal abortion.

    Roe can be overturned, and that would not change the status of abortion one whit, at least not right away.

    Roe just forbids states from banning abortion.
    Overturn Roe, and the states will regain that power. But unless they use that power, nothing would change.

    Of course, many states will use that power and will ban abortion. And many wont.

    As to the "fear mongering". Call it what you will. But it is just facts. Fact is that Stevens is in his mid eighties and wants to retire. Fact is that Ginsburg and Souter are also known to want to retire. Fact is that the president can nominate successors. Fact is that it will be hard for Dems to stop a "reasonable" nominee.
    Fact is, the odds of Roe being overturned if McCain is elected are very high.

    Thems facts. They should scare people because they are real.

    But it is very nice of you to offer to drive all the women in America to Canada if they need an abortion. Very big of you.


    Tano, thank you for your points. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    I believe you just helped me make my argument :)

    You said "Roe just forbids states from banning abortion.
    Overturn Roe, and the states will regain that power. But unless they use that power, nothing would change."

    So in essence, I wouldn't need to "drive women up to Canada", we can just drive to California, or Oregon, or some State in the US that will Uphold Women's Rights and Abortions in their state.

    I'm a big believer in State Level governance. Hell if California allows "Medical Marijuana", don't you think they will allow abortions.


    In any serious discussion (4.00 / 3) (#168)
    by DavMD on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:17:53 PM EST
    this would be a comical comment.  How many nice folks would be enough to drive all the poor, pregnant teenagers of MS, AK, WV, KY, ... and the other "red" states to the closest "legal-abortion" state?

    You may love HRC, which is perfectly fine, but do not live in denial of facts: A McCain presidency would be a huge risk for women's rights in the US, including the right to choose.


    The Dem Senate better do something about it then (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:36:25 PM EST
    If Dems are concerned about the "women's vote" perhaps they should make an unequivocal statement vowing to uphold full constitutional protections for women;

    The first one being, our right to live in a constitutional democracy where an independent congress does its duty to provide checks and balances ...

    INCLUDING but not limited to thoroughly vetting judges for an independent third branch of government.

    It's time to hold our elected representatives to their oath of office vowing to uphold and defend the constitution.

    Threatening women about Roe is bass ackwards on this.


    Unless you are related to that teenager, (none / 0) (#228)
    by Christy1947 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    you may be committing a felony when you take her across a state line.

    huh? (3.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    What are you saying? That whenever you claim that a President Obama would be less than ideal, then you are fear mongering as well?

    "Fear mongering" is a bad thing because it provokes over-reactions to inflated threats. There is nothing inflated about the probability of SC openings, and it is not an overreaction to claim that McCain nominees would be very bad things.

    Even the damn Republicans who happen to hate McCain will be voting for him for just this reason - his court appointments. It just boggles the mind that there are so-called Dems who seem to be willing to throw choice under the bus, they hate Obama so much. Totally nutso.


    This (none / 0) (#224)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    Fact is that it will be hard for Dems to stop a "reasonable" nominee.

    is hardly a "fact".  But of course it requires courage from Congress. And that is something we have hardly seen in the last few years.

    You underestimate the very real role the Senate plays here.

    Not so fast.... They need to have some responsibilty.

    Souter was appointed by Reagan BUT the Senate rejected Bork another Reagan nominee.

    So they play a role and the should be held accountable.


    Correction (none / 0) (#226)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:30:03 PM EST
    Souter was appointed by G.H. Bush

    Reagan nominated O'Connor n/t (none / 0) (#251)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    Ye, Gods.... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:56:22 PM EST
    As someone who came of age BEFORE Roe v. Wade, I can assure you that this is NOT fear mongering.

    Reproductive rights are not a trivial matter.


    I won't vote for McCain but (5.00 / 12) (#77)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    please stop threatening me with the pro-choice talking point.

    First, not all Democrats are pro-choice, so you should not assume that it is a threshhold issue for everyone. To me, reproductive rights is a core Democratic principle, but many, including Sen. Obama, may disagree. (Does he agree? Dunno. Does Hillary? Unequivocally yes. Let's nominate her.)

    Second, because I am pro-choice and expect my elected representatives to preserve reproductive rights, a McCain presidency would mean that it will be time for Senate Dems to do their effing jobs and stop approving bad judicial appointments. I spent time on the line outside clinics protecting women's access to abortion services. I now expect Hillary, Obama, and the rest of them to be lining up for the chance to fillibuster any SCOTUS appointments that threaten Roe. I will not vote for someone that I believe will be ineffectual in promoting any semblance of a progressive agenda simply to make it easier on the Dems in Congress. I put my time in to preserve these rights; it's time for them to put their time in. Would Hillary do it? Yes; let's nominate her.

    Third, if McCain is elected because the Democrats nominate the same kind of doomed candidate we usually seem to nominate, you should blame the people responsible for nominating him, not the people who jumped up and down and predicted this is going to be a disaster. If the Democratic party is really interested in preserving reproductive rights, let's nominate her.


    no (1.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    I'll blame the people who don't vote for him.

    And Obama's position on choice is unambiguous. Just because you dont know it, doesnt make it questionable.


    Obama blamed (5.00 / 11) (#129)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    liberals for not treating abortion rights as a serious moral issue. (Admittedly, I'm paraphrasing.)  Obama only voted against Roberts because a staff member pointed out to him that it could be hard for him to run for president if he voted for Roberts and Roe were overturned.

    That is the source of my discomfort with his view. His view does not seem to be that choice is a core Democratic principle. Rather, he seems to think that we women must acknowledge that abortion is a terrible, icky thing. On Roberts, he seemed to be more interested in preserving his option to run for president than my option not to have children.


    Many Otherwise Decent Democrats (1.66 / 3) (#150)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    Voted for Roberts. Leahy, Feingold, Dodd....

    It is the vote that matters not how it arrived at. Obama is 100% pro choice and there is zero reason to believe, except for blindness due to extreme cases of Clintonmania, that he would waver an inch on that position.


    Beg to differ (5.00 / 8) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    in the contest between Clinton and Obama, it's not the vote that matters, it's what they do outside of showing up to vote that matters.

    I have a 100% Democratic voting record.  Yet I do nothing for the DNC.  I don't give them money or volunteer for them.  I have a friend who does those thing.  She also has a 100% Democratic voting record.  If we both applied for jobs at the DNC, who should they choose?

    Clinton has always fought for pro-choice causes at every turn.  Obama has voted.  I'm sorry not to be on the HopeyChangey Train, but I'm going with the person who has taken action in my interests over the person who says they will take action.

    Is it ok if I steal the Rise Hillary Rise sig line?

    Rise Hillary Rise!


    the issue was not (none / 0) (#181)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    Obama vs Hillary.
    We were discussing Obama vs McCain, or Obama vs. abstention.

    I have no problem with people voting for Hillary because of choice. They are mistaken if they think that they would be losing anything with Obama, but thats ok. Vote for Hillary.

    The issue is what to do in Nov. if Obama is the nominee.


    Agree...you can't extrapolate a vote towards.. (none / 0) (#171)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    Roberts as being anti-choice.

    nonsense (none / 0) (#140)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    to say it is a moral question, and should be discussed as such, is simply dead obvious. It is not calling it "a terrible, icky thing".

    Instead of relying on hearsay, from who knows where, why not go to the source.
    From his website.

    "Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President."


    A "consistent champion" (5.00 / 8) (#153)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    who would have voted for Roberts if he had not had presidential ambitions. Maybe in a year or two he'll insist that he didn't literally write the words on his website so he can't be held to them.

    I'm not going to have my rights held hostage to his presidential ambitions.

    It is insulting beyond measure to suggest that women who support abortion rights do not understand the moral complexity of the issue. Does he know how insulting that is? We are not little girls who cannot think for ourselves.


    I not disputing (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    Obama's position, the debate here is centered around the need to support him because of the threat of losing Roe.

    However, I do take issue with him calling himself "consistent champion of reproductive choice". What kind of "champion" is he?

    I'd rather quote what Valhalla point out above"

    "Since the Bush admin manages to block release of Plan B, drug companies be damned, until Clinton forced the FDA to approve it."

    Now THAT sounds like a true "Champion of Reproductive Choice" to me!

    Remember "Rocky" was never a Champion, until he ACTUALLY WON a fight! :)


    okay (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    I'll blame the people who don't vote for him.

    But, you'll never ask why they won't vote for him, or perhaps shift some of the blame to his shoulders for not reaching out to them?


    oh, c'mon (1.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    its not like those who dont support him have had any reluctance to shout constantly about why they dont vote for him.

    So much of it is so over-the-top, there is so much willful distortion of his postions, and so much downright hatred in sites like this, that one really wonders what the REAL reason people wont vote for him.

    It sure as hell aint on any issue base, unless his lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal is enought to tip you to McCain (or unless you think the gas tax holiday is something other than a dumb pander). Thats about it for any real substantive difference on actual policies.

    And yeah, he should do his share of reaching out. But he certainly shouldnt reach out to those who have been demonizing him.


    Tano... (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    Please don't throw that horrid "hate" word around here. I think we are a 1000% more civil about Oama and the issue than many others whatever their bias is.

    But I have to ask you -- what do you think the REAL reason is? :)


    sorry, but it is accurate (2.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    The notion that this is, in any way, a "civil" site when it comes to Obama characterizations, is totally absurd. And "1000% more civil" - please be serious. There is a constant drumbeat of insults, mockery, denigration, the majority of it being totally false. I stopped commenting, and even reading here for months because it just became nauseating.

    I dont know what the real reason is. Maybe its just the pathology of group thinking = a few true haters will always interpret everything Obama does in the most cynical and negative way, then the average commenter sort of goes along, not wanting to stand up to it (since they sort of agree in part at least) and suddenly that becomes the accepted interpretation of the incident - then the next incident comes along and everyone is more inclined to adopt the negative interpretation again - its a pattern now. And the process goes on. A downward spiral into craziness. Very typical of lots of mob or group dynamics.

    Throw in the background urge for so many people in our society to want to play victim - of something or other. And you get this insular group that identifies enemies, and then fights them to the death, so to speak.


    oh stop writing down to us. (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    we have real issues with obama's positions.

    perfect (none / 0) (#190)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    example of the mentality.

    I'm the poor little victim being "written down to".

    What issues? I'm not talking about just why you prefer Hillary. The issue is why so many here hate Obama, to the point of voting for McCain, or abstaining. What issues, concrete positions that you can point to, not just wild charges - are you talking about? What positions would justify, for any Dem, letting the GOP win rather than Obama?


    thanks for your response. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    if you want dialogue with hillary supporters, please write to us in a manner that invites real conversation. till then!

    it would have to be a two way street. (2.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    When was the last time there were ANY comments that gave hint of ANY respect for Obama or his supporters around here?

    I dont know about you personally, but many commenters here seem downright proud of the extreme place they have managed to arrive at. Maybe thats what they think "being tough" is all aobut. Maybe we just have to wait for Hillary to embrace Obama before they can even begin to imagine engaging their fellow Dems once again. Follow your leader, I guess.


    Well I often use the word (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    "please" and refer to him as Sen. Obama. Not always, sometimes I'm typing too fast to be as polite and respectful as I think I should be. He's a candidate for the highest office in the land and doesn't deserve to be called an a** anymore than Sen. Clinton deserves to be called a b**.

    I am very opinionated on this election but you should not mistake my strong opinions as being borne of hate. This is the same tactic the Bush administration has used to dismiss Democratic criticism -- we all just "hate" Bush, irrationally, without reason, because we're bitter losers. Translation: pay no attention to those people, you cannot reason with them and their opinions need not be listed to.

    It's no better coming from supporters of Sen. Obama than it is coming from the current administration. I call BS on all of it.


    fine, glad to hear you are not one of the haters (none / 0) (#216)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    That is not an argument though, that the haters dont exist.

    I didnt call you a hater. I just refereed to those who are. If you are someone that can be reasoned with, great. Are you claiming that everyone here is like you?


    it doesn't matter if hillary embraces (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:24 PM EST
    obama or not. i have to tell you frankly that obama has lost me. why? well it began with the treatment of his supporters towards folks who supported other candidates like edwards for example. i was an early supporter of his. then came the dog whistles and the false accusations of racism. that turned me off. the negative attitude that i see over and over from obama supporters toward hillary also did it. i look at his positions and the division created and i don't feel comfortable. social security, boomers, foreign policy, roe v wade, and a number of other issues! i didn't reach this place easily but i have very deep concerns about the future of this country under his leadership and that is the truth. the only thing i can see him do to change it is to actually reach out to the rest of the democratic party that has been told we aren't need or wanted. he has to answer the blue collar workers concerns in person. his wife needs to change her tune. that so turns me off. but that's me. however i probably speak for many.

    Well, don't hold your breath waiting for Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#233)
    by derridog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    supporters to "embrace" Obama.

    I was just in Missouri visiting a cousin whom I haven't seen in several years and with whom I am not close.  I didn't even know what party she belonged to. However, at one point she told me that a friend had given her a bumpersticker that said "Had Enough? Vote Democratic" and she put it on her car.  But when she realized that the Dems were going to force Obama down our throats she took it off.  She said if Obama wins, she's voting for McCain.

    I have friends all over the country who say the same. Some women, some men.  I might tell you, btw, that one of the things that infuriates everyone universally is the assumption that, after getting called "racists' and "wh.res," and driven off pro-Obama websites with sniggering and abuse, that the Obama folks think that we will "come around."

    Dream on.


    That's your own opinion (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    which is worthless to me but to you I'm sure it's meaninglful.  However, there are those who do not believe he is qualified to be president, either by virtue of his experience or his character.  That's your real problem and that disagreement won't go away.  

    Aha (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    Well, it's come down this doesn't. So let me say it, and I don't care if it sounds childish.


    We are only reacting to the fire that's already been started to smoke us out.



    funny,,but I feel the same way (2.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:06:55 PM EST
    from my side.

    But I guess that is why it really is a childish reaction. Because us grownups know that these things almost never start with a discrete and identifiable original sin. They build up slowly on either side.

    For every fire you can point to, an Obama person can point to another, earlier one, And you could probably answer right back. The dynamic has worked on both sides, no doubt.

    One of the reasons I left this site for months was precisely because I did not want to end up hating Hillary - reading her supporters was rapidly taking me there.


    Well, then fine. Why don't you go over to Kos? (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by derridog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    I'm sure you'll find a more congenial atmosphere.

    True (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    I suspect you're right about original sin. However, I have to say that I feel assaulted in this electoral process. I've never felt that way before -- though frequently "my" candidate didn't win.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    best line of the day....
    so many people in our society to want to play victim  ha! ha!

    Obama is "soft" on choice. (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    His most "present" votes related to choice when he didn't want to be tainted in future elections.  Excuse me?  He should have stood up boldly FOR CHOICE - that would have shown a leadership position for women.

    In a January debate, he did not answer Yes when asked if he supported a women's right to choose.  He rambled on about it being a choice between a woman (right), her doctor (right) her family (er, maybe, unless you've been raped by a male relative) and her clergy (WTF).  Who else...her mailman and the neighbor next door?

    And his need to be reminded to vote against Roberts just confirms my concerns that he will waffle when it comes to women's rights.  He is not a lock for choice.


    That is not what his "present" votes ... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.



    Yup - so he wouldn't be tainted by (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    actually supporting a women's right to choose.

    Talk about bull - I EXPECT MY POTUS to stand up  as a leader for my rights.  No pussyfooting around.

    If a candidate can't even do that then he can go - well, Cheney himself.


    Need a better (5.00 / 10) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    argument to vote for Obama. The supreme court is gone. That was a pretty strong argument in 2004 and I had no problem voting for Kerry but I don't see it as a very strong one this time since Obama tends to waffle and conceal his stands on issues.

    The right to an abortion has been severely... (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by alexei on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    undermined.  With the terrorists who bomb clinics and murder doctors, there are many less doctors who are electing to perform abortions.  Many states do not have any clinics or hospitals that perform abortions.  Low income and military women have been denied any funding for abortions and many health care plans do not pay for abortions.  Roe is pretty much a hollow hope - may be it would be best if the Republicans do make an all out assault on the right to choose and overturn Roe.  That may wake up younger women to see that this right has never been obtained fully.

    The Democratic Party can also show some spine and actually not allow right wing judges to be appointed at any level including the Supreme Court.  There have been times in our history, where there was not a full complement of Supreme Court justices due to Congress not allowing appointments.  Therefore, I will blame the Democrats if McCain is allowed to appoint these type of judges at any level.  They should be only allowing moderates.

    If Congress is successful in gaining enough seats in both the House and Senate to be both veto and filibuster proof, the Democrats could pass very good legislation for women's rights as well.

    Therefore, these arguments are not very persuasive to me.  Plus, I have no real confidence on Obama's positions on abortion, economic justice, health care, or Social Security.  He has used right wing talking points on each of these issues and on legislation that he has sponsored, such as the one on radioactive leaks into ground water, he has caved to the special interests.  I have no confidence that Obama would so any difference on these issues and is willingly to use any political capital to get these problems solved.  And, because he is a "Democratic" President, the Democratic Party would have a harder time going against him than McCain.  


    ago on this site for someone to tell me what HRC's position on Social Security was, after having researched it on the net and not found anything that made sense, principally that her position was that it was all subject to negotiation. The answer I got here on this site  was that there was no Social Security crisis after all, it was a phony Republican invention. Is there something softer than that that Obama said. What I heard was that he wanted to solve the underfunding problem by raising the payroll cap, a solution that some experts thought was actuarially sound if done soon enough.

    This is no time to give up. (3.50 / 2) (#156)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    This is no time to make the argument to vote for McCain over Obama.

    And this is no time to foreclose or concede that argument in advance.

    Senator Barack Obama must not be president (1.66 / 6) (#182)
    by Curious on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    because he has in some mysterious way offended supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton by defeating her-or possibly defeating her, in the Democratic primaries and therefore an aging Republican anti-abortionist warmonger is preferable.

    have I got that right?

    not quite (5.00 / 3) (#252)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    but keep working on it. i have faith that you can get even more insulting, dishonest, and condescending in a new post.

    Don't forget the viable reason... (3.00 / 2) (#243)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    that some pro-Obama folks posted on different websites in a manner hurtful to Clinton supporters.

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    where the Security/Soccer moms were hiding.  

    They are not hiding anywhere (none / 0) (#99)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    They are just turning into basketball moms this election season :-)

    Repetition Does Create Reality (none / 0) (#98)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    You can say it over and over and over again, but simply claiming that Clinton is more electable than Obama doesn't make it so. I could just as plausibly argue that Clinton is the least electable Democrat because she will mobilize the conservative base, freeing McCain to pursue independents.

    May I suggest you look at (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by vicsan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    the latest Electoral Maps. Hillary clobbers McCain. McCain clobbers BO. Hillary is the only Dem that can beat McCain.

    don't take the bait (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    and let him redirect the thread.

    What Bait? (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    "Obama's nomination poses big electability challenges for Democrats in November."

    I was responding to the above quote in your original post. It was not an attempt to redirect the thread or engage in off topic debate.

    Jeralyn, in the past several weeks I have respectfully participated on this site in an attempt to create some dialogue between this Obama supporter and the Clinton supporters on this site. But I've sadly concluded that I was naive in thinking I could engage in such conversation here. But I thank you nonetheless. I don't claim to understand it, but I have an increased awareness of the intense bitterness and deep cynicism that is turning this site into a recruiting ground for the McCain campaign. I hope to return at some time in the future when the intensity of feelings have subsided a bit.


    When I was a tiny girl (none / 0) (#122)
    by Burned on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    And people in my family fought, I would put on my saddest face and cry. Then they would stop and everyone would do the right thing just to make me laugh again.

    I don't suppose that would work now, would it?

    It might :) Give it a try (none / 0) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:30 PM EST
    If only :-) (none / 0) (#178)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    You do know what they said about Hillary (none / 0) (#238)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    when she expressed "feminine emotion"?  I'd suggest saving the crying for BTD's memorial day post.

    I'd be careful (none / 0) (#173)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    about trying to judge McCain's voting record based on his "yes" "no" votes alone.  I know he's exceptionally cheap and I believe he sometimes has valid reasons for voting the way he does.  

    One example was this veterans benefit (college) bill that came up this past week.  I read that McCain voted against it because he thought it was too generous and encouraged people to leave the service sooner than they would if they didn't get generous college benefits -- but I also read that he would like to see a general pay raise for the military so they can do whatever they want with the money.  If I were in the military, I probably would like to be paid better instead of getting the college benefit.  Not everyone wants to go to college and the benefit probably would make the "best and brightest" leave as soon as they could.  

    Anyway, I think it can be deceptive to look at a series of Yeas and Nays and try to determine why someone voted for or against something.  

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#253)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:52:40 PM EST
    How do you know what SCOTUS appointments Obama might make? He is clearly on the corporate side, so why is he any different than McCain?