Village Dems Urge Women To Lighten Up On Abortion Rights

Matt Yglesias:

What Theda Skopcol said

“FEMINISTS” who are pushing on abortion-funding limits rather than supporting American women need to examine their consciences. NOW’s obsession over abortion is, in effect, betraying a long tradition of American women’s advocacy on behalf of the wellbeing of families and the poor.

(Emphasis supplied.) I like the quote marks around "feminists," and the "obsession over abortion" especially. Nice touches.

Speaking for me only

< A Progressive Victory? | Saturday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Theda (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:46:08 AM EST
    is getting toasted in the comments at TPM.
    More to the point, will men ever quit messing
    with a woman's right to control her own body?
    Not in my lifetime.  Thanks, Matt and Stupak.

    Toasted at TPM? (none / 0) (#53)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    Theda offers useful comments (none / 0) (#133)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    ... under the original thread, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    Skocpol, BTW, is darn near the world's leading authority on how change has been accomplished in diverse cultures, periods and institutional settings ... and she won a landmark gender bias claim against her once and once-again current employer (Harvard).


    She doesn't understand squat (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:19:00 AM EST
    about the economy though.  I'm fairly certain that any actual "good" that this HCR bill can possibly do in our actual economic situation will be washed quickly down river in another collapse heading our way quickly.  But we may not be able to reverse Stupak crap easily.  Of course I will fight for a different outcome there.  The great strides forward she sees in this legislation though in the face of our existing economic reality just aren't there for me to so easily take note of and depend on for what it is socially costing me.  If our economy was solvent, she would have valid points in my book, but it isn't and in that book of mine she is gambling with my social rights in a Vegas casino right now.

    I think that's a bit backwards (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    Why should anyone have to give up their rights for the well being of the family or poor? HRC can be accomplished without taking anyones rights away.

    In reality, Stupak and his group are the ones that are insensative to the family and poor by holding up legislation that would a benefit for the entire country.

    Suddenly Women's Rights Are Off The Table? (none / 0) (#152)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:32:07 PM EST

    This rotten,unworkable giveaway to private corporate drug and insurance giants is a JOKE.
    Drug prices and insurance premiums are already soaring. This crap doesn't even start 'till 2014, so one can only imagine this hoax.

    And we are asked to give up decades of hard won rights for a corporate takeover of Healthcare with no options and a mandate to shove it down our throats or be fined by IRS?   Really?

    It's unbelievable that anyone believes this has credibility.  There is NOTHING that protects 30 million [and all the rest] of insured that the drug and insurance corporations can be controlled.
    By who? How? Our present weaklings who cannot govern? The Republicans in 2014 after Obama is defeated?

    This is ridiculous. Obama tells us private insurance companies are evil, and he made his backroom deals with drug and insurance from the get go. So he asks us to buy private insurance from Insurance Monopoly, and tells us they're evil?

    This kind of doublespeak is what Republicans are good at, but Conservadem Obama who has offered little articulation of the details, and little leadership wants us to approve this piece of crap?

    Women will never approve giving back their rights willingly and this is a definite political loser when the Council Of Catholic Bishops as engineered through Pelosi asks us to allow them to punish us to suit Catholic bias.  Stupak is riddled with lies and more lies.

    You should all go to www.SunlightFoundation.com  and access all the correct factual information on Stupak, as well as Ben Nelson's senate add ons including his getting more Medicaid state subsidies from government than any other state.

    This whoring was to get Nelson's lousy vote even as it diluted women's rights.

    There is NO way that women's reproductive rights, and right to equal protection are off the table. Never.

    RoevWade is settled law and  Republicans, the religious right, and now the Democrats have decided to chip away at hard won constitutional law.

    Democrats have shamed themselves.


    How vulgar (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:55:06 AM EST
    How damaged is a family when the women of the family are little more than chattel?  It weakens our sons as they fail to learn to have proper respect for women and our daughters bend over in pain to the "reality" that they are less than men when it comes to deciding their fates.  The whole "saved" family is damaged and wounded and scars will develop, and the damages will destroy family as they used to!  This is nothing more than family devolution.

    Women Are Being Bartered By Democrats (none / 0) (#153)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    The lack of respect shown women by my democratic representatives and senators will never be forgotten.

    Women are being treated as barter while totally disrespecting and disregarding the decades of struggles by women for reproductive and equal protection rights.

    I read blogs from democrats that FEMINISTS are to be shunned as some sort of otherworld creatures. Feminists are being derided by the Villagers who will vote Obama no matter how awful his performance and policies.

    It is exactly these Feminists who have worked on the ground for labor, for progressive legislation, and for organizing getting out the votes. For children's rights and reproductive freedom, and maternal welfare and health.

    We have only been granted the right to vote for a relatively short time in our history. It took
    brave and couragous women who were jailed, shunned,ridiculed and discriminated against.

    The women's movement is one of the most profoundly moral milestones in the politics of morality and progressivism of our time. We have been ahead of and behind of many nations and cultures and our struggles are still in the making.

    Undermining these rights and chipping away at RoevWade is shameful and immoral.  That Democrats are asking us to give up important rights to equal protection just shows how morally bankrupt and tone deaf our leadership and congress have become.

    So my party has decided to wage war at the weakest among them?  They may find out that feminism will never die and that women are stronger than they think.   That Democrats have laid themselves this low is unaceptable from any point of view.


    Matt does the math for the 'little' women (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    Matt writes like he's shocked, absolutely shocked, that village dems (he is one) want women to bite down hard and 'take one for the team'. He concludes his piece of outrage by confirming that's exactly what he wants women to do:

    As a matter of principle, discriminating against abortion services is indefensible. But in practice, the need to pay out of pocket for abortions is going to be far offset by other benefits women are getting.

    Cute, huh?

    Matt's a noxious aspiring 'wise man'. I can't stand him.

    Yeah, Matt please (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:03:04 AM EST
    outline my "offset" benefits.  It is very clear what women are losing, but exactly what am I gaining again that is truly and honestly definable at this point?  This bill is how many different "experiments" Matt, and you've said as much yourself.  So don't talk down to me little boy about what I lose and what I gain!

    Scott Brown got elected (none / 0) (#10)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    in large part because Dems who supported Hillary in the primaries stayed home, at least that's my understanding.

    Dems run a real risk of getting outflanked on this front. I don't frankly ever envision a time when Matt and Andrew Sullivan and all the bright stars of modern progressivism are ever going to vote for any woman. No matter how qualified the woman, Matt and Josh will always find reasons to avoid supporting the woman. The media bar for Hillary was likeability, that way the male media talking heads could avoid the humiliation of comparing Hillary's academic record with 'my grades are classified top-secret'.

    I think there's a much better chance Republicans will put a woman in the Oval office first. Obama's secret 2004 strategy may be to dump Biden and make Hillary his number 2. That would certainly bring some Dems back to the fold.

    Pakistan, India, and any number of other countries including some extremely reactionary ones, have elected female leaders. Not the US.

    Speaks volumes. Right now, I think the GOP much more likely to send a woman to the public for the top job. Change you can believe in.


    Ha Ha (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    People who supported Obama were the ones who came out to vote for a woman, Martha Coakley. HRC's supporters were the ones who let the woman candidate down (despite Coakley being a stalwart HRC supporter during the primaries).
    Obama's supporters during the primaries will also be the ones who will come out and vote for another woman, Gillibrand (despite the way she was shoved down their throat and the way Caroline Kennedy was treated). You know why? Because they take their progressivism seriously and have the capability to see the bigger picture!
    You are such a troll, kidneystones!

    Calling large numbers of Dem voters 'racist' (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    is going to continue to have real-world consequences.

    Funny how that works.


    Jeralyn, please take action on post # 23 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    Uhmmm (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    what action?  I don't think anyone implied that you personally were racist.  And yes, false accusations of racism are now very much in vogue, because if you are a progressive and try to advocate for your position, people accuse you of calling him a weak black man who can't think for himself.  If your angry at him, you are being "shrill" because he is a black man in charge of you.

    And it is destroying this Party.

    But I take heart, as the hardcore Obamabots are a fastly decreasing species.  Hope and change is not enough to feed the soul, actual results and policies matter.  The Doors comes to mind:

    "Your ballroom days are over, baby,
      Night is drawing near;"  - When The Music's Over



    Lay off the "obamabots" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    Old Hickory.

    what action? Frontpage it? (none / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    It clearly was not directed at you, personally.

    Yeah and dont say (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    any more mean stuff about Sarah and teabaggers, or you'll all wake up to be sorry one day.

    While not endorsing any particular view (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    of who did what, I do wonder that if you believe what you wrote you are not urging Dems to do more to assauge those non-Obama supporters you argue did not vote - to wit, the ones who do not "take their progressivism" seriously.

    I supported Coakley but Jeralyn Merrit prominently did not. she explained her reasons. they sounded pretty progressive to me.

    I disagreed with her but I''m pretty sure her progressivism was both "serious" and sincere in her opposition to Coakley.


    No BTD (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    I did not have Jeralyn in mind when I wrote the post. She explained her reasons and she was serious and sincere though I disagreed with her thinking (I am not sanguine that Scott Brown will not win in 2012 like she is. Scott Brown supports water boarding and military tribunals, he will vote to cut of funding for civilian court trials, so JM's fears about Coakley on civil rights issues are somewhat lost on me).
    A lot of HRC supporters did not vote for Coakley because they wanted to teach the President a lesson for not standing up to Main Street . It tells me that they did not judge Coakley as a candidate on her own merits. This is a sad argument for people, who claim to support women's empowerment in our politics, to make.
    Scott Brown, also received a lot of campaign money from bankers (who were rooting for him because he would not raise tax on banks), OTOH Martha Coakley had a decent record prosecuting bankers.

    Please justify your assertions; (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    otherwise you are merely fanning flames for the heck of it.
    You write "A lot of HRC supporters did not vote for Coakley because they wanted to teach the President a lesson for not standing up to Main Street "
    Says who????

    Once again, ... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    A lot of HRC supporters did not vote for Coakley because they wanted to teach the President a lesson for not standing up to Main Street.

    ... based on what???

    A crystal ball?


    The crystal ball comes with (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    the "true" progressive decoder ring.

    No crystal ball. Simply the need for (none / 0) (#48)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    some folks to find some one, other than Obama, for Obama's troubles. Scott Brown was elected because progressives didn't see any difference in the outcomes of either him or Coakley.  

    Correction: (none / 0) (#49)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    some folks to find some one, other than Obama, to blame for Obama's troubles. Scott Brown was elected because progressives didn't see any difference in the outcomes of either him or Coakley being elected.  

    Wasn't Coakley also (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    a pretty poor campaigner?

    I bet if Coakely had run as the AG... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:44:08 PM EST
    ... who took Golden Sacks for $60 million of the people's money, she would have won.

    Instead, the national party:

    1. Made her throw the base under the bus by reversing her pro-woman stance on abortion in the Dem's health insurance reform bills, and then:

    2. Made the election into a referendum on a bill that not only makes failure to buy junk insurance a federal crime, but is worse than the system MA already has.

    Coakley didn't help her own cause at her Versailles fundraiser with Big Pharma lobbyists, either.

    And then Obama threw her under the bus. Although I'm sure Coakely being a woman had nothing to do with that.


    Isn't she the candidate quoted as saying (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    she couldn't be expected to stand outside the few remaining factory gates on a cold morning and shake hands.

    Coakley ran a terrible campaign (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    And took her election for granted. As the Democratic establishment was asleep and paid no attention to her listless and detached campaign, her loss was no surprise to anyone paying attention.

    Brown's election came as a huge surprise because of political ineptness, cockiness, and  tone deafness to the noise on the ground coming from many fronts. Blaming Hillary supporters may be cute, but really Coakley didn't get elected because Ted Kennedy Dems along with other progressives turned their backs.

    Now Democrats are asking women to remain the Second Sex Forever and give it up for this crappy bill  because Pelosi and Obama haven't the stones to stand up to the Council of Catholic Bishops.

    Fear and loathing for all thse Democrats that will whore every principle to save Obama's ass for this corporate giveaway which only addresses symptoms, not the problems.

    Interference from Church with State is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. Roe and Women's Rights can just "go away and give it up for our fearless leader" is corrupt, politically stupid, and a loser.

    Obama has squandered his political capital and his first year when real progress could have been made by foolishly and egotistically farting around with bi-partisanship when none was to be had. He hasn't morphed into Ronald Reagan.

    After Obama made his backroom deals with the  drug and insurance lobbies guaranteeing no public option competition and no drug negotiating for Medicare or importation, we women are asked to give it up for this corporate giveaway?

    Pelosi allowing the Catholic Bishops to dictate to the American people is astonishing in its
    implications. Obama allowing this along with Reid is hypocritical and disgusting.  Asking women to be the sacrificial lambs for this  from the villagers is intolerable hubris.

    We are watching a party create unsupportble and tone deaf positions that expect support for  from the very women it is punishing. The Democrats have gone mad.


    Maybe, it's hard though, to get people (none / 0) (#51)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    to vote for you, when all you can say is, "I'm going to Washington to give you more of the same".

    Given the willingness (none / 0) (#67)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    of millions of Hillary supporters, despite their anger over the primary, to vote for Pres. Obama in the general election, I'd say that your argument doesn't hold water.

    In fact, I think there's a lot stronger anger amongst former avid supporters of Pres. Obama.

    Unless you have a number of polls that support your argument, your statements are simply speculation and opinions without even good reasoning to back them up.


    No Support Factually About Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    Unless you can support demographically from impeccable sources, this" Hillary voters did it" crap is ridiculous.

    The roots on the ground who were Obama supporters expressed their outrage. More centrist Democrats expressed their disapproval of Coakley's abominable  lackluster campaign, and her laziness in addressing retail politics.

    There were other Independents who were repelled by DC,Obama, and coakley for good reason.

    Your allegation about Clinton is inaccurate,biased, and  pitiful in offering her up as the reason Brown won.  Brown ran a professional campaign and was engaging which Coakley was not. This should never have happened if the Dem Party had any idea about what was happening in Mass, but they did not.

    Your statement about Hillary is blather and your lack of understanding as to the simmering underlying problems that created a Brown win are astonishing in political naivete and blogblather not backed up by hard facts.


    Typo (none / 0) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    should read "they wanted to teach the President a lesson for not standing up for Main Street"

    And this is bad, how? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    We should stand around and let main street get screwed, as bad as any Repub would do, because Obama's a Democrat?

    Both legacy parties need to be destroyed... (none / 0) (#63)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    ... and if the Ds go first, well, "that's the nature of our two-party system."

    Obama A Democrat? (none / 0) (#108)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:06:35 PM EST
    Who told you Obama was a Democrat?

    Lieberman, Nelson,Stupack?


    "Typo" (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    I believe the original (Freudian slip) was Kidneystone's.

    No. (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by itscookin on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    Those of us who supported Hillary worked hard for Martha Coakley. We were the ones who helped her win the primary. We were also the ones who were most disappointed when she flipped on the HCR bill. Her decision to vote for a health care reform bill that discriminates against women is what cost her the election. Some of us still voted for her, but many women saw no point in working for someone who pledged to vote against our self-interest.

    Expecting Women To Vote Against Themselves (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:15:44 PM EST
    or their self intersts is foolhardy dangerously stupid politics.

    Women have struggled to get the vote, the right to determine their privacy,their reproductive choices, and fought for equal protection as defined by our Constitution. Decades of struggles given up for an ill conceived bill abided by a bunch of rascals and conceived by a bunch of mysogynistic rascals are supposed to be tolerated by women who've spent 30 years of their lives fighting for equality?

    Women will not give up on this and will continue to fight for their rightful place in society. Stupak and Nelson are political losers for Democrats.

    These attacks on Women's Rights will mobilize Women even further to guard against these onslaughts and by strongly opposing anyone who wishes to make us their political prostitutes.


    I remember (none / 0) (#30)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    your posts on the MA election. Most illuminating. I also read and linked to at least one post from an extremely angry Dem who felt that the WH and Dems in Congress had thrown older Dem voters under the bus.

    I don't think this administration is all bad. But on balance the bad parts far outweigh the good. The reason Democrats are likely to get thumped in November is because Dems have failed on so many fronts. Until the MA election, Dems believed governing consisted of preening and sneering. The public rightly expected much more.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    People who supported Obama were the ones who came out to vote for a woman, Martha Coakley. HRC's supporters were the ones who let the woman candidate down (despite Coakley being a stalwart HRC supporter during the primaries).

    Based on what?  Exit poll data, ...

    ... or just your imagination?


    From what I read, the turn out (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    for young people (one of Obama's core groups) was pretty bad. In the teens where older voters turned out IIRC at high 50s.



    Hilarity (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    I'm so glad I'm not a Democrat any more, after people like you threw us out of the party. Enjoy circling the drain in 2010.

    He - she is fairly good (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    at it too: just throw that "they called people racists" red meat out there to feed that neverending post-primary resentment, and the thread immediately       starts heading South..

    A good crypto-wingnut knows his audience.


    And speaking of caucus fraud... (none / 0) (#123)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    Just saying. I mean, we've heard "get over it" a thousand times already, so why do you feel the need to repeat?

    Your "understanding"? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    Scott Brown got elected in large part because Dems who supported Hillary in the primaries stayed home, at least that's my understanding.

    Based on what?


    Based on a colorful drink? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:46:11 AM EST

    I like kidneystones (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    I like that kidneystones isn't afraid to put up an original posting or belief or thought process.  But on this particular one I think you are right as well as pretty damned funny.

    Here ya go (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    Via TNR's John Judis:

    [T]he polls have not shown growing dissatisfaction among young, minority, or liberal voters--the three voting blocs that accounted for Obama's strongest support in 2008. Where he has lost ground--and where the Democrats have lost ground--is primarily among white working and middle class voters and senior citizens.

    In other words, exactly the people -- in fact, the Hillary voters -- that the Dems, together with the "creative class," who smeared them as racists, threw under the bus in the 2008 primaries. Quelle surprise.


    I get your point, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    ... and agree with much of it.  I just don't know about making the leap from Obama's loss of support among older/working class voters to identifying "Hillary's voters" as those who sat on their hands and allowed Brown to win.  As RonKSeattle points out below, it would be just as easy to point to the collapse of the youth vote in the Mass. Special Election, and they were among Obama's core supporters.  Of course, that was entirely predictable.

    BTW - I'm one of those who will never forget being called a "racist!" during the primaries for daring to question Obama's qualifications, although I think most Democrats (as evidenced by the large % of Hillary voters who voted for Obama in the GE) either: 1) were not aware of the "Racist!" accusations, or 2) realized that they shouldn't base their decision on the rantings of  some zealots making ridiculous accusations of racism.


    I agree it's a proxy... (none / 0) (#113)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:29:37 PM EST
    ... since, so far as I know, no polling was done that would tend to validate our hypothesis directly. For some reason. But I think it's a reasonably interpretation of events. (And disillusioned Obama voter staying home, and alienated Hillary voters opting out, are not mutually exclusive. See here, and here.)

    Understand this (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    Nearly 70% of 2008 presidential voters under age 30 failed to vote in the 2010 MA Senate special election.

    20% of Obama voters supported Brown. That equates to a 24% swing in margin.  [All results subject to  he usual vagaries of available data.]

    Here's how it is, mates: water is pouring in over the gunwales both port and starboard.

    Oh, and such lifeboats as there are, are full of pirates and cannibals ... and there's no land in sight.



    It's on Obama, mostly, and (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    on Pelosi and Reid to a lesser extent.
    If they don't change, November will be a massacre.

    I've seen several electoral (none / 0) (#32)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    maps that indicate the regions that Brown picked up went for Obama in 2008, but went to Hillary during the primaries.

    itscookin makes a good case that this pattern of Brown wins also reflects areas that came out for Coakley's opponent during her primary. These voters weren't going to come out for Coakley.

    As much as I respect that argument, I think that older suburban Dem voters don't find much to like in the 2008 Dems and that played a part in their decision to stay home or pull the lever for Brown.

    Can't say I blame them and it looks like they're not alone.


    Haven't seen those (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    Still haven't seen those maps.  But if these same voters that you theorize "stayed home" and gave the election to Brown voted for Clinton in the primaries and Obama in the general, what makes you suggest it was "Dems who supported Hillary in the primary" that stayed home, as opposed to "Dems that supported Obama in the general"?

    Either way, maps of electoral results can be extremely misleading, since "regions" don't vote, people do, and there is zero exit poll data to support the idea that it was Hillary voters stayed home and Brown won because of it.

    I couldn't blame older, suburban Dem voters, either, but my point is that without data I have no idea whether these voters stayed home because of Clinton (or Obama), turned out for Coakley, or turned out for Brown.


    That's a fair (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    criticism. My principle argument is that there's a large constituency that saw Clinton as the more qualified candidate.

    Allowing Wall st CEOs to craft their own taxpayer-funded bailout and inviting big health care to help draft hcr, etc, etc won the administration few new friends.

    Keith Olberman called Brown a racist, homophobe, bigot who supports violence against women. Obama supporters have been calling political opponents racist for three years now.

    I'm not sure why Keith and the other minions think hurling accusations of racism at critics is going to help sell bad policies or poor leaders.


    Rule or ruin in all events! (none / 0) (#55)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    Control of the party apparatus and identification with a leader is far more important than policies.

    My take on election (none / 0) (#99)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:47:14 PM EST
    I think Brown got elected because the Democratic leadership hasn't bothered to take care of it's base. It's that simple.

    Union workers were almost evenly split. Why? Maybe they resented Democrats trashing them and their "Cadillac" health care policies!

    Corporate bailouts while millions have lost their homes and jobs? A stimulus that didn't stimulate 99.9% of the people.

    Right now I'd be hard pressed if asked why I'm a Democrat.


    Because Republicans are worse! (none / 0) (#100)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    Just keep saying that.

    As Albert Einstein once said (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 07:18:16 AM EST
    "Insanity is doing the same thing over an over again and expecting different results."

    I marvel at the people who STILL actually have the ability to believe the Democrats actually have their best intentions at heart and will "fix" anything after the fact.

    One thing I have seen repeatedly is Democrats are long on rhethoric and short on actual results.

    It's bad enough poor women were told to bite the bullet for the weak @ss stimulus bill and were told they would have to suck up the fact that their birth control couldn't be subsidized (and there were hues and cries how the Dems would make that a separate bill back then too. How IS that working out?) Now we're supposed to rubber stamp MORE reproductive curbs for some weak @ss health insurance pirahna's wet dream? Uh-uh.


    Washington Generals are better... (none / 0) (#114)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    ... than the Globetrotters? How so?

    The Republicans could be "worse," and the Democrats "better," and the situation continue to deteriorate via the ratchet effect.


    Lambert, My pastor says you (none / 0) (#117)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    should talk with your pastor about this, and understand that even though Republicans and Democrats are the same now, in the next life, after the next election, the Democrats will be better. THAT is why you need to stay with the D's.

    Oh, OK (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    So, if I send them more money, can I get a different kind of commemorative plate? I've got the Pony one, like, eight times already.

    Scott Brown won because the (none / 0) (#103)
    by bridget on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    "unenrolled" independents put him in the Senate. If Hillary's supporters stayed home, the angry and disappointed independents who can't stand Obamacare turned out in droves to teach the new Prez a lesson. Btw. other Dems did decide to go for the protest vote: Republican

    A. Cockburn who is right more often than not makes lots of sense IMO in the following article:


    A Richly Deserved Humiliation

    Coakley Loses and a Good Job Too

    clip -

    Brown's achievement is not novel. His type of Republican has been elected governor in Massachusetts three or four times in the last 18 years by the real "majority party" --which is the "unenrolled" independents who are 1 and 1/2 times the size of Democrats in number among registered voters and tower over the Republicans of whom less than 12 per cent are registered as such.

    CounterPuncher Steve Early, a labor organizer in the state wrote to us on Monday that Brown is in the mould of two recent Republican governors of Massachusetts, William Weld , and Paul Celluci, the latter two actually being backed by later Change to Win local affiliates like HERE Local 26 and the Teamsters. These were genial, likeable, clean-cut jocks, presenting themselves to independent voters as a much needed public rebuke to "an increasingly corrupt, arrogant or personally screwed up Beacon Hill clique of Democrats (see recent spate of House and Senate member/leader indictments, jailings, and/or resignations pending trial). A lot of folks, at the moment, are again just plain pissed about the self-serving political class of Democratic Donkeys who run our one-party state, including the now unpopular Obama pre-cursor, Deval Patrick." ... read on


    What GOP woman, (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    that would probably also have to appeal to Huckabee-Palin crowd, is going to be "change you can believe in"?

    Unless you're suggesting that disgruntled Hillary supporters are so clueless that they'd support ANY wingnut trojan horse as long as fit the gender specification?


    Blaming Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    That old right wing crap again?

     Hillary is not responsible for the voters disgust with this ineffective and bungled year that's emerged from the clueless lack of leadership and political savvy we've all been watching.

    So now there's a left wing conspiracy against Hillary? She's been doing her job as Secy of State. Many of Coakley's supportrs were Hillary supporters.

    What a pitiful excuse to explain away the abysmal campaign run by MC, and the disgust from Independents, moderate Dems, etc shown to the WHouse and Congress for their shoddy and ham handed behavior.


    Matt You Have No Right (none / 0) (#154)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    To talk down to women and ask them to suck it up and suffer for your bankrupt ideas.

    If there was a truly progressive bone in your body and a smidgen of feeling and respect for women you would choke on your words.

    Matt you should shut up.


    What benefits? Screening for (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    testicular cancer? I assume THAT benefit to women won't be cut by Stupak, but I"m not sure.

    Matt should take (none / 0) (#28)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:31:49 AM EST
    the time to educate himself on women's health care. Obviously he has never had a miscarriage or other condition that would require a D&C procedure. Too many fail to understand the complexities of the adverse impact anti-abortion proponents demands can have on a woman's ability to get treatment that has nothing to do with an abortion. Matt's ignorance is understandable but certainly not acceptable.

    You know what? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    Matt's ignorance is understandable but certainly not acceptable.

    It's not even understandable.

    If Rep. Stupak presumes to represent the people of his district, he presumes to represent the women, too, so he has the duty to be up to speed, at the very least, on the women's issues he presumes to speak about, regardless of where he stands on any particular one.

    If mere ignorance is Stupak's problem, there is no excuse for it. None.


    Stupak (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    is not ignorant and clearly represents the Catholic Church above everyone else.  He is not going to give up his personal crusade.  

    Matt and some of the other Village Dems might be able to be educated to understand the problems with limiting women's access to medical procedures like a D&C.  Maybe Matt needs to talk to women who have been through an experience like this:

    Hospitals and doctors in general do not have terminology to classify a difference between the termination of a live pregnancy and one in which the fetus has already died.  To them, a D&C is a D&C, regardless of the state of the "conception materials" removed.  Regardless of how many times I made sure to mention to the staff, either for the sake of my sanity or to spare me some sort of imagined shame, that I was ridding myself of my "dead fetus," to them, it was all the same.

    I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks.  I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

    As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do.  A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced.  Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500.  And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death.  With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

    Losing a pregnancy is difficult enough by itself.  Women should not have to deal with extra stresses of fighting over a procedure because some uninformed, self-proscribed authorities on passing  HCR don't know squat about obstetrics and gynecology.  


    Matt Understandable?? (none / 0) (#116)
    by norris morris on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:34:55 PM EST
    It is actually unforgiveable that any man claiming to be  tolerant let alone a Democrat who shows a total lack of understanding about women facing regarding rape, pregnancy, reproductive issues, etc.

    We are not even going into the area of equal pay  and hiring practices in the workplace.

    What Universe is Matt living in?


    Pity Matt's Women (none / 0) (#155)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    Whether friend, mother,aunt, grandma, sister, wife, lover. co-worker, Matt is out to lunch.

    He's detached and uneducated about that thing called life.  Being a human being first is what always counts but Matt obviously doesn't "get it".


    My take away from womens reproduction (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    under the Democrats is that no matter how they like to portray they are so much better then the GOP on women, they aren't.

    64 Democrats voted for Stupak provision/ thats almost 1/4 the Democratic contingent. The president still hasn't rescinded labelling Birth control as an abortifactent, the whole cabal were willing to throw poor women solely under the bus for the stimulus bill(perhaps the most ignorant decision ever since feeding, housing, educating and providing coverage to every child that has a parent that isn't financially prepared for it is much more expensive then helping her pay for the means to prevent conception to begin with). That's just this years work.

    The one thing they can tout as for women is equal pay and guess what? Every single Republican female voted for it.

    In short, on behalf of my daughter and myself Matt and cabal "get bent" and don't bother with waxing poetic about how I have to vote Democratic in 2010/2012 because the Democratic party is sooooooo much better on women's issues. You aren't and I notice.

    If by "equal pay" (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Emma on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    you're talking about the Ledbetter Act, that doesn't have anything substantive to do with equal pay.  What the Ledbetter Act does is fix a statute of limitations problem caused by the SCt's ruling on Ledbetter v. Firestone. It returns the law to the interpretation held by the courts prior to the SCt decision.

    It's a fix, and a good one, but it does not have anything to do with equal pay, per se.


    I see it as an incremental step in the right (none / 0) (#91)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    direction and I was very proud that every female Senator be she Democrat or Republican voted for it.

    I do understand what you are saying though we still have a ways to go. We've got the vehicle, now it needs a set of wheels.


    We always (none / 0) (#137)
    by Emma on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:16:56 PM EST
    We already had the vehicle.  Ledbetter did NOT create the right to equal pay.  That right was created by Title VII and the equal pay act.

    The only thing Ledbetter did was fix a statute of limitations problem, i.e. the time in which you can bring a lawsuit.  Ledbetter has nothing to do with the right to equal pay.  It was nothing more than legislative housekeeping about time limits to bring a lawsuit.


    We'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#138)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    I thought it was a bright spot to what has been an abyssmal decade for women. Sort of like I found that women will finally be allowed to serve on submarines a bright spot or that they are considering finally acknowledging that women are capable of combat and don't need to be considered "ancillary" anymore. On the career front I see us making progress.

    I wish I could begin to see some parity for us on the reproductive front. Alas, it's been all bad news.


    Disagree. The SCOTUS opinion (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    blessed keeping women from enforcing their rights.

    Disagree with what? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Emma on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    Yes, the SCt opinion erected a barrier to women (and minorities) bringing certain types of lawsuits under Title VII.  Yes, the statute fixed it.  But neither was about equal pay, per se.  Both were about a statute of limitations problem, created by the SCt in its opinion and fixed by Congress in the Ledbetter Act.

    I just don't understand what we're supposed to be "disagreeing" about.  None of this is opinion, it's all fact.  It was a statute of limitations issue.  Period.


    From the top down (none / 0) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:38:57 AM EST
    My rep Lupinski is among those in the Stupak camp. The problem is that he has the support of the DNC, so trying to oust him in a primary is pointless. He gets the national funding.

    What makes it worse is this is a Democratic stronghold. They don't have to endorse a Blue Dog. We could and should have a true Democrat in this seat. He's there because they want him there.

    Maybe a bloodbath in November is needed to regain the Democratic party. They need a major wake up call. As Mass. showed, the "new party" isn't a winning ticket.

    In it's effort to appeal to all, Democratic leaders are willing to sell out any and all Democratic party principles.


    It's imperative you try (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:48:25 AM EST
    and get him primaried IMO. There are people like me that will vote for the alternative over him, whatever that may be or not show up. The best bet for the progressive community when it comes to people like myself is going to be to give them a better choice. I honestly believe every single individual should have to face a primary every 4 years. That way representation knows they will be accountable.

    I realize that it's difficult though when the Democratic party's sole goal appears to be winning at all costs, even if winning means abandoning important core principles.


    I wish (none / 0) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    It's been tried several time and he just has so much money and clout that nobdy has been able to make a dent in him. He got the job when his Dad stepped down and he knows it's his until he doesn't want it anymore.

    He also was an ardent supporter of the Iraq War and fought the Democrats over the funding. I thought at that primary (2006) we had a decent shot at him. He still won the primary by a landslide.


    Part of the Daley Machine. (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    Big Difference (none / 0) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    Daley has never forgotten his base. No one could ever accuse him of being a stealth Republican!

    Agreed, but (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    the Liipinski's are intrenched in the Daley machine. In 1975, Mayor Richard J. Daley (cf. The Boss, Mike Royko), named William Lipinksi Democratic Committeeman for the 23rd ward--a post he still holds along with being a lobbyist.  He moved along with the best of them from Alderman to Congressman, serving as a staunch conservative, blue dog (prolife, antigay, war hawk). In 2004 he won the Democratic primary, once again, but shortly afterward withdrew for retirement. He asked and received endorsement from the Democrats to name his son, Dan, to replacement him, no primary necessary.  It did require Dan to move back to Illinois from Tennessee where he was a professor at the University of Tenn.  Dan, himself, has been nurtured along the way with staff positions such as with the Cook County States Attorney Devine and Congressman Rod Blagojevich.

    When they were only going to (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    continue to shove the status quo down the throats of poor women I thought it a good idea to attempt to create private grants for abortions.  How stupid can one girl be?  Pretty stupid sometimes.  I saw the idea repeated elsewhere as an excuse to feck us all over, and all I was doing was attempting to prepare for a larger nuke explosion among the poor.  Now they have fecked us all over, royally!  We are all chattel except the rich women.

    So, were was I naive in responding to (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    "Don't forget about Roe v. Wade"?  Rhetorical question.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#156)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:59:13 PM EST
    Cawaltz you've said it all.

    A year ago, I couldn't imagine the Democrats (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    screwing up health care reform so thoroughly. Throwing all their most loyal constituencies under the bus and helping to make the enemies of real health reform more powerful than they already are.

    People who say that any of this can be "fixed down the road" are nuts. Or, at least, not thinking.

    This measure doesn't take any of the most controversial issues off the table so they can be readdressed with better result in the future -- it only makes concessions to, and therefore provides more institutional power and resources to, the interests that have fought real reform all along.

    They will not only continue to effectively demonize and obstruct any proposal that doesn't benefit them, competes with them, or takes away some benefit the government handed them in the past -- but, once these "reforms" are in place, they will have even more institutional and financial power to devote to the task, and more government supported profits and territory to defend.

    Passing a plan mostly written by the enemies of health care reform, and the enemies of progressive values in general, will make future reform harder, not easier.

    Stalinist Regressiveness (none / 0) (#157)
    by norris morris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 05:05:47 PM EST
    Those like Matt and other Villagers remind me of the regressive left wing mind set of the 50's, ala Soviet/Marxist reasoning.

    For the greater good we may have to do some bad stuff, but you MUST go along with this.

    The means justifies the end.

    Where did I hear this crud before?
    Obamatons and diehard idolators sound more and more reactionary and totalitarian.  They have lost their political principles and moral standards.


    It is part of "any bill will do"-- (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    given the same weight as, say, increasing premium levels by a couple of thousand dollars a year to dodge the excise tax so as to get the needed votes.  Lightening up on your ability to make your own health care decisions is, for those of such mindset, no big deal.  After all, women's heath can always be obtained out-of-pocket, and it is not as if it is being made illegal--there is still fierce advocacy for Roe v Wade. You must look at the big picture, you know.)

    The New and improved (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    I wonder if the powers that be within the Democratic party would just as soon see abortion banned. It would be one less weapon for the right and they could walk away from the issue.

    The party has lost it's moral compass. The "new party" doesn't seem willing to to take a stand on any principle. The fear of losing is stronger than the joy of winning.

    Aunt Susan B. has some words for Matt (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    from 1872, and yet they still are so true:

    "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her."

    Since I finally listened up to the woman so wise, the woman who wrote a part of the Constitution, I have become self-respecting politically, and I have been so much happier.  I do not work for my former party anymore, nor do I even wish it well -- as it certainly is not wishing me or my daughter well.

    any progressive worth their salt (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    would be doing EXACTLY the opposite - getting rid of the heinous, unconstitutional hyde amendment that discriminates against women exercising their constitutional rights. But you'd be searching far and wide trying to find a real progressive, particularly in Washington with all the BS yglesias, klein, and other pretend progressives.

    But always remember girls (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    you must show up every November and vote Democratic otherwise big, bad Republicans will take away your right to choose and to autonomy over your own body.  Whereas if you vote Democratic, it will at least be those nice, considerate Democrats who erode your rights.

    Democrats have been selling women out for 30 years. And not just to abortion, last I saw the bill didn't cover basic gyno exams because Dems were afraid of even discussing icky girl parts.  

    When women don't show up in enough numbers to save them in November - that's, btw, what happened in 1994, working class and women with less education stayed home (there's an Emily's List study that I can't find right now that shows the drop from 1992 to 1994) - they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.  I'm certainly not going to show up and vote for them.  

    I could barely get through that (4.91 / 12) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    rallying cry by Skocpol; it is as offensive as anything I have read lately.  And as offensive as it was for the instructions she gave to all of us extremists to set aside our interests for the greater glory that is Obama, that it is part of a trend now among people who call themselves Democrats is even more worrisome - and nauseating.

    As for Yglesias, I'm not sure there are any words to adequately describe how I feel about men who think women should accept further incursions on their rights for some bigger picture, perceived greater good.  It is stunning to me that, rather than fight for a way to attain better health care for all - men, women and children - Yglesias and so many others go to the "easy" answer: "hey, babe - give up your fight now, and we'll see what we can do about it later."

    [Any woman whose husband or male significant other has stood at the open refrigerator and declared that "I can't find the mayonnaise," because he is incapable of looking beyond the first row of items that are immediately visible, may appreciate that I feel like there's some of that going on here..."I can't find the things we need to make health care affordable and accessible to more people...guess I'll just have to use women's reproductive rights to placate the anti-choice crowd for now and maybe those other things will show up eventually."  Meanwhile, single-payer and Improved Medicare for All are there, but someone seems to have shoved them way back behind a bunch of other things.]

    As for Theda, I think she is kidding herself if she thinks this terrible piece of legislation is going to open the door to any public component, ever.

    It's stupaks obsession. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:53:46 AM EST
    It's remarkable that this even came up.

    Hey, Obama was probably consulting with (4.57 / 7) (#38)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:13:46 AM EST
    his pastor on this very issue.

    Does (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    this surprise anyone?

    No, but who can allow these (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:23:32 AM EST
    pathetic justifications to just stand in silence?

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    I dont think that they should be let to just hang but this is just another example of the distinct pattern of behavior. "progressives" have had towards women for quite a while now.

    No (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    It's just cemented my belief that what was done in 2008 was for the progressives to play the "be afraid of the boogeyman" card with women. Additionally it tells me that looking at party affiliation as identity is a dangerous proposition for issue centered activists. You have to look at the complete record and ask questions if there isn't a record of the individual.

    I tihnk the overarching strategy is (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    clear: HCR, whether it passes or not, has the primary purpose of doing a Sister Souljah on anyone to the left of Obama or Inhofe (whichever is more right-leaning on a particular issue).
    The math says Obama wins reelection in a landslide; at which point, he will of course reveal his true colors as a.....

    "True colors"?! (none / 0) (#56)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    You racist!

     [irony alert! irony alert!]


    Thanks! haven't had a real laugh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    for a while... Although Franken's letter promising that the Senate would take action on amending HCR after the House voted did give me a chuckle.

    Misrepresention by selective reading (none / 0) (#62)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    Theda's appeal may be futile, it may be misguided, but it is anything but one-sided (as the commentary would lead a naive reader to believe).

    Here's a missing excerpt:

    CATHOLIC PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS also need to get a grip on core values. Do they -- or the U.S. Catholic Bishops -- really want to be responsible for scuttling access to health care for millions? Many deaths will be on their hands if they do. Scuttling reform over abortion will give the lie to "pro life" claims. Abortion funding is not directly available through public funds -- it has not been for a long time, and it won't be under this legislation. ... Other Democrats should not follow Stupak. And responsible Catholic leaders should support the true "pro-life" cause here: expanded, affordable health care coverage for all Americans.

    Note also that Skocpol's discussion of abortion politics is subordinate to her discussion of public option politics ... and in both cases she appeals on the grounds of attainable practical objectives in contrast to symbolic stands with de minimus attainable material consequence.

    Poor women cannot now get publicly funded abortions, and middle class women will always get what they need.

    She's not calling on any bank of posturers to capitulate -- merely to bear the pragmatic end-game in mind as they posture and negotiate.

    But is the esteemed professor (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    -- but not of economics -- factoring in that an increasing number of formerly middle-class women (and men) are devolving to the ranks of the poor these days under Obamanomics?  Or that the cost of separate health insurance riders to cover their conditions -- y'know, like uteri -- could cause that devolution?  Or that without such coverage, at extra costs, more could decide they must forgo that in the personal budget and end up with conditions that could have been caught earlier but will break them economically, for medical costs or losing work or the like?

    It is about more than federal funding or no for abortions or no.  It is about potential impact on insurance coverage for far more women and thus for far more health situations.  We don't know for sure.  We and she should know for sure before jumping aboard the bus and throwing others under it.


    And about those quote marks (4.40 / 5) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    that she puts around the term feminist but not around the term progressive, she is fooling herself.  And revealing herself.

    (And I am surprised, as I greatly respect a lot of her work when she is writing about what she knows.)


    Analysis of quote marks, coming right up! (none / 0) (#122)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    Skocpol's piece offers the following:


    "public option" (as in already hollowed out version of the)


    "pro life"


    [I've omitted her "Medicare for More", as in  which will be my new slogan (for incremental expansion if the base bill passes)}

    This looks to me like a draw, another eye might look at the capitalization of "FEMINISTS" as the tie-breaker and determinant of right-wing stealth operative Theda Skocpol's true colors ... until we notice the capitalizations of PROGRESSIVES, PRO-CHOICE, PRO-LIFE, and CATHOLIC PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS serving similar roles as paragraph topic markers as she moves through the piece, calling out one and then another faction.

    No, on further review, she's obviously just trying to confuse us - like the last seasons of X Files.


    'We don't know for sure'? Really?!? (none / 0) (#78)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    We don't know for sure whether lack of any coverage is worse for women than lack of abortion coverage - or more likely, the administrative obstacle course of separate abortion riders (with negative net cost to insurance underwriters)?

    How can you expect me to take that argument seriously?

    The abortion coverage battle is a contest of wills -- not a contest of greater goods. Contests of will can be important, but Theda is on solid ground in the contest of goods.


    She is on terrible rhetorical ground (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    Besides which, as I have noted too many times to count, people like you , me and Theda Skopcol are not in any room cutting any deals.

    This delusion that you are is always amusing to me.


    WTF??? (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    She = CreamCity?  She = Skocpol?  Cutting deals?

    Seriously, WTF???


    get back to us on this when (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    you have an unwanted pregnancy . . . .

    Get back to me when you think of an argument (2.33 / 3) (#89)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    ... that rehabilitates CreamCity's attempt.

    Do you or do you not believe a lack of abortion coverage is more harmful than a lack of ANY coverage.

    Thank you, BTW, for so clearly demonstrating how the reproductive choice movement successfully alienates is allies.


    Some "ally" (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:58:49 PM EST
    Since when is tossing someone's valid concerns about an aspect of their health care that quite frankly up until this century was responsible for more deaths than any other condition actually the behavior of someone anyone would consider an ally?

    In other parts of the world more women die of childbirth than any other condition, get back to me when you have an argument that doesn't discriminate against a women's health for this sad travesty of a piece of legislation.


    OK - assume that I am your enemy (BWAHAHA!) (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    As your enemy, which is more to my advantage?

    A)  Providing health care coverage for an additional X million women, but no coverage for abortion (same as they have now)?

    B)  Providing no health coverage at all for an additional X million women (same as they have now), including no coverage for abortion (same as they have now)?

    Remember, I doing the best I can to maximize harm and minimize good for these X million affected women, plus Y million unaffected women.

    Skocpol's claim is that B is clearly better (for me, your enemy, that is). Cream City's argument is that we're stumped by this question -- that we just can't tell one way or the other.

    (While you're pondering this, BTW, your real enemies are very successfully reducing access to abortion and other reproductive health services, through schemes that have nothing to do with the draft HCR legislation.  Ooops ... maybe I'm not a very good enemy. I was supposed to keep that part secret. Oh, well, I'm just doing the worst I can.)


    of course you leave out the third option (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    which is removing Stupak entirely(which would then actually make you my ally).

    My question to you is as an ally how many women do you think is acceptable as collateral damage(keeping in mind that in countries where reproduction choices are not available childbirth is the leading cause of death for women) for health care?

    Let's get to the crux of it, that is what you are asking me and other women to do(as an ally and all), sacrifice the lives of SOME women so that another handful that have other afflictions can get coverage. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to sell a single sister out to save another.



    Removing Stupak entirely is option B. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    The bill dies, the debate lives on, and X million women have no comprehensive health care coverage (same as now) and no abortion coverage (same as now).

    What women am I sacrificing? And why are your bringing up other countries? (Childbirth is not the leading cause of death in this country, is it, with or without any variation of the bill?)

    Kill the bill, and you kill (conservatively) 5,000 people a year - disproportionately women.

    If we can pass the bill without satisfying, persuading or coercing any of Stupak's dozen-odd adherents - or compensating for their votes by cutting deals with some other hold-outs, then the argument is moot.

    But as long as the argument is germane, our choices are no bill or an unsatisfactory bill.

    And I'd even consider going with no bill this year if it didn't lead directly to another long-term right-wing takeover of Congress in the November.


    Why does that have to be the choice? (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    I mean, the argument is beginning to sound like a riff on Barbara Bush:  "Well, these are poor women who didn't have access to federally-funded abortion anyway, so this is working out quite well for them - they'll be able to see a doctor and everything!"

    Reproductive choice is only one aspect of women's health; that health is about so much more than abortion.  It's about puberty and birth control and Pap smears and mammograms and endometriosis and ovarian and uterine and breast cancer and fertility and pregnancy and menopause - the entire panoply of health issues that span a female person's lifetime.

    You seem to be under the impression that settling for restrictions on this one area will still leave open the ability to receive care for all other aspects, but that would be because you do not understand how easy it is for some to keep making the effort to draw the circle tighter in the area of women's health.

    Yes, I am aware that economic status is a huge factor in everyone's - male or female - ability to obtain the care they need, and that is why I do not understand why reproductive choice is being used as the barrier to expanding access to general health care, and why it is being held like the sword of Damocles over the heads of all those who believe in the right to choose.


    Why Anne it has to be the choice (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:39:02 PM EST
    because a bunch of the menfolk have decreed it so.

    They don't have any skin in the game, but hey we should just be quiet and lie down so they can roll the bus over us and our daughters. If ten or twenty women die for lack of reproductive health it's a small price to pay so that ten or twenty MEN and WOMEN can have their lung cancer cured. It's either or and who are you a mere women to say that we should cure the cancer AND cover reproductive health choices.

    It isn't Stupak that's the problem he's far more of an expert on women's health and what kind of problems that we face as a result of our physiology then any of us, you know, ACTUAL WOMEN who actually have to deal with living in our bodies.

    I'd rather fight alone then ally myself with anyone who presumes to tell me my daughter iws expendable so that my sons can have health care. And frankly, I've taught my boys well enough that they'd never even begin to ask their sister to make that sarifice for them. There's a limit to selfish in my house.


    This is addressed to me? (none / 0) (#128)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    You seem to be under the impression that settling for restrictions on this one area will still leave open the ability to receive care for all other aspects.

    Yes, I am under this impression - because that is current law and current practice for millions of women already dependent on government-funded health care.

    I'm also aware that some of the Stupak's of the world disapprove of contraception, sex ed, amniocentesis, in vitro fertilization, etc, etc, just as strongly as they disapprove of abortion.

    I'm further aware that Stupak would like to use the HCR bill as a lever to pry selected reproductive services out of the private insurance market ... but don't think you can play the "slippery slope" card and pretend it's high trump, because it ain't.

    Ask me if the sky is blue, and I can show you.

    Ask me WHY the sky is blue, and I can attempt a long, difficult explanation.

    Ask me why the sky HAS TO BE blue, and I can attempt an even longer, more difficult explanation.

    But the sky apparently IS blue, Pelosi apparently doesn't have the votes, American opinion one-sidedly opposes federal funding for abortion, and majorities in the "Stupak districts" apparently strongly oppose federal funding.

    And as for the premise that men have no interest in women's health care and no right to opinions on the subject, all I can say is how the **** dare you!


    Well I say how the **** dare you (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:04:48 PM EST
    right back at you. Tell me when was it the last time a man died in childbirth? Oh that's right it was the thirty first of NEVER. When was it again that a man conceived a child because he was raped and was looking at beng forced to undergo 10 months of quite frankly one of the most taxing processes the body has to experience, one that would have longstanding consequences on his health for the rest of his life as a result of depleted stores on the nutrients in his body and the wear and tear of supporting two bodies? Oh that's right that's also the thirty first of NEVER. When was the last time a man had to worry about a preforated uterus that could cause him to hemmorhage and die or lose his ability to procreate? How about faced gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancies, had your kidney blocked off, had preclampsia......the thirty first of NEVER. I could go on and on for hours of what men never go through because they have different physiologies then us and don't even compare the idea that just because you can empathize means you have the same amount of skin in this little game that you men cooked up to pit woman against woman. How the ** dare you indeed!

    I've got a little news flash for you just because I can sympathize with a man that has testicular cancer doesn't mean I have the hubris to suggest I'd have the same skin in the game if the rule being suggested were to deprive men of their reproductive health care needs.


    Bigot. (1.50 / 2) (#134)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    Sticks and stones (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by cawaltz on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:24:18 PM EST
    will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

    I'm immune buddy. I got called every single name in the book back in 2008 and it didn't do a darn thing to sway my principles or my position.

    I noticed you didn't dispute the facts though.
    Let me know when you go through an actual pregnancy complete with puking and swelling then you can lecture me on women's reproduction and how you have an equal interest in it to me.  


    You can have all the opinions you want, (5.00 / 7) (#140)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    but the truth is that it isn't your body, your choices, your health that is at stake, is it?  

    I don't doubt that there are women in your life whom you care about, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't have a uterus, do you?  

    It's never going to be you that finds that your birth control failed and you are pregnant.  

    It's never going to be you that finds out that the baby you are carrying has abnormalities that are inconsistent with life outside the womb.

    It's never going to be you that finds out that the baby you are carrying has died.  

    It's never going to be you that finds out you are pregnant a month after your husband/significant other left you and you have no way to support yourself, much less a child.

    You - and Theda and Matt Yglesias - are asking women to set aside their own concerns and needs where their reproductive health is concerned so that others may have insurance.  Not care - insurance.  And you are banking on an as yet unproven assertion that having insurance will actually expand access to actual care for millions of people, when those of us who already have insurance know that one does not necessarily follow from the other.

    Because when you get down to the bottom line here, all we are talking about is insurance - not care.

    This entire clusterf**k has been nothing but one false choice after another; there is nothing stopping the Congress from expanding access to care other than that they have chosen to design legislation that puts insurance companies first - the same insurance companies that have gotten us to where we are now.

    Of course I want everyone to get the health care they need; I am not willing to accept that the legislation on the table is designed to accomplish that, and that means that I am not willing to see women sacrifice their health choices for a plan that wasn't designed to actually address and fix the problems with the entire system.


    This can't possibly be right (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:27:41 PM EST
    In the unlikely event that insurance doesn't expand access to care (as you suggest) then women sacrifice nothing if the bill fails to make insurance for abortion more available.

    This is crazy, bigoted babble ... and at the end of the road you're on, we have a permanent hard-right Judiciary, and a recongfigured national Democratic agenda that ditches reproductive rights the way it earlier ditched gun control.

    Spout hate speech to your heart's content (whether you recognize it as such or not), but without progressive men to make up for the ~40% of women who oppose reproductive choice, you're stuck with about 25% of the electorate supporting most reproductive choice ... barely double digits strongly supporting ... and a court system that will never protect your rights in the face of a hostile Congress.


    Hate speech? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:45:48 PM EST
    I'm beginning to understand why BTD finds you so tiresome.

    If you were as progressive as you claim to be, you would not be branding my comments as "bigoted babble."

    And you would also not exhibit such a territorial need to be seen as being responsible for women still being able to cling to the choices we do have - and such a condescending need for us to be beholden to you for it.

    Sorry, bud - not buying what you're selling.


    Evidently being truthful (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:29:49 AM EST
    is being bigoted and "hate" speech. His assertions would be laughable if I weren't so certain he actually believed that he has an equal stake in our reproductive rights.

    RonK will never understand that it was the thirty first of NEVER the last time a guy had to worry about telling his boss he was pregnant in a right to work state?

    RonK will never spend a week in the hospital a month after delivery because his poor kidney got kicked around during the pregnancy and the nurse that catheterized him didn't utilize proper sterile technique and his compromised kidney started to fail. He won't get told his teeth are require root canals or are in rotten shape because the enamel is eroded from puking his guts up. He won't have to deal with having his inner parts literally fall out from inside him.from delivering children.

    Despite the fact that he'll never worry about experiencing these things Anne, let alone actually experience them, we shouldn't for a minute doubt that HE has the same stake in reproduction as a WOMAN does. Saying otherwise is just mean, hateful and bigoted(rolling eyes).


    This (none / 0) (#148)
    by sas on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:45:49 PM EST
    health care reform bill is AWFUL!

    And worst of all, Obama is content to let this piece of dog doo be considered.

    Why should any woman EVER have to give up ANY of her reproductive rights?  Who do these people think they are?  What gall!

    Further, why is there no gender and age equity in this bill?  According to now, women will pay triple premiums, and older will pay more than younger.  So, WOMEN the shaft again.

    And these are Democrats?  The party of the people?

    And Obama will support this?

    Oh yeah - ain't he great.  NOT!!!!

    Are the Dems trying to self destruct? Do ya think women will still support the Democratic party if this little DEBACLE passes?


    Is she? From much of what I have read (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    here and elsewhere, the outcomes of the health insurance bill(s) are unclear, even to Congress, even to its CBO, etc.

    If you have valid and reliable information otherwise, please do provide the sources, as it would be wonderful to be reassured that there will not be need for women to have to obtain extra insurance riders to cover, as it were, those anatomical parts and their conditions that Rep. Stupak lacks, the poor thing.


    Oh, and as to your other point (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    I don't care if you take me seriously or not.  I have had to become all too accustomed to librul men not taking me seriously.  So I have stopped caring.

    Take it up with Yglesias (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    Besides, you're being dishonest anyway,

    She is saying precisely what I say she is saying.

    That she is telling Stupak the same thing does not change that.

    In the end, who is she really trying to influence? We all know she has no influence over Stupak.

    This is the RonK I remember.


    I take it up with the persent company (none / 0) (#90)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    Stupak is not her audience, but other Democrats in Stupak's orbit are:

    Congressman Stupak, one suspects, really wants to defeat comprehensive health reform; he was conspiring with Republican leaders in the last episode. Other Democrats should not follow Stupak.

    As to your tired old ad hominems, well, they're tired ... they're old ... and they're ad hominems.

    Meanwhile, our ship is sinking. Suggestions?


    Yes. Democrats need to run from (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:53:01 PM EST

    Amen (none / 0) (#93)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:58:47 PM EST

    Running from Obama will multiply our losses. (none / 0) (#95)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    Defeating the bill will multiply our losses.

    Much as I believe Obama is a weasel and a fool, and much as I believe the bill in any of its current forms is a pitiful mess, I find no alternative but getting in line behind the big fool. Pass whatever can pass, and get on with it, and then scramble for higher ground.


    I can (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    appreciate what you're saying but the genius of Obama is that he's put the party in a lose/lose position. passing this bill is a loser because nobody wants it. Not passing the bill makes him look ever more inept. Pick your posoin. Either one will send the Dems off to slaughter in November.

    Only pass a bill that doesn't kill (none / 0) (#96)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    the Democrats in November. That has to be the criterion.  
    So, pass a bill that doesn't spit at core Democratic constituencies.
    If Reid and Pelosi were only a little more sturdy, I think they could roll the White House.

    What really needs to happen, IMO, is for Obama to become more of a figurehead, at least as far as domestic policy (yeah, he's already pretty far in that direction).
    Let him play at foreign policy, which he actually cares about.


    nothing will happen unless Obama's (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    core staff changes; Steve Clemons and Luce are correct on this point.

    I tend to agree with the notion that Obama can't let his Chicago people go because they have the goods on him.
    In this day and age, even someone moderately clean has enough baggage to sink him, if people know. Anyone who has been with Obama long enough probably knows enough to seriously hurt him.
    (by the way , I don't want clean politicians, particulary---I want EFFECTIVE ones).


    What do you want - a clean sheet of paper? (none / 0) (#104)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:56:31 PM EST
    Dem's are already badly fractured, there's already a big bill and a narrow window, both Reid and Pelosi lead unstable coalitions with little margin for error, backbiting is ahead of the curve, and we're stuck-stuck-stuck with Obama.

    Maybe it's better to crash earlier than (none / 0) (#106)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    later. Reagan picked up and Clinton also, after rocky starts.

    Things couldn't be better! (none / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    Well, actually, they could be better. The Dems could crack wide open and go under as a party. Their real constituencies are the banksters and the health insurance companies and rent seekers of all kinds. No help on jobs, no help on housing, no rollback of Bush's powers, the fiasco of heatlth care reform, no financial reform, and gawd help us if Obama "goes to China" on "entitlement reform." So who cares about the Dems? The Dems are useful only insofar as they enable Republicans to return to power after discrediting whatever it is government might try to do to help the people. The Dems deserve to go the way of the Whigs, and the sooner the better. And after them, the Republicans. The legacy parties are dead parrots.

    and (none / 0) (#150)
    by sas on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:57:16 PM EST
    Hillary will clean up his messes there

    Rather lemming-like, no? (none / 0) (#115)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    "Getting in line behind the big fool"?

    No. (none / 0) (#131)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 06:49:38 PM EST
    Taking the best of available options is not lemming-like.

    Well, that depends on whether the lemming... (none / 0) (#136)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    ... is only looking only at the lemming directly ahead, no?

    Here's another answer. (none / 0) (#119)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    In my opininion the core problem Democrats face is that Obama either has no learning curve, or he's completely happy with events to date.
    Democratic leaders (yeah, yeah, oxymoron) need to get his attention by refusing to cooperate.
    The Progressive bloc had their chance and blew it. Now it's on Pelosi and Reid, esp. Pelosi.
    She has shown a spark of independence.

    FISA; TARP; torture. (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    He's completely happy.

    I tend to agree with you. (none / 0) (#126)
    by observed on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    NO (none / 0) (#149)
    by sas on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:54:02 PM EST
    This bill should die.  This idea should die.

    Just let it die and move on to something else.

    Getting in line behind bad ideas, is NEVER the right thing to do.

    There are other things to be done, good things.

    This whole health care thing is stigmatizing and paralyzing Obama  (partly because he is not a strong leader, too professorial, not an arm twister like LBJ).


    Ad homs (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:57:12 PM EST
    You accuse me of being misleading and then complain about ad homs.

    Same old RonK.


    I point out your excerpt is misleading (none / 0) (#129)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 06:40:42 PM EST
    ... and offer corrective supplements.

    Same old Armando.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 06:47:58 PM EST
    Misleading how exactly? I quote her for crissakes. Hell, I use YGLESIAS's quote.

    You think there is more that needs to be said, then say what you want to say.

    But there is nothing misleading in my quote.


    Your complaint is absurd. Completely absurd.

    Typical RonK.


    Why (none / 0) (#147)
    by sas on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    should women not expect equality?  

    Why should there be a health bill that allows gender rating? age rating?  Therefore-who gets hit hardest?  Older women!

    Why should women have to give up a damned thing?

    Men, basically old men, want to control our reproduction in the worst way.

    Not that this is directly correlated BUT - that great bunch of old white guys (mostly) , the vatican and priests. are caught up in another sex scandal - this time pristitution rings and abusing of Germen and Irish kids.  And these weasels are gonna talk about the morality of abortion?

    Rage, just rage.

    dog bites man (none / 0) (#151)
    by souvarine on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:48:42 AM EST
    Yglesias soft on choice? What a surprise!

    There is a reason he supported Obama.

    As for Skocpol, she's historically a chicken little on unity. Her constant refrain is to give up principle and line up behind whichever politician she happens to support.