Yesterday, according to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama was too liberal. Today, he’s not liberal enough. Flailing about desperately for something that will stick on the Illinois Senator, the Clinton camp contrives a patently false abortion mailer questioning Obama’s pro-choice commitment. The mailer says “Clinton has a record of fighting ‘far-right Republicans’ to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been ‘unwilling to take a stand on choice.’” And the facts? “During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.“
The peg Clinton is trying to hang her hat on is seven times in the State Legislature when Obama voted “present” rather than “yes” on a given abortion-related bill. As was reported over the summer (i.e, well before this mailer was composed), Obama “did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. ‘We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,’ Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. ‘We worked with him specifically on his strategy.’“
So, in other words, like yesterday’s mandatory minimums fiasco, this is another weaselly, obviously false desperation ploy by Clinton’s team. (And one, like the soft-on-drug-related-crimes gambit, seemingly aimed at preemptively marring Senator Obama’s general election viability.) Sorry, try again.
Hi, GitM –
In regards the abortion question, check out project vote smart under the interest group category. Obama gets approval from ANTI-choice interest groups. He was not 100 percent there, so it would be reasonable to assume that a person who pointed this out might have some standing.
Not sure where the information your site puts out is from, as I have just now happened upon your site and have not yet poked around enough. But as I am sure you agree, it’s best to look right at the public record. Another good link for this is the Library of Congress for legislative decisions, resolutions the candidates put forth, etc: http://thomas.loc.gov/. I am sure you already have that linked somewhere on the site.
I will say, overall, that I disagree about the treatment in the debate that Obama received. It was far from “the same” as Clinton’s was over the summer. Tim Russert goes after Clinton like I have rarely seen, and without fail. Truthfully, the vitriol with which people treat her is not like the pokes and jabs experienced by the others. The sexism here is insidious and cannot be disregarded. When she gets asked a question about “likability” and says “that hurts my feelings, but I’ll try to go on” she is being brilliant, and rising above it, as well as poking fun at it. Then Obama says, “yeah, you’re likable… enough” and he ends up looking peevish. People would, I suppose, rather not see an assertive woman in any position. We may be ready for a black president but will we ever be ready for a female president? Doubtful.
Anyway, I have been doing the research, reading all I can, and could go on about this for ages. I live with a bona fide Obama zealot, Camp Obama attendee, but not all supporters know the goods on their candidate. It’s an emotional time – I don’t discount it, but Obama will need the facts out there to really get where he wants to go, and supplement his emotional impact with the real evidence of leadership. I personally am as yet undecided. Any Dem will be better than the current GOPers and the party will surely rally around whatever candidate makes it. Knowing that makes this election a welcome and exciting change. I hope you can use your platform to educate more than discriminate against other Dems.
Thanks for the good read.
Hi M,
Thanks for posting your thoughts in such detail. It is much appreciated. 🙂
Regarding the abortion information, I’m getting it from ABC News, cross-checked with the Illinois Planned Parenthood site. So, it would seem to be correct. But, if you have evidence of Obama taking an anti-choice position, please don’t hesitate to post it and/or pass it along.
Regarding the “likability” moment you mention in the Manchester debate, I’ll concede it would have been in Senator Obama’s best interest, at least from the media perspective, to have been more magnanimous in that moment. Still, given that the Clinton campaign had, for all intent and purpose, called Senator Obama a pro-life, soft-on-crime, drug-using false-hope mongerer (see this post, and the ones on either side, for more info), I can see why maybe he didn’t chomp at the bit to reaffirm HRC’s likability right then.
You say: “Obama will need [to] supplement his emotional impact with the real evidence of leadership.” I’m not quoting the sentence as a gotcha, because I’m actually legitmately curious on this point (and am planning a post on it.) What evidence do you feel is required of Obama to show he’s thought these things through, and how has Clinton displayed it? I confess, I’m missing the thread here.
Also, this is a primary, and a very crucial one. So it’ll be about discriminating between Dems for some time to come. But, please tell me if you think I’m being unfair. Feedback is much encouraged.
Finally, I do think America is ready for a woman president, just as it’s ready for a black president (and a black woman as Secretary of State, for that matter. Have you ever seen any backlash about Secretary Rice’s race or gender? Me neither.) I just don’t believe Senator Clinton is right for these times.