MyDD :: NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC Endorses Obama

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This might help your confusion (2.00 / 1)

Not to mention this one:

NARAL Backed Liebermann

http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/05/please -try-to-at-least-pretend-you-care/

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know how Obama is on abortion rights (1.33 / 3)

His "present" votes are all I need to know.

If the Democrats are going to nominate a Republican light on abortion then I'm going to vote for the real McCain.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST

Re: I know how Obama is on abortion rights (2.00 / 1)

I recommend you do a little bit more research on those present votes, since you've bought into Clinton's smears about Obama and women's rights.

Start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8i Js

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs 8A

by randomscientist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know how Obama is on abortion rights (none / 0)

I recommend that you educate yourself on what the National Organization for Women in Obama's home state of Illinois had to say about these videos:

Ms. Brett was not involved with either Chicago NOW or IL NOW when we were fighting to stop these bills. Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Real McCain" (1.66 / 3)

You're an idiot.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the trollrating, Travis. (none / 0)

I read your diary. I just don't agree with patting turncoats on the head and trying to make them feel better about their idiocy.

Happy Wednesday.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Illinois NOW says Obama weak on this (2.00 / 1)

I trust Illinois NOW over Republican-wannabe NARAL:

"As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion
bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental
notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the
right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over
standing and fighting for his convictions." -- IllinoisNOW.org

"To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL
NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the
legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted
legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills
being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.
Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send
the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a
woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were
unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator
Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken
leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to
give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State
Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he
could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his
district."

by catfish1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, that's disappointing. (2.00 / 1)

However, IL NOW goes on to say in the same article:

Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent...

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, that's disappointing. (none / 0)

Except that they also say:

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Illinois NOW says Obama weak on this (2.00 / 2)

It was a disagreement between Planned Parenthood and IL NOW on political tactics, not policy. Planned Parenthood felt voting 'Present' made political sense. Obviously IL NOW didn't. I'm not going to try and mediate that battle.

by kjblair2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Illinois NOW says Obama weak on this (none / 0)

VOting "present" wasn't a "politcal tactic." It was an act of cowardice.

Ask your legislator to vote "present" next time on health care reform, global warming, tax reform etc and see how far we get.

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Illinois NOW says Obama weak on this (none / 0)

Do you ever research a topic before you post?

If you did, you would have found out that it was a political tactic that Planned Parenthood in Illinois believed would help them in the long run. IL NOW thought differently. I'm not in a position to say if one was more correct than the other. But it wasn't an act of cowardice by any stretch of the imagination. (One of the reasons Planned Parenthood might have gone down this path is that in IL, you have to have a majority of all Senators to pass a bill, not just those voting. In this case, a 'present' vote is the same as a 'no' vote.)

by kjblair2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know how Obama is on abortion rights (none / 0)

That's right...you know more, even without bothering to look into it in any deep way, on Obama's record on abortion rights than a group dedicated to protecting abortion rights does!

by telephasic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you read it? (none / 0)

They described it as a protracted and difficult decision. Not a coin toss.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carl if I hadn't seen you promote Obama (2.00 / 2)

all the time I would have thought this was real. You really need to apply the snark tag.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry (2.00 / 2)

I thought it would be fun to leave it off.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't <strong>have</strong> to... (none / 0)

It's not a requirement of law. It's just that you have 5 people yelling at you and perhaps they wouldn't if they knew who you were.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's won people (none / 0)

lighten up.

There are hardcore Clinton partisans, but be gentle with them.

Ask questions, hard questions, but in a loving way.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

could I phish in some HRC supporters (none / 0)

I was kinda seeing if I could get any Team Clinton people to agree with me.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK. (none / 0)

As long as you knew what was coming. And I agree with you on being conciliatory and loving. I've tried to be and I will continue to try to be.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry (none / 0)

man, I was this close to hide-rating you, too. And for some reason I don't have the ability to reverse my ratings. Does anyone else have that problem?

by semiquaver on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Repuglican troll. n/t (none / 0)

Actually, he's an Obama supporter.

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my favorite part that we should all take to heart (2.00 / 1)

"Officials said NARAL's political committee board was about evenly divided among Clinton and Obama supporters and that the decision to endorse was hard fought. Ultimately, the board voted unanimously Friday to support the Illinois senator "

by ETinKC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST

Take this to heart (none / 0)

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass, He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now." --Illinois National Organization For Women

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great news! (none / 0)

I can't wait for all of the so -called ultra feministas at this to site start calling them sexists!!!

"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale

by april34fff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM EST

Re: Great news! (2.00 / 7)

Obama supporter here. I wish you wouldn't use language like ultrafeministas, it sounds like Rush.

by mady on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale

It was my understanding that many here wore the terms 'clintonistas' and 'feministas' as a badge of honor! Someone even has it in their sig line.

by april34fff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news! (2.00 / 1)

And? I take it you are an anti-feminist?

by letterc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale

I'm a 27 year old female who doesn't put major emphasis on race or gender. I own a hair salon and most of the ladies that I come into contact with, like myself, just consider ourselves successful women.

by april34fff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by luckymortal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Obama guy here, who just wanted to add this because it's an interesting discussion:

I consider myself a feminist man.

However, I've often had problems with certain aspects of the modern movement. I enjoy a freedom from the "breadwinner" pressures of pre-feminst America. I teach part time at a community college and devote the rest of my time to art, volunteering and community service. I owe that freedom from the illusions of "status" and what it "means to be a man" to the feminist movement.

So it seems strange to me that so many women seem to think that the movement was all about gaining the "freedom" for women to act with the same stupid fanatical devotion to material gain, status and "power" that used to be the role of men prior to the movement. Such as my college women's studies professor who proudly points out that her big-status car and house are "hers" not her husbands. ANd she calls that feminism.

So, like everything, there's good feminism and bad.

"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale

It seems that some feminists feel that they need to, in essence, shed their femininity and assume masculine roles and personas. Many women around my age are turned off by that concept. Women can be successful in business and in corporate America and yet still be feminine and beautiful.

And most bothersome of all is the female victimhoodness. It doesn't put feminism in a very flattering light.

by april34fff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mady on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This has nothing to do with who you are and what your beliefs are, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was questioning that. It's a question of respectful language, that's all.

"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale

That reply was to Luckymortal, not to you. Sorry for the mixup.

by april34fff on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I mean.. (none / 0)

People, we are standing at ground zero
Of the feminist revolution
Yeah, it was an inside job
Stoic and sly
One we're supposed to forget
And downplay and deny
But I think the time is nothing
If not nigh
To let the truth out
Coolest f-word ever deserves a fucking shout!
I mean
Why can't all decent men and women
Call themselves feminists?
Out of respect
For those who fought for this
I mean, look around
We have this

-- Ani Difranco (Grand Canyon)

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST

Two things, two cents (2.00 / 1)

1) Keenan's group makes political decisions when all thing are equal. They went for Lieberman in CT, if memory serves.

2) The group probably feels that an Obama government might have an easier time getting SCOTUS nominees passed through, etc.

I don't think this is any reflection on the votes cast by the two candidates, more a calculation regarding coattails, comity within the government, etc.

The next four years might repair a lot of damage.

by drowsy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST

Re: Two things, two cents (2.00 / 1)

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have endorsed Bob Casey.

As they said, both Obama and Clinton have strong pro-choice records. What tipped the balance was their conclusion that we now know who the Dem nominee will be.

by TL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's right, they wouldn't (none / 0)

That would be pushing the "all things being equal".

But there is room, as I noted Keenan's nod to Lieberman. This came even though he would not join those who wanted Catholic hospitals to carry emergency contraceptives for rape victims who are determined to be ovulating at the time of attack.

I guess the fact the pro-lifers can do business with these guys is a plus for them.

Anyway, that exhausts any slim knowledge I have on the matter.

by drowsy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things, two cents (none / 0)

NARAL didn't endorse Casey, but they did help him get elected, in a way. Their on-line "voter guide" listed their endorsed candidates, and then had a list of "anti-choice candidates to oppose". Santorum's name was on that list, but Casey's was not.

by Bill W on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things, two cents (none / 0)

What should they have done? Urged people to vote for the Green Party?

Voters had to send one of them to Washington, and it's pretty clear which was the better result from NARAL's perspective - if only because Rick wasn't going to vote for a Dem majority leader.

by TL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC Endorses Obama (1.00 / 1)

How nice that NARAL is eager to destroy the first viable woman candidate.

by bdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:01 PM EST

define "viable" (2.00 / 2)

Perhaps NARAL came to the conclusion HRC is no longer "viable".

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: define "viable" (none / 0)

NARAL thinks republicans are "viable" too

NARAL: Pro-Choice Republican President "Would Help" Movement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10 naral-prochoice-republi_n_67968.html

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yea, of course (2.00 / 3)

Because if you support Obama, then obviously you must be "eager to destroy" Clinton.

Give me a break.

by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The language of victimhood (none / 0)

seems to permeate the writings of Clinton supporters.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This says it all (2.00 / 1)

http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/20 08/05/naral-prochoice-6.html

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST

No, these links says it all (none / 0)

NARAL: Pro-Choice Republican President "Would Help" Movement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10 naral-prochoice-republi_n_67968.html

NARAL Backed Liebermann
http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/05/please -try-to-at-least-pretend-you-care

Run by a Catholic who thinks abortion is a sin:
http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/06/whats- wrong-with-nancy-keenan/

by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, these links says it all (none / 0)

And this:

The NARAL that backed Liebermann
http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/05/please -try-to-at-least-pretend-you-care/