A Closer Look at McCain's Sex Education Ad

As Jeralyn pointed out yesterday, the McCain campaign has gone beyond negative. It's latest ad is filled with disgusting lies, most prominently its accusation that Barack Obama sponsored an Illinois bill to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarten students. The bill, which Obama did not sponsor, would have allowed teachers to give kindergarten students enough information to protect themselves from sexual predators, while reserving "medically accurate" information about sex to be taught to older students in higher grades.

Almost as troubling is the advertisement's false claim that this bill was Obama's "one accomplishment" in the field of education. [more ...]

In reality, Mr. Obama not only helped administer a $49 million education project in Chicago in the 1990s, but also sponsored or co-sponsored measures that increased the number of charter schools in Illinois, and expanded federal grants to summer school programs and to historically black colleges.

The McCain ad cites criticism of Obama by the trade publication Education Week while ignoring that publication's recognition that Obama's "biggest accomplishment in the field was the creation of a state board to oversee the expansion of early-childhood education in the state" as part of an early-childhood initiative that was considered "innovative and progressive." Rather hypocritically, the McCain ad overlooks what Education Week said about McCain:

Early this year, in an article titled “John McCain Where Art Thou?” it complained that he offered “a laundry list of fairly vague answers” on how to improve schools and did not make education a priority.

Is this what we have to look forward to for the next seven weeks? Lie after lie after lie from the McCain campaign? Will the corporate media ever stop talking about lipstick (or the invented outrage du jour) and start talking about the derailment of the Straight Talk Express?

< McCain Holds Small Lead In Polls | Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bills to Address Wrongful Convictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    are these trick questions? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    Is this what we have to look forward to for the next seven weeks? Lie after lie after lie from the McCain campaign? Will the corporate media ever stop talking about lipstick (or the invented outrage du jour) and start talking about the derailment of the Straight Talk Express?

    yes, that's exactly what we have to look forward to, what else does mccain/palin have? the media loves st. mccain the maverick, they practically gush over his "straight talk".

    the bottom line: obama better get some better people managing his campaign, and be prepared to tear up mccain in debates, or he can kiss nov. goodbye.

    Of cooourse! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    This is a typical Republican presidential campaign. Why on earth would anyone expect anything different?  Obama's new kind of politcis have not exactly taken hold - it was always a unilateral ideal.

    what exactly was Obama's plan to combat this stuff?  I couls have sworn he said he had one.


    The kindergarten sex ed lie is being used in a (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    push poll in Ohio.

    I received an incredibly offensive, anti-Obama push-poll tonight from 'Opinion Access Corporation.' When I said that I was voting for Obama, they asked if I would be more or less likely to vote for Obama if I knew that he voted to let convicted child sex offenders out early, voted to allow convicted child sex offenders to live near schools, is for sex education in Kindergarten, voted for some offensive and incredibly graphic abortion procedure, and so on and so on for 5 minutes.

    Ohio vote by mail starts this month.  If voters are not paying attention to Obama's response to McCain's attack ad...

    How come on the (none / 0) (#28)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    one hand, Republicans can say  Obama "voted for," "voted for", "voted for" and on the other hand say, "Obama has no experience?"

    Here's where liberals get issues like this wrong: (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    We all agree that as educated folk, it's a good thing to teach this type of stuff to your children.  We also agree that we want to do whatever possible to prevent children from being abused.  Where we go wrong is thinking that because we're pretty smart, and our kids are pretty smart, we should extend what we do in our homes to the general public.  Not everyone wants their kids to be as informed as you or I think they need to be.  Furthermore, not everyone wants to hand that type of responsibility over to a third-party.  Chris Rock said something in a comedy show I thought was spot on, I'm liberal on some things, and I'm conservative on other things.  There are very few of us absolutists one way or another.

    It's gonna take general public awareness (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    and people like me, who you don't even know, to help you do whatever is possible to keep your child from being abused. Your child can't be with you 24 hours a day. Your child will interact with many strangers. Consider yourself lucky that I'm out there and on the lookout to protect your child. I have training. I know the signs to look for. But many don't. And many children are too frightened to speak about it when it happens to them. I guess it's because they're not being taught well enough.

    You're right, and I appreciate what you do. (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    My ex-wife is a school social worker so I know where you're coming from.

    Still doesn't mean I want you doing what should be my job w/o my explicit consent or my having discussed these issues w/my child first.


    And (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    that's exactly why the bill gave parents who don't consent the right to opt out.

    That is fine (none / 0) (#39)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    so those parents who object could have opted out. You know I have been reading that Alaska has sex education and it is mandatory.  Parents don't have a say.  I need to read more and site here.  

    Re: Opt Out (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    I can't speak for other parents, but me personally, I wouldn't want my child to be pulled out of class and put in some room everytime this subject came up.  Kids at 5 are very impressionable, thus "opting out" raises it's own set of concerns.

    Exactly, thank you -- this is so ignored (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    by those who spout the opt-out provisions on sex ed and more.  Apparently no one here remembers peer pressure or the daily possibilities of humiliation that are part of schooling for so many of our kids.

    Plus, there is the problem of enforcement.

    Have a kid with a chronic health condition that relies on teachers abiding by the law and tell me how you're going to monitor it every hour of the day, folks.  Have a kid develop anxiety disorder from humiliation in school.  Etc.  It's amazing to me how many school districts and school board members and principals and teachers and guidance counselors and more do not know the laws -- or opt to ignore them until caught.

    And then there is the task of keeping up with all the paperwork from schools, hoping that your kid remembered to bring it all home, being able to understand (and I have a Ph.D.) what ought to be written in simple and clear English. . . .


    Yup, (none / 0) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    My five year old comes home w/45 minutes of homework - in Kindergarten!  We should be focusing on educating kids and protecting them (within reason) in every way possible.  As well as providing a true support system for all parents, including those who can't do it themselves.  A few lessons throughout the year don't do it IMO.

    Well as a parent of a (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    4th grade boy, who last year chose to have him "opt out" of a special, one-time-only, "sex ed" class given by the school in response to a fellow student's inappropriate actions on campus with some other students, opting out of that, at least, was no big deal.

    As for an ongoing "class" I think opting out could well be problematical.

    Is that what we're talking about, an ongoing sex-ed class for Kindergartners?


    Generalization are the lowest form of argument (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by coast on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    because they just as well be applied to either side.

    sex ed is a major plus (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    ignorance about the plumbing is lethal...however was this a veiled reference to the Annenberg challenge?

    That would be some kind of (none / 0) (#5)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    bank shot if it was.

    I think Salo (none / 0) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    is asking about the $49 mil education project that is referenced above and whether that is the Annenberg project or something else.

    a different article that I read (none / 0) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    about the sex-ed bill was that it also included discussions of STDs with 5 year olds in addition to protection from predators .  Is this true?  I haven't been able to confirm or deny that.

    I think I found the bill (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST


    It was never mandatory in any way.  It was never sponsored by Obama.  I am sure the content of the class would be dtermined by the age group. This bill covered all students from K through high school. That does not mean they would be teaching the same subjects in kindergarten as they would in high school.  

    Parents could object and no questions asked; no repercussions whatsoever.  

    The bill died.


    if, as many are suggesting (none / 0) (#17)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    that this education would be a "no brainer", then why did the bill DIE and never make it to law?

    I think it's because people often fail to realize (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    that most parents of 5-year olds (myself included) don't want discussions of this nature  to take place at all in kindergarten.  While I didn't as a child, my son believes in Santa Claus.  Can't I let him enjoy school at 5, his first year, w/o introducing all kinds of scary crap about life?  How many of us go this type of education when we were in kindergarten?  It's a threat of course, but it should be addressed at home.  All throughout the thread yesterday folks were like, I taught my kid this, and he/she will learn this from me, which is fine.  That's the whole point, your kids should learn that stuff from you as the parent.  At most, send the stuff home in an envelope or invite parents in for a "sex-ed" for your kids nite.  Don't assume that everyone is going to be OK w/kids learning what type of touching is wrong in school.

    But you are a good parent. Unfortunately, kids (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    who may be most in danger of sexual abuse, often don't have that kind of parent around. It can be as simple as telling them, wherever your bathing suit touches you, no one else can. My 16 year old learned that at day care when she was 4 and I don't have a problem with that.

    Of course you are right. (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Ideally, those kids should be identified by the teacher, and placed in some sort of preventative program w/a school social worker or some other social services provider and have it be determined whether the type of education we're talking about is needed.  Simply telling kids what to look out for and them allowing them continue to wallow in a poor environment isn't going to help much.

    What if it is the parent (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    or step-parent that is doing the inappropriate touching?

    I'm in Indiana and we have a variety of programs that teach elementary students that very thing.  

    My daughter is in kindergarten this year and she believes in Santa Claus and loves to look for faires in our garden. The fact that she was told about inappropriate touching in her pre-school, and at home, hasn't ruined her innocence.


    Did you teach her first or did the school? (none / 0) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#78)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    Most children are in danger not from strangers but from family and family friends.  A step-father or uncle or father who is molesting his child will not be teaching them about inappropriate touching.  The school should.  If you don't like them introducing the concept, then when you get the notification talk about it with them first.

    I don't even think parents should be able to opt out.


    Read the bill (none / 0) (#29)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    It was never mandatory at all.  All topics would be age appropriate.  If any parent objected, the child would be excused with no repercussions.  why did the bill not pass?  Probably because people (constituents) did not read the bill.

    I read the bill, and also (none / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    read thru the actual curriculum information available in the post from yesterday and what I could find on the web for our NYC schools.

    Thanks, and I still don't agree with it.


    If you read the bill (none / 0) (#34)
    by themomcat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    you would know that it was for the State of Illinois and has nothing to do with NYC. And if you were reading all the posts here you would know that the bill did not pass and Obama was not a sponsor of the bill.

    Thanks again.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    Yes I know it was for the State of Illinois and had nothing to do w/NYC.  I also know the bill didn't pass - If you look, you'll see I responded to a comment that asked why it didn't.

    These same type of standards/laws exist in NYC and throughout the country.  Stuff going on in Illinois ain't happening in a vacuum.


    And there is an opt out in NYC (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by themomcat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    There are some parents that are barely able to take care of or educate themselves never mind their kids. I get to see the results of that in the Emergency Room more often than I would care to count. If the schools can give some of these kids the tools to protect themselves it would make my job whole lot easier. If you want to educate your child yourself and are capable of doing..Good for you. I made sure that when my 3 year old asked me where babies came from she got age appropriate information not myths. And when she went to school, she went to the sex ed lectures and she was comfortable enough to discuss the material with me. You and I are most likely not the average parent. I am all for giving kids every chance they can get for surviving childhood.
    The McCain ad blatantly lies about this bill and what Obama has said about sex education.

    The McCain add lying - (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    of course it does.  My five year old also knows all about babies and everything that goes along w/it.  However the counterpoint I saw on a thread yesterday, "can't we let our five year-olds be five year-olds" is effective w/the average parent.  Simply saying he's lying ain't gonna cut it.  If we are gonna advocate for children then we need to do it in a manner that is comprehensive and takes all the things you talk about that are root causes into account.  Simply saying if someone does this it's wrong, go tell someone - and there's noone who can really help them, please tell me, where's the value in that?  That is how Obama needs to address this, not by simply saying McCain is lying, because the counterpoint hits u much harder if you have a kindergarten age child.

    I saw a copy of the bill (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    and it explicitly says that EACH class that is offered in comprehensive sex ed from kindergarten through high school has to include instruction on the prevention STD's including HIV. Even though it also says instruction should be age appropriate there is no age appropriate way to teach about STD's in kindergarten.

    There is an opt-out provision for parents and the effectiveness of abstinence, but there is no doubt that the bill requires teaching about HIV and STD's from kindergarten up. Teaching about predators is also included.

    The bill number is SB0099 and is posted at the Ill. Government's website. McCain has the facts right on this one. The bill begins with the STD instruction requirements so there is no way Obama missed it unless he never read the bill.


    If you read the bill (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    (which is linked in a comment below) you will see that a class in "comprehensive  sex education" must include "instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections."  Nothing in that language requires that kindergarten students be offered a class in "comprehensive sex education." Moreover, if you look at sub. (c)(2), you will see that "All  course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."  That language safeguards against giving kindergarten students information they are too young to understand.

    Nice try, though.


    Teacher here (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    In kindergarten the age appropriate teaching about STDs would be to teach children that if someone in the class gets cut or has a nosebleed or something like that, the students should not touch the blood or other bodily fluid. Instead they should tell the teacher or get the school nurse. There are children in the public schools that have AIDS, and it's important that the kids do not become little "first-aiders". The kids would just be told that sometimes blood has germs in it that need to be cleaned up in a special way. Although as parents we remember to teach our children about inappropriate touching, unless someone in the family has a blood born illness, we might not make a bid enough deal about not touching someone else's blood at home. No loss of innocence needed.

    A little common sense and reading comprehension? (none / 0) (#20)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    The bill does not say that.  It only mandates that the education be 'age appropriate' and 'medically accurate'.  The local school board is free to determine what those mean.

    Here's Obama on the Bill in 2004:

    "We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation. "


    What the bill said (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    is that you have to have STDs somewhere in your comprehensive sex education curriculum, which means somewhere from K-12.  Naturally it didn't say you have to teach about STDs in kindergarten specifically, which would be nuts.

    I highly respect your opinions here (none / 0) (#62)
    by tree on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    but I think you are wrong on this. This is from the proposed bill linked below by befuddledvoter (See lines 14 through 17):

    Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex education offered in any of  grades  K  through  12  shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

    It reads to me like instruction on STDs was required in any sex education class in kindergarten. I do agree with you on its being nuts to do so.


    The bill (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    sets standards for any comprehensive sex ed class offered at any grade level, but it does not require that comprehensive sex ed be taught in kindergarten or any other grade.

    Your comment would have more weight (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    if it included direct quotes to substantiate it.

    Sorry if that means going to the effort of providing the direct quotes multiple times in multiple comments...


    It sets standards such (none / 0) (#75)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:49:45 AM EST
    that if a sex ed class is given that teaches kindergartners about how to avoid unwanted touching, etc. that the class must teach about STD's. Thats one of the standards the bill sets.

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    let's put it this way, if the worst-case scenario is that we're talking about a poorly-drafted bill that never passed anyway, it's still a pretty slimy and dishonest attack.

    This sort of reminds me of Steve Benen's suggestion the other day that if we really wanted to, we could make an ad claiming that McCain wanted to cut off all U.S. aid to Israel.  Mind you, what actually happened is that he said we could get rid of a certain list of $65 billion in earmarks, not realizing that all our aid to Israel is technically an "earmark" and on the list.  But still, by the same logic that says Obama wanted to teach about STDs in kindergarten (if, in fact, that's the right way to read the bill), you could make that claim against McCain!


    I'm not disagreeing with you on the dishonesty (none / 0) (#74)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:45:04 AM EST
    of the attack. I'm simply saying that the bill did in fact call for teaching about transmission of STDs in any class. That's the extent of my argument.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    I would like to point out 'any' versus 'all'.  Any is random/unspecific.  All is inclusive.

    "Any" in this usage is inclusive. (none / 0) (#76)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:03:46 AM EST
     If I say "any use of profanity is prohibited here", then I am using "any" as an inclusive qualifier, and in effect "any" would be a synonym for "all" in this sentence..  Likewise, since the proposed bill said that each class in "any" grade shall include instruction on preventing STDs, then in this instance the rule pertains to ALL classes taught regardless of grade level.

    But the point is (none / 0) (#77)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    that nothing in the bill mandates comprehensive a sex education course in any class.  It merely provides that any comprehensive sex ed course that is offered must comply with age-appropriate standards.

    Your point (none / 0) (#79)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    that has nothing to do with my point. The proposed bill itself set standards that required than any sex education class that was given had to include instruction on how to prevent STD's.

     I was rebutting Steve who said that the bill didn't do that. The bill did more than just require age-appropriate standards. It required teaching about preventing STD in any sex education class, even if that class was given to kindergarten students. It was a poorly written bill.


    No. (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    Obama was not (none / 0) (#14)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    telling the whole story in his response. The bill was NOT just about child protection as he said. There are a number of articles online by credible sources that bare this out.

    In short the bill was to teach sex ed intended for grades 6 through 12 to 5 year olds.

    I posted on this yesterday twice and in my posts there is a link to an ABC News article as a good starting place for those who want to be objective about this issue. Just go to my comments page for the post and link.


    That's not true! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:25:14 PM EST
    In short the bill was to teach sex ed intended for grades 6 through 12 to 5 year olds.

    Even if you disagree with the role of schools in sex ed, you can't really think this bill says to teach five year olds material that is not age appropriate!  The bill authorizes medically accutate, age appropriate instruction.


    If you want to be objective (none / 0) (#24)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    read the actual bill.  As I commented above, it does not force sex education on anyone.  It expands the range of ranges of classes in which age-appropriate education can be offered from 6-12 to K-12.  The bill also distinguishes between "sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
    behavior intercourse", which must satisfy several criteria, and those that don't.  It certainly doesn't require kindergarten classes to discuss sexual activity.

    You don't need to look at what other people say about the bill to try to understand it.  The bill speaks for itself, and it doesn't say what you claim it says.


    I read that NYT article yesterday (none / 0) (#33)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    You say the bill speaks for itself but yet you provide no link to the bill, just one slanted article among others online like the ABC News article that I linked to twice that paint a different picture with actual quotes from Obama.

    If you are going to say the bill speaks for itself then you should provide a link to the bill or not claim what it says when you don't know what it directly says.

    That is why I suggested to people to read several articles to get a balanced view.

    The fact is that Obama did want to teach some form of "comprehensive sex education" to 5 year olds. He admits that in his quotes provided by ABC news and several other available articles. That is what the McCain ad said - that Obama wanted to teach some form of "comprehensive sex education" to 5 year olds.

    Obama's response was not totally honest as he said the bill was only about protecting children when in fact that is not all the bill was about. Obama is even quoted saying that he thought it would be appropriate to teach 5 year olds that babies don't come from the stork. Read the ABC news article as I suggested. Babies don't come from storks! How does that protect my daughter from inappropriate touching?


    This is exactly what I read yesterday that made (none / 0) (#57)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    me think whoa!  Inappropriate touching is one thing, disavowing a five year old of myths his/her parent my want their child to continue to believe re: where babies come from is another.  There's no way huge swaths of voters are going to support that.

    Read the bill (none / 0) (#30)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    I read it quickly (none / 0) (#51)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    and as I said Obama's response was not the entire truth. He said it was only about protecting children and that is all he said. There was more to it as we can all see.

    So I stand by my post as accurate. Obviously he was misleading people as he tends to do much to my dislike.

    I don't support McCain or Obama, I support truth. We have two bad choices in this election which is why my vote won't be cast.


    The facts are (none / 0) (#16)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    The bill authorized school boards to decide what was appropriate for grades K-12.  The bill suggested that teaching kindergartners to tell another adult if someone was making them uncomfortable was an appropriate discussion.

    I saw the bill (none / 0) (#18)
    by Monda on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    There is ground there for criticism, depending where you stand on this issue.  However, the way it was portrayed in the ad, it was reduced to a nasty attack.  Disgusting actually. Obama is the father of two girls and the implications of the ad are outright wrong.  

    Instead (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    of being outraged about the ad is Obama responding with an ad? Everybody on blogs can hit the outrage meter to the max but it means nothing if Obama doesn't respond.

    I hope so. That ad was beyond low. It made me (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    extremely angry and I'm not the biggest Obama supporter around. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.

    Agree totally, BTD... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    I am almost ready to give up on this reality show country.    

    What must the rest of the world think when they see what we focus on.

    Fools deserve what they get.  

    Opps...agree with you TChris. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    Scary indeed that we have become a nation of triviality.

    The people are totally distracted while the wolf steals the chickens from the henhouse.


    What is the surprise? (none / 0) (#15)
    by koshembos on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Clearly, neither sex nor education are of any concern to McCain and most of his supporters. Are we surprised that McCain goes nuclear? Haven't we seen it before?

    The only exception is that we point this out. The reason we do that is because once again we have an inept candidate who lacks the skill to express himself in stark way using only a few words.

    the mccain deal is to distract (none / 0) (#40)
    by pluege on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    And so here and everywhere we talk of the mccain campaign outrages instead of real issues. Its not the lies - they're ON PURPOSE because the point it to NOT talk about issues.

    Unfortunately there wouldn't seem to be a way of making it stop short of mcinsane's poll numbers declining. That requires the corporate media and Obama making the charges of frivolous distractions stick.

    Still not clear in Alaska (none / 0) (#43)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM EST

    Seems that some have comprehensive programs and some have "abstinence only."

    This sounds just as bigotted as (none / 0) (#52)
    by tree on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    the stuff I hear coming out of SOME Republicans. If Dems aren't any different, why should I be supporting them? Disagree on issues, don't stereotype and malign whole groups of people just because they are different from you.

    Say what you will (none / 0) (#54)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    This is my impression of what's come out of the news for the last 10 years.

    If at first... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    It is probably unfair for the ad to hammer Obama on this bill.  Whatever it would have accomplished, whatever Obama thought about it, folks here point out it didn't pass.  Looking around it's kind of hard to find much legislation Obama got passed, contrary to some claims about his record.

    And TChris, that $49 million you mention in Obama's defense, that's the Annenburg Challenge that Bill Ayers wrote the original grant for, right?  Do you consider it wise to bring that up as a defense against this ad?  Might be risky to support Obama's record on education with that particular example.  

    Obama did not sponsor or even (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    co-sponser this bill.  Further note, there was already sex education in the schools of Il when this bill was drafted.  It was not statewide regulated or funded.  This would have done both.

    OK... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    I forgot that Obama really doesn't have any legislative achievements on his record. :D

    I so disagree with you (none / 0) (#61)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST

    You're misreading the bill. (none / 0) (#63)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    The prefatory language, "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered ..." does not mandate that comprehensive sex ed be offered in any class, much less in kindergarten.  The section you're looking at merely sets standards for any comprehensive sex ed course offered at any grade level.

    Uh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    Are you just cutting and pasting from somewhere?  Or have you discovered the magic of how to UPDATE comments on this blog?

    After the Bushisms, the...Palinisms... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Oceandweller on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:54:19 PM EST
    Little Sarah IS READY TO GO TO WAR WITH Russia...
    Moose-shooting Palin does not blink when she is offered the slot of becoming Veep. She probably thiks she is absolutely fit for the job...

    Is there a doctor in the romm, help please; because after 8ys of Bush we are going to have Mad SARAH at the helm and I stringly suspect that if Bush gave us an headache Srah will take us non-stop straight talk to intensive care....

    10 comments Devon (none / 0) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    2nd notice... reminder: new commenters (less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day. You are over 20.  Thanks.

    At a third notice, an e-mail will be sent to Jeralyn recommending the commenter be banned.

    Please adhere to the site rules.

    Anyone know if this is a bill Obama worked (none / 0) (#72)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    to develop himself or is it one of the bills other legislators had brought along and then Emil Jones gave the bills to Obama to build his resume once the Dems took control of the legislature?

    Is there a way to know?