its my understanding that the obama electoral vote plan cedes florida to mccain, so where, in your view, does taking a position contrary to aipac turn an electoral vote not already lost?

note, its my understanding that the clinton electoral vote plan does not cede florida’s electoral votes, but that’s not the question.

to be very clear, ignoring the loss of a fraction of a demographic identified with the interests of a foreign country to the gop, taking a not inconsiderable amount of campaign contributions with them, what effect on the electoral college vote does going against aipac’s positions of record entail? other than florida, which of the dozen competitive states is turned by (there is no other way to put it) policy leadership?

I can criticize him, and I can ask him why he’s talking like Will Saletan on this issue of great importance to me.

I continue to be astonished on how little people ask of Obama, such that his supporters start hyperventilating when anyone *does* ask him for clarification, or suggest that he’s not as strong on an issue as one would like.

If we can’t drag him to the left during the *primary,* then when will we be able to?

Because he stands up in front of the country and starts spouting right-wing, anti-choice rhetoric. And there *is* a difference between “safe, legal and rare” (i.e., abortion remains safe and legal, but we do what we can to reduce it via medically accurate sex education and contraception) and “pro-choicers just don’t consider the wrenching moral issues of abortion.” They’re both designed to appeal to the “abortion is icky” crowd, but Clinton didn’t throw the pro-choicers under the bus by agreeing with the “abortion is icky” crowd that pro-choicers give no thought to the moral issues involved.

I don’t feel comfortable with him at all on this issue. I’m uneasy, just as I’m uneasy when he starts up with the god talk. I’d love to be convinced that he’s really a strong pro-choice candidate and hasn’t just been saying the things he needs to say to be a viable Democrat. But for all the text he’s generated on his website and elsewhere (i.e., in response to RH Reality Check’s candidate questionnaire) that’s pro-choice, he’s not hammering those points in public. Instead, he’s running around sounding like Will Saletan, and talking about promiscuity and how pro-choicers just don’t consider the moral dimensions of abortion, which is complete bullshit.

And as I keep saying, I don’t have any level of comfort that he’s committed to taking the initiative in rolling back all of the gains by the anti-choicers over the years. The way he talks, I feel like the most we’ll get is a repeal of the global gag rule and otherwise holding the line.

then why aren’t you crediting him when he criticizes supreme court decisions that erode roe? or his statements that one of the most important issues in appointing supreme court justices is to assure that roe remains the law of the land?

on the one hand obama is accused of not having any record, just empty rhetoric, so then when i point out his record, the response is: yeah, but “look past the votes” look at his rhetoric!

obama has unambiguously stated that he supports abortion rights, is against efforts to erode those rights, and that he wants to appoint judges who will reverse the damages that has been done and assure that roe survives. he does also frame the abortion issue as a troublesome question, filled with moral ambiguities, etc., but when you get down to it, but that’s essentially how the clinton administration framed it in the 1990s. i disagree that there’s a substantive difference between obama’s rhetoric and the “safe, legal and rare” thing, because if you look at the reasons clinton wanted to keep it rare it comes back to essentially the same things.

i’d prefer that politicians didn’t fall back on that kind of rhetoric, but that stuff has unfortunately become pretty standard. it’s all part of the triangulation crap that bill clinton is so famous for and which, because bill was the last successful democratic president, has been incorporated into the standard democratic political playbook. check out this article about hillary clinton’s abortion rhetoric from a few years ago:

This is the other side of Clinton’s message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they’d have to admit it’s bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.

Not this time. Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women,” said Clinton. Then she went further: “There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”

Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I’ve never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband’s presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I’m sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that’s the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.

that being said, i wouldn’t question clinton’s commitment to choice, just like i don’t question obama’s commitment to choice. she’s trying to find a way to sell abortion rights to a public who political consultants have decided are anti-abortion. i think that’s what obama is doing also.

i also think the consultants are wrong. they misread the american public on a whole host of issues, time and time again viewing the public as more conservative than it actually is and thus, by advising their clients accordingly, moving the political discourse to the right. but hey, the candidates never listen to me.

The point is, he votes the right way, but when you look past the votes and at what he says, and how he came to vote the way he did, I wind up very uneasy.

You will note that nowhere did I say that he won’t sign pro-choice legislation. I said that I am very, very uneasy about his commitment to pro-choice causes and his clear lack of initiative on these issues.

Also, “safe, legal and rare” is a whole different ball game than:

“The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it,” he said.

“Most Americans recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, having to make this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion, abortion is never a good thing.”

He’s dissing pro-choicers here, saying that we haven’t “acknowledged the wrenching moral issues” involved in abortion. When, in fact, WE FUCKING HAVE. In fact, we’re the ones who recognize that the fact that there are “wrenching moral issues” involved in abortion means that THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE MORAL ISSUES NEED TO BE LEFT UP TO THE WOMAN, and not the state.

Saying that only anti-choicers have the moral high ground is TEXTBOOK anti-choice rhetoric, and exactly the kind of thing that the anti-choicers have been doing for THIRTY YEARS because they can’t win outright. And it pisses me off no end to hear a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE using this very framing.

So write off everything I have to say just because I point out that his “unity” schtick on abortion and contraception adopts the very language of the forces who are trying to chip away my rights. It’s not like I don’t expect it at this point.

Sure is comfy under this bus.

as i’ve said before, the “rightwing framing” argument is pretty weak, mostly because both candidates can be accused of doing it all the time (remember the clinton-era abortion formula, “safe, legal and rare”, in those days that was considered to be a sellout because it bought into the abortion-is-bad idea)

And I’ve heard he’s playing footsie with Bob Casey as a possible VP selection.

that will never happen. casey is a remarkably bad choice. that’s the type of thing that i could only imagine making sense to someone from outside PA.

His “present” voting strategy was not universally praised by pro-choice groups in Illinois (i.e., Illinois NOW disagreed with it)

you’re right, IL NOW disagrees with it now, because now they’ve endorse his rival. at the time the “present” strategy was devised by obama’s office with planned parenthood of IL’s consent. he also he voted against the 2002 induced infant liability act in illinois (which would have imposed liability on harming a fetus as if it were a person), and then got the bill killed in committee.

I have no doubt that he would sign any pro-choice legislation presented to him, and might even be persuaded to appoint pro-choice judges, because it would be political suicide not to.

why are you ignoring his express pledge to only appoint pro-choice judges? or his condemnation of the gonzales v. carhart case? see e.g.

look, i don’t question clinton’s commitment to choice. nor do try to minimize the other strengths that clinton brings as a candidate. i know that other obama supporters do, and i wish they didn’t. but minimizing obama’s commitment to choice when there is such a clear record just makes me question your reliability on every point you make. it’s why i think the pro-clinton bloggers have been so ineffective at turning the pro-obama tide of the progressive blogosphere.

i think it’s pretty clear that clinton and obama are both good, but not perfect, candidates. i don’t get why everyone feels like they have to turn the other one into the devil when they discuss this race. all it does is ruin that person’s credibility.

He had to be talked out of voting for Roberts, and only because it would hurt him politically.

I’m not comfortable with his commitment to choice. He uses right-wing framing when talking about abortion and about pro-choicers (i.e., his repeated statements that pro-choicers haven’t considered the moral implications of abortion or reached out to anti-choicers; talking about abortion as always a bad choice when it isn’t), as well as about contraception. His “present” voting strategy was not universally praised by pro-choice groups in Illinois (i.e., Illinois NOW disagreed with it). He doesn’t discuss choice at all on his website, and any women’s issues are shunted off to the “mybarackobama” section, which doesn’t appear to contain official campaign statements. And I’ve heard he’s playing footsie with Bob Casey as a possible VP selection.

I have no doubt that he would sign any pro-choice legislation presented to him, and might even be persuaded to appoint pro-choice judges, because it would be political suicide not to. But the last 30 years have seen a determined hollowing out of Roe and Casey, and he’s been much more of a passive actor on choice than I would like to see in a president taking office after years of right-wing judicial appointments and the reinstatement of the global gag rule. Simply sitting back and letting Congress do the work of preserving choice rather than taking the initiative to strengthen and protect it isn’t going to be enough to hold the line if the next president is a right-winger.

not that it’s all that surprising. embracing dialogue with hamas would be the right decision, IMHO, but in today’s political climate, it would also be a really bad political move. as i said above, and many times over, it’s not that obama is the perfect candidate on foreign policy, it’s just that he’s better than clinton on that issue.

If one believes that life begins at conception but viable life is say 32 weeks, then say so. We have courts making these decisions so why would you not expect a presidential candidate and constitutional instructor not to have an opinion.

actually, the majority opinion in roe said essentially the same thing that obama said, that the justices had no idea when life began and that it was a question beyond the power of the courts to answer. that’s why it comes back to a personal choice and not something that needs to be imposed by the state.

as i noted above, there is nothing inconsistent with obama’s answer and a commitment to choice. indeed obama got a perfect rating from planned parenthood when he was in the IL senate. he’s clearly pro-choice. he criticized the supreme court’s decision in gonzales v. carhart, which upheld the so-called “partial birth abortion ban”. he voted against the confirmation of justice roberts and alito.

frankly, it’s disappointing when i see pro-clinton people distorting obama’s record like this. i mean, i like obama more than clinton, but i fully recognize that clinton has strengths and don’t pretend that she isn’t committed to health care reform, family leave, and reproductive rights. of course, pro-obama people have also done the same to clinton, i don’t like that either. claiming the other candidate into something they are not is no way to win an argument. instead, it’s just a way to get people to stop listening to you.

Just askin’

For many people this is not a simple black and white question. If a person recognizes the possibility that their current belief could be incorrect, that demonstrates an ability to respectfully contemplate other viewpoints. I realize that many people prefer a much more blatantly partisan response, and might consider this a weakness, but I find it to be a strength. The ability to intellectually question instead of clinging to dogma and remaining open to having your opinion changed if new data becomes available - wouldn’t that be a refreshing change from the last 7 years!

Actually I don’t find either extreme in the responses to the question of when life begins to be particularly credible or convincing. I am a scientist by training and temperament and that kind of certainly in the face of potentially conflicting evidence does not impress me in the least.

First, from reuters, a long enough quote from ellen wulfhorst (and i’ve no idea where her sympathies lie)
start
The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its “bitter enemies.”

“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.
end
in later reuters coverage the question was asked again (today) in reading, pa. the answer in the copy was “I actually disagree with him on his meeting with Hamas,” Obama said.

so there you and i go.

the post i cut and pasted from (mine) was written while carter was still in damascus, and had met with basher, but not yet with mashaal. no other reason.

slightly ot: al-hayat is reporting that hamas leadership in gaza and damascus met in damascus yesterday to discuss carter’s proposal for a unilateral cease-fire for a week or two.

google xlated copy

“so what happens on this site? it’s taken as a given that all the negative stuff is abslute truth and all the positive stuff, well, everyone pretends those things don’t exist.”
This.
“Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media.”
This, not so much.

SCOTUS appointments - a litmus test - either way if it’s GWB or the next president, the answer to that question is one that you simply can’t punt.

If one believes that life begins at conception but viable life is say 32 weeks, then say so. We have courts making these decisions so why would you not expect a presidential candidate and constitutional instructor not to have an opinion.

Is the answer that you are so committed to rejected the empty vessel argument that you want to provide cover on a most pivotal issue such as the beginning of life?

arbitrista @ 6
Sirota has always been quick to label others as the enemy? Granted the article was from 2006 but he wasn’t using anything like enemy terms at all. It seemed to me more like a Peggy Lee moment.

here’s the funny thing. there have been a bunch of things written about what obama has done in the u.s. senate, both positive and negative. and there have been about a dozen or so articles written about what he did in illinois, almost all of them positive, except one that was very negative and claimed that obama hogged the credit for other people’s work.

so what happens on this site? it’s taken as a given that all the negative stuff is abslute truth and all the positive stuff, well, everyone pretends those things don’t exist. for a while i was posting counter examples in the comments here, but it’s pretty clear that the people making those statements aren’t interested in looking at any other account of obama’s history. but, for what it’s worth, here’s a summary of his accomplishments in the u.s. senate, and here’s an account of one of obama’s legislative victories in the iillinois legislature. if you want to know what his “community organizing” is, try this 1995 article from the chicago reader. it has the advantage of being written before the primary madness infected any attempt of an honest assessment of who he really is.

exactly. obama is far from perfect, but i simply don’t get why so much ire is directed at him from pro-clinton people, and likewise why certain pro-obama sites are so hostile to clinton.

obama’s answer “i don’t know” is exactly the answer i would give. none of us really know, i guess it depends on what you mean by “life”. people with different religious backgrounds would find different answers. but that doesn’t make me any less pro-choice, indeed, the fact that no one really knows the answer nor can they really know is the reason that i am pro-choice. so no, i didn’t have a problem with obama’s answer. indeed, the “controversy” dredged up by it is precisely the sort of substanceless gotcha crap that this race has decended into. the bottom line is that obama had a perfect rating from planned parenthood and he’s always been clear that he supports the right to choose (one of my friends, in fact, had obama as his constitutional law prof in law school. he told me that it really was clear where he stood).

so what did your candidate have to say about carter’s meeting with naser al-shaer in ramallah, mahmud zahar, said siam, mohammed zahar, jamil rizq, taher nunu, in cairo, and bashar assad in damascus?

actually, i have no idea what, if anything obama has said about the trip. do you know? i am curious. and why did you leave out khaled mashaal?

What has he done besides gut his own nuclear safety legislation to make it more industry-friendly before abandoning it entirely? What has he done besides getting legislation others worked for handed to him so he could take credit, or jumping into congressional press conferences to posture like he was intensely involved? What has he done but “community organizing” no one can cite specifics on, or deal with slumlord buddies while his constituents froze? What has he done but talk and talk, shifting positions to take what’s popular, and throwing supporters under the bus when he wants to court someone else?

We’ve had eight years of that kind of “leader.” We don’t need four more.

i don’t ask this as a tit-for-tat or to demean the idea of direct contact with tehran, rather than through the swiss, which if you’d read wampum, or draftgore (neither of which am i suggesting for a moment) you’d know i think is important to work from idea to practice —

so what did your candidate have to say about carter’s meeting with naser al-shaer in ramallah, mahmud zahar, said siam, mohammed zahar, jamil rizq, taher nunu, in cairo, and bashar assad in damascus?

was it positive or was it negative?

Or is Susie just special for you?

The empty vessel is not an accidental handle…it’s been thrust upon him because of his willful intent not to know - no different than Rezko, Ayers, etc.

At some point, it becomes insulting to ones intelligence - this willful intent not to know.

i realize people write this kind of stuff all the time, but no matter how often people say it, i don’t see any basis for saying that. after all, calling for direct talks with iran is a huge change in the status quo, abandoning thirty years of failed iranian policy. as is his promise to reevaluate everything bush has done in office to try to restore the previous constitutional restraints on the executive branch.

now obama didn’t talk about those things until he began his official campaign for office, which was after sirota wrote the above graf. the “obama stands for nothing” thing gets repeated ad infinitum by obama critics, but that doesn’t make it true and it is also directly contradicted by all the issues that obama has, in fact, taken a stand on.

which is why so many obama critics are doing so badly at convincing people not to support obama. i am not the strongest obama supporter in the world and yet the criticisms i read of him are (except in the criticisms of his healthcare policies) either factually wrong or completely frivolous IMHO. as i see it, what obama says about foreign policy and his history of opposing the war from before it began makes him clearly better than clinton, especially when i read vapid clinton foreign policy speech after vapid clinton foreign policy speech. clinton is a good candidate on domestic issues, not perfect either, but arguably better than obama because of her health care. but on foreign policy she is the one who just seems to be spouting platutudes, at least when compared to what obama says. at least that’s how i see it. which is why i always find the “obama is an empty vessel” argument to be so detached from my own view of reality.

of course Sirota is still not an Obama fan boy.

substance-free nature of politics today…who knew? Obviously Sirota did in 2006.