Unexpected support for Obama - the anti- choice crowd

[JoFerret]

This is not middle ground I wish to see. Although I do not find it surprising. Obama has been disappointing on all these kinds of issues. I guess being wishy-washy on basic right is the new progressive.

Sigh!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24103768

[Unsane]

1. 100% NARAL rating is wishy washy?

NEXT

[JoFerret]

2. Do you really think

...he will 100% defend women's rights to reproductive choice?

From your keypad to his god's ears.

[Flying Dream Blues]

3. yes, I do. nt

[Unsane]

7. He's done it in Congress.

[Alter Ego]

11. Absolutely I do.

If that's what you're scared of then you're chasing shadows.

[cali]

12. that's exactly what his record reflects; that he'll strongly support

women's rights to reproductive choice. Only a blind Hill partisan could believe differently.

[Cheap_Trick]

25. do you think H(R)C will?

Think again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is in regards to her church:
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

>snip<

Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.

>snip<

At the heart of The Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family's young women's group. And, at The Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

>snip<

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

[davidpdx]

4. You mean two Democrats that are against abortion. Big deal...

Not an anti-abortion group as your posts so vaguely suggests. That doesn't mean Obama's against full abortion rights. Get a grip.

[JoFerret]

9. I did not say that

But I do find it more than interesting that Obama gives them "hope".

[davidpdx]

23. Yes you did

You pretty much implied Obama has compromised his pro-choice stance with this comment: "I guess being wishy-washy on basic right is the new progressive."

So much for that lie. The next thing you'll be telling us is that you are under sniper fire.

[MH1]

5. Hillary: "The potential for life begins at conception"

According to NPR this morning, that is what she told a forum over the weekend. (I forget the forum name - "compassionate" something or other, I think.)

I'll trust Obama more than someone who will say anything, do anything - and to a Democrat, if need be - to get elected.

[MH1]

6. "Obama has never supported a single measure that would curtail access to abortion"

From your link:

Obama has never supported a single measure that would curtail access to abortion -- even under controversial circumstances. But Casey and Roemer have chosen to ignore Obama's legislative record, and are promoting the Democratic presidential candidate to their antiabortion allies as someone who could achieve a new consensus on the issue. "He has the unique skills to try to lower the temperature and foster a sense of common ground, and try to figure out ways that people can agree," Casey said, although the freshman senator added, "On this issue, it's particularly hard."

Obama, like many progressive Democrats before him, has said he wants to find ways to reduce the need for abortion - but not take away women's rights. He would do that through measures like better education, better opportunities for young women, and access to contraception. These measures have been promoted by pro-choicers for a LONG time - it ain't rocket science. What does take special skill, is to work around and overcome the political obstacles placed by those who benefit from drawing sharp battle lines on the issue. Such as the so-called "Army of God"; and perhaps certain factions on the left who now draw their paychecks from "fighting for women's rights".

[mckeown1128]

8. More from the Make-shit-up -delusional-Clinton crowd. nt

[JoFerret]

10. Nah! Just a story from the

msm primary report scene.

[high density]

14. wishy-washy is your own bullshit spin

Which is not backed up by his voting record. You're wrong and are saying things which have no basis in fact. End of story.

[JoFerret]

17. Can you say you hear

...unequivocal support in his words as quoted in the story?

[cali]

15. you mean a story that doesn't remotely support YOUR phony

trumped up 'concern'.

[JoFerret]

18. My concern is mine and it's real

Prime your own trumped up outrage at another pump.

[cali]

19. LOL. It may be yours and it may be real, but it's not based

on a shred of evidence. Simply hillarian crap.

[high density]

13. Umm, so now Obama = the views of his supporters?

You have really silly and unrealistic standards here.

[GoesTo11]

16. Because he really is a uniter not just a fighter

"He has the unique skills to try to lower the temperature and foster a sense of common ground, and try to figure out ways that people can agree," Casey said, although the freshman senator added, "On this issue, it's particularly hard."

The common ground is having fewer unwanted pregnancies in the fits place.

He's been saying he can work with the range of people. These people agree. That's a good thing, not a bad thing, right?

[JoFerret]

20. Like bush you mean?

(sorry - could not resist....I do NOT think Obama is very like Bush in most policy or character regards although the religiosity is similar.)

[GoesTo11]

24. Note the words "Really Is" (vs. self-proclaimed)

You're joking, but this is actually an important point. A lot of politicians claim to be able to cross aisles to make good things happen. The reason I think Obama can is that he has a kind of intelligence that involves really understanding different viewpoints than his own, naturally thinking about multiple groups' viewpoints and how issues can be framed so that they might really be brought together. This is something that really comes through in his speeches, and that you can't talk about convincingly if you don't have that understanding - it would be like faking understanding of an advanced calculus test.

In spite of the 2000 Republican nominee's claim to be a uniter, he seems to naturally think about how issues can be framed so that they might really divide people, and this comes through in both his words and his choice of advisors.

As for the similar religiosity, I hear what you're saying. I think in both cases, there is the fervor of the person who came to religion a bit later in life. But with Obama, I don't get any sense that he thinks people who don't share his beliefs will (and can) all go to hell. He talks about religion as something that draws him to morality, rather than as morality itself.

[CK dexter]

21. This is his "unity" platform -- a tough one for some to fully endorse

To be fair, this isn't wishy washy--he is down the line consistent about this on every single issue, and it's a tough, courageous position. (Even though I have reservations about it.) On every issue he insists on rejecting no one from the discussion (as too "wrong" or irrational or evil) and on trying to empathize. He put it best in his recent interview on LBGT issues:

"Well, it starts with my mom, who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody’s of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes. So I think that applies to how I see all people."

That's what he did when he tried to explain Wright's comments and the feelings of the audience Wright was addressing. That's what he did when he spoke, with true compassion, of white poverty and lack of white privilege sometimes leading to resentment of affirmative action. That's what he tried to do when he tried to explain to urban progressives why some rural small town people focus on single issues like religion, guns, and immigration (ironically, he was gently trying to _defuse_ the elitism of his audience!). That's what he did in the poorly named "compassion forum" in his discussion of religion and science, abortion, and other issues.

It's a tough position to take, since often members of both sides want to dismiss the other side as irrational or evil, so they don't want to empathize with each other's point of view. My own feeling is that it's laudable, but dangerous, since it can border on letting every side think their beliefs are justified, which isn't true. The other danger is that in trying to empathize you can fail--and alienate the person you try to empathize with. Maybe a little of that has happened with the "bitter" comments.

But overall he has managed it well: he does a good job of recognizing the basic humanity of all sides without failing to take a firm stand. As he did in this case: he did not equivocate about his commitment to choice. He only objected to the vilification of the opposing side and the over-simplistic, question-begging explanation of that stance ("I think it is a right because it is the right thing to think.")

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Pffft. Hillary has her own anti-choice supporters.

Jack Murtha, for one. Any comments on how surprising that is? Or is the support of anti-choice politicians only bad when it's for Obama?